Jump to content

Einstein translated in terms of tau (2π)


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Spectrum744 said:

What do you mean with contrived? What do you mean that they are not valid?? 

Some of them are indeed oversimplifications. They are not always valid and do not necessarily lead to a conservation law.

 

However since you refuse to answer my question here are the words of your guru on the subject I asked you about.

Quote

Lindenberg

2. Radius is generally a more significant dimension than diameter. 
So, an important number defined as the circumference divided by the
radius of a circle (as τ is) makes more sense than one defined as the
circumference divided by the diameter (as π is).  In other words, C =
τr is simpler than C = 2πr.

 

So have you ever met the half-side of a cube ?

Of course one half-side times another half-side (of a cube) gives you the area of a quarter side

Whereas

A whole side times a whole side gives the area of a whole side.

Much more pleasing, yes ?

Is there something wrong with discussing radii and diameters ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Spectrum744 said:

What do you mean with contrived? What do you mean that they are not valid?? 

Did you miss where I said “a composite system can have p=0 and have kinetic energy”

It’s a problem when you indiscriminately mix scalars and vectors

It’s also limited to the other variable (mass, in this case) being held constant. So it’s contrived. It’s cherry-picking examples to fit a narrative. A silly narrative, IMO because these terms commute, so it doesn’t matter where the factor of 2 lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2021 at 1:21 PM, Spectrum744 said:

I propose to rewrite the volume equation for the non-euclidian spherical Universe in terms of tau (2π) instead of π.

I'm far ahead of you. It's much more elegant to write Einstein's equations in terms of upsilon:

\[ \Upsilon=\frac{\tau}{3} = \frac{2}{3}\pi \]

Gravitation would suggest a banana peel. And don't forget 2/3 is the charge of the up, charm, and top quarks.

What can be more elegant than unifying bananas and quarks with gravitation?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.