Jump to content
Iwonderaboutthings

If pi ratio " was" squared and = 9.8 m/s/s how would this change the whole of science?

Recommended Posts

The quality of the force might be the same, but not its magnitude. Hence you find different values for the acceleration constant on different orbital bodies.

quality? and magnitude?

 

This strikes some curiosity..

 

What is quality?

 

 

Magnitude

 

 

When I think of magnitude, it reminds me of pointing vectors, manifolds, space time, relativity, the quantum subjects...

 

Is that correct?

 

By the way, this explains why a canonball falls as fast as a pea (ignoring air resistance): the force on the canonball is greater, but it takes exactly that much more force to accelerate it the same as the pea.

Mass energy equivalence I think...

 

I never knew all this,, thanks, I guess now it makes sense.

What Strange said :)

 

F = G [m1]*[m2]/r^2

 

assume [m1] is your object

 

so via F=[m1]a

 

we can state

 

[m1]a = G [m1]*[m2]/r^2

 

and after dividing by [m1] on both sides...

 

a = G*[m2]/r^2

 

'g' causes way too much confusion for a lowly acceleration.

'g'. I've found it just confuses people.

 

It certainly does with me.. :-(

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

venus = g 7.5 m/s/s

Venus a = 8.87 m/s2

 

 

mars = g 12.7 m/s/s

 

Mars has a = 3.69 m/s², or a=3.711 m/s²

according to Wikipedia..

 

Is it wrong to question:

 

Who or what calculated 9.8 m /s /s on earth in the first place..

 

 

In other words if you can calculate the force of acceleration on other worlds, and have different values.

 

Where did 9.8 m /s/s come from??

 

How can you even ask such question after reading post #34???

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84336-if-pi-ratio-was-squared-and-98-mss-how-would-this-change-the-whole-of-science/?p=815752

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Venus a = 8.87 m/s2

 

 

 

Mars has a = 3.69 m/s², or a=3.711 m/s²

according to Wikipedia..

 

How can you even ask such question after reading post #34???

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84336-if-pi-ratio-was-squared-and-98-mss-how-would-this-change-the-whole-of-science/?p=815752

Yes, I covered that one already...I am now fully understood on G and g, and I am very thankful!

But this now makes no more sense now in relation to speeds faster than c, and how " now " the speed of light is involved as a frequency in that computer animation.

 

Why? Because pi ratio is used a lot in general relativity and other quantum formulas, " IN SIDE" the quantum world...

This is not fair!

 

But it makes you think,,, after that post, I have been thinking a-lot about computer simulations.

Don't forget about fps,frames per seconds and formats like in 3d animations.

Its assumed as visual perception only.

 

Don't forget, an animation can have many other elements within it moving faster than 30 frames per second as well.

How would post #34, or that link, account for the discrepancies? That may have not sounded right, I don't normally hear people talking about this..

 

 

In other words, if I took a movie of a falling object, then placed it in OpenOffice , but it had objects in it, like " a butterfly flying" in the back ground" or a fly passing by, " yes I know "wait" , or all of a sudden a rock fell through my sealing..

 

 

Within the domain of the entire "animation" and all "random objects" moving at different speeds but still at a perceived 30 frames per second.

 

-------->would 9.8 m/s/s still be a valid case for the entire animation and all the "elements in it moving??"

 

I think I would have to scroll back and fourth within the domain of the animation's length, time, and period, in order to derive anything " useful out of it."

 

 

 

 

 

This is why I am trying to mix frequencies and time, from what I know, I shouldn't.

 

why??????????

 

 

 

Its weird! Its like 9.8 m/s/s " KNOWS" where the bottom of the camera's lens is.

Or better yet, it appears g is basically a flat hyper space = 0

A flat reality...

 

Minkowski spac

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

 

 

I am not a believer in this by the way...

 

 

I don't read anything about this, I don't know how to explain it any other ways.. However, here is something to consider...

 

 

 

 

They did not have computers back in the days of Issac Newton, nor did they have the space shuttle to test his formula..We just used them and call it a day...

 

I should learn Séances, so I can ask Newton personally!

 

 

 

 

Michio Kaku: What If Einstein Is Wrong?

 

 

 

This video concerns this::

 

 

Within the domain of the entire "animation" and all "random objects" moving at different speeds but still at a perceived 30 frames per second.

 

would 9.8 still be a valid case??

 

Is the the animation is 1/2 missing?????

 

 

 

Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

 

 

Neutrino 'faster than light' scientist resigns

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17560379

 

 

 

There is also object to this:

 

Neutrinos don't outpace light, but they do shape-shift

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21899-neutrinos-dont-outpace-light-but-they-do-shapeshift.html

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Newtons time they were interested in predicting position of some planet in advance. If prediction was correct model was correct (more or less precise).

 

It's similar to mine example from #34 post, but instead of observation of failing body at hand, record location of Venus through whole year, record location of Mars whole year, record location of Moon whole year.. Analyze their positions, to get velocity, analyze how they change in time. And basing on previous values, predict where body will be in future.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Because pi ratio is used a lot in general relativity and other quantum formulas, " IN SIDE" the quantum world...

This is not fair!

 

 

 

I'm not sure why your having a problem with pi, its simply the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter. Take a wheel or any circular object and a ruler. for simplicity sake use a 1 inch diameter object. draw a line on one edge of that object. place that line on a ruler, roll the wheel along the ruler until the line once again returns to its original point.

 

the distance of travel will be approximately 3.14 inches.

 

now as a lab experiment gather various circular objects 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 inch diameters conduct the same steps as above,

divide the distance of travel by the objects diameter, you will get the same result of pi

 

pi is used throughout any formulas that involve a circular or semi circular object or interaction. such examples are waveforms, frequencies, orbits, etc. Its fundamental in measuring the distance relations of those frequencies, waveforms and orbits. Much of physics is geometric relations of interactions, as such pi is used extensively as its used in trigonometry. Differential geometry is an extensive subject involved in physics.

 

I would advise spending some time studying trigonometry and differential geometry, it will greatly aid you in understanding many of the physics formulas you will come across. For example it will also help to understand how Pythagoras theorem is used in numerous formulas. here is one example of its usage in the FLRW metric

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

 

whether its fair or not is irrelevant, it works for the geometric applications that it is describing simple as that

 

this article will also help with how Newton came up with the universal laws of gravity and the gravitational constant

http://qinf.fisica.unimi.it/~paris/FisBio/m101.pdf

 

there is naturally better articles however this one shows the steps in how Newton developed his theory

 

here is a site with a good animation of pi at work with waveforms, also correlates sine, cos and tan functions to the waveform as well

http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/trigonometry.html

http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/trig-sin-cos-tan-graphs.html graph plots of sine, cos and tan

 

this site I find handy as it includes various calculators and plotter programs, not the greatest to learn from but it will help check your work so to speak

http://www.intmath.com/help/interactive-math-applications.php

 

for actual learning I would work from its home page

http://www.intmath.com/

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not sure why your having a problem with pi, its simply the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter. Take a wheel or any circular object and a ruler. for simplicity sake use a 1 inch diameter object. draw a line on one edge of that object. place that line on a ruler, roll the wheel along the ruler until the line once again returns to its original point.

 

the distance of travel will be approximately 3.14 inches.

 

now as a lab experiment gather various circular objects 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 inch diameters conduct the same steps as above,

divide the distance of travel by the objects diameter, you will get the same result of pi

 

pi is used throughout any formulas that involve a circular or semi circular object or interaction. such examples are waveforms, frequencies, orbits, etc. Its fundamental in measuring the distance relations of those frequencies, waveforms and orbits. Much of physics is geometric relations of interactions, as such pi is used extensively as its used in trigonometry. Differential geometry is an extensive subject involved in physics.

 

I would advise spending some time studying trigonometry and differential geometry, it will greatly aid you in understanding many of the physics formulas you will come across. For example it will also help to understand how Pythagoras theorem is used in numerous formulas. here is one example of its usage in the FLRW metric

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

 

whether its fair or not is irrelevant, it works for the geometric applications that it is describing simple as that

 

this article will also help with how Newton came up with the universal laws of gravity and the gravitational constant

http://qinf.fisica.unimi.it/~paris/FisBio/m101.pdf

 

there is naturally better articles however this one shows the steps in how Newton developed his theory

 

here is a site with a good animation of pi at work with waveforms, also correlates sine, cos and tan functions to the waveform as well

http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/trigonometry.html

http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/trig-sin-cos-tan-graphs.html graph plots of sine, cos and tan

 

this site I find handy as it includes various calculators and plotter programs, not the greatest to learn from but it will help check your work so to speak

http://www.intmath.com/help/interactive-math-applications.php

 

for actual learning I would work from its home page

http://www.intmath.com/

I will definitely do this, thanks! I don't ever remember being on the internet so long, I really want to learn as much I can, but do it correctly..Thanks everyone for the time..

 

 

OH!

 

http://qinf.fisica.unimi.it/~paris/FisBio/m101.pdf

 

actually has numbers in it too, THANKS!

In Newtons time they were interested in predicting position of some planet in advance. If prediction was correct model was correct (more or less precise).

 

It's similar to mine example from #34 post, but instead of observation of failing body at hand, record location of Venus through whole year, record location of Mars whole year, record location of Moon whole year.. Analyze their positions, to get velocity, analyze how they change in time. And basing on previous values, predict where body will be in future.

ok thanks...I will also give Wikipedia a look on acceleration for other planets.

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I covered that one already...I am now fully understood on G and g, and I am very thankful!

But this now makes no more sense now in relation to speeds faster than c, and how " now " the speed of light is involved as a frequency in that computer animation.

 

There is absolutely no connection between g and the speed of light.

 

 

Why? Because pi ratio is used a lot in general relativity and other quantum formulas, " IN SIDE" the quantum world...

 

Pi occurs frequently because many things involve waveforms or cycles and (as you know) pi is related to circles. This is also why it is realted to g, remember: the pendulum - because it swings backwards and forwards (cyclically, forming part of a circle), pi is involved in describing its motion. And this was used to define the meter.

 

 

Within the domain of the entire "animation" and all "random objects" moving at different speeds but still at a perceived 30 frames per second.

 

-------->would 9.8 m/s/s still be a valid case for the entire animation and all the "elements in it moving??"

 

If all of the objects in the animation are being affected by Earth's gravity then yes.

 

 

... irrelevant stuff

 

Neutrino ...

Neutrinos ...

 

I don't know why you have gone off on this tangent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is pi in a lot of physics formulas? Simple, because those formulas all describe a circular or spherical area or volume of effect in one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is pi in a lot of physics formulas? Simple, because those formulas all describe a circular or spherical area or volume of effect in one way or another.

what describes the inverse of those circular paths though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what describes the inverse of those circular paths though?

 

What do you mean by "inverse of a path"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is absolutely no connection between g and the speed of light.

 

 

Pi occurs frequently because many things involve waveforms or cycles and (as you know) pi is related to circles. This is also why it is realted to g, remember: the pendulum - because it swings backwards and forwards (cyclically, forming part of a circle), pi is involved in describing its motion. And this was used to define the meter.

 

 

If all of the objects in the animation are being affected by Earth's gravity then yes.

 

 

I don't know why you have gone off on this tangent.

I am confusing now what is constant, not sure if it is the speed of light or varying accelerations on other planets, the whole thing looks to be unclear. What "now " is driving all galaxies away from each other? Is it the same force?

 

 

"NOW" They say the Universe is Flat???? WHAT??????

 

 

A new study confirms that the cosmological constant is the best fit for dark energy, and offers the most precise and accurate estimate yet of its value, researchers said. The finding comes from a measurement of the universe's geometry that suggests our universe is flat, rather than spherical or curved.

 

 

 

Link:

Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right

http://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html

 

 

 

 

 

I think I need to hear that " here" universe is flat---------> yes? no?

 

But pi ratio can be used as volume---------> yes? no?

 

 

 

I'm sorry to ask this and excuse me for saying, but I cannot help it..

 

Is the internet a good place to read about science? or is this all propaganda, and marketing scheme?

 

For instance all that Maya 2012, " nonsense " really had people scared for their lives...

I really wish, someone would stop this nonsense, and start placing articles that are 100% true..

 

It confuses people whom want to learn and waste the time of professionals having to re-explain things over and over again, in turn they become frustrated, its true. I get the feeling this is "ALL A BIG JOKE " and feel super awful and sad about that.

 

 

 

Thats just my opinion...

 

What do you mean by "inverse of a path"?

I think the meaning, or what I should have said was this:

 

mass and energy (two sides of the same coin) bend space-time with their gravitational force.

 

Link:

http://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html'

 

 

Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right

 

But that link, kinda got me sick to my stomach, flat universe?

 

 

Don't get me wrong I can handle many things about phenomena,its just the internet seems to be a big joke lately, its a big mess especially topics in science, they confuses me and others I know personally...

 

Meteors falling to earth, Maya End Date, etc etc,......I am sure you can imagine...

 

 

This is why, I'd rather hear things here...

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confusing now what is constant, not sure if it is the speed of light or varying accelerations on other planets, the whole thing looks to be unclear.

 

The speed of light is constant.

 

Acceleration due to gravity on other planets is different from on Earth (i.e. not constant).

 

 

What "now " is driving all galaxies away from each other? Is it the same force?

 

It is not a force. It is just the expansion of space (i.e. the distance between things).

 

 

I think I need to hear that " here" universe is flat---------> yes? no?

 

It certainly appears to be.

 

 

But pi ratio can be used as volume---------> yes? no?

 

No, it can't be used as volume. It is just a number. Although it is used in the calculation of the volume of a cylinder or a sphere (because they are round).

 

Just a note: each of your statements so far appear to have no logical connection whatsoever. You seem to making completely random statements. I don't know why.

 

 

Is the internet a good place to read about science?

 

It can be. There are some very good resources. On the other hand, there is a lot of crap (like the Mayan stuff you mention).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The speed of light is constant.

 

Acceleration due to gravity on other planets is different from on Earth (i.e. not constant).

 

 

It is not a force. It is just the expansion of space (i.e. the distance between things).

 

 

It certainly appears to be.

 

 

No, it can't be used as volume. It is just a number. Although it is used in the calculation of the volume of a cylinder or a sphere (because they are round).

 

Just a note: each of your statements so far appear to have no logical connection whatsoever. You seem to making completely random statements. I don't know why.

 

 

It can be. There are some very good resources. On the other hand, there is a lot of crap (like the Mayan stuff you mention).

Don't you guys have busy lives?? This is the reason why I make some questions sorta random not connected, not logical.I even feel bad sometimes wasting people's time here. Time is $$ you know..

 

I know some here must be teachers, professionals and etc. So i try to speed up the conversation for you to have more time for others with better technical science skills so eventually I will be able to be at that level.

 

On the other hand, NOW the cylinder example I think nailed it! It says a lot to me without words, I think I will invest more time on cylinders...

 

 

I'm one of those pop science people by the way, it makes the weird things in science "flat universe" less of an anxiety :unsure:

 

"flat universe"

 

Does this mean earth is flat too??????????????

 

 

 

If so, then is that why they say time travel is possible?

 

Future-Wonders-Black-Hole-Time-Travel.jp

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no flat universe is an energy-density relation, a flat universe would have a total energy density that = the critical density critical density is a calculated value that the universe would stop expanding and start to collapse. (a perfectly critical dense universe the curvature would be perfectly flat for more info read)

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

page 2

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

 

this is not the same as dimensionally flat, its flat in terms of energy density relations only. The main thing to realize is often a geometric relation applies only to the interactions being described. GR spacetime is a good example of this, its the relation of how gravity influences matter. In both these cases it applies only to the mathematical model of influences being described.

 

One of the most common misunderstandings is people tend to think that space has a substance that can be warped, grows, stretches etc. They do not realize that GR is a geometric descriptive of gravity influences on matter, and only applies to the relations of how gravity interacts with matter. Space itself has no substance its simply volume filled with the energy-mass contents of the universe. For a lengthy discussion on this see this thread

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83690-what-is-space/

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no flat universe is an energy-density relation, a flat universe would have a total energy density that = the critical density critical density is a calculated value that the universe would stop expanding and start to collapse. (a perfectly critical dense universe the curvature would be perfectly flat for more info read)

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

page 2

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

 

this is not the same as dimensionally flat, its flat in terms of energy density relations only. The main thing to realize is often a geometric relation applies only to the interactions being described. GR spacetime is a good example of this, its the relation of how gravity influences matter. In both these cases it applies only to the mathematical model of influences being described.

 

One of the most common misunderstandings is people tend to think that space has a substance that can be warped, grows, stretches etc. They do not realize that GR is a geometric descriptive of gravity influences on matter, and only applies to the relations of how gravity interacts with matter. Space itself has no substance its simply volume filled with the energy-mass contents of the universe. For a lengthy discussion on this see this thread

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83690-what-is-space/

Thanks for "explaining it correctly" wish I knew this ahead of time...

 

 

Your 1st link reminds me of those 3d texture maps , normal maps and displacement maps, used in 3d game creation all dependent on light photons and 3d rendering.

 

These are only dependent on the UV Coordinates, XY, the texture is then warped on the 3d model in 3d space.

 

Is this a good way to in-visualize this...

 

fig35-11.jpg

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

iwonderaboutthings, please try and keep your threads to one topic. It isn't helpful to yourself or the people trying to respond to you if you keep jumping all over the place with what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

iwonderaboutthings, please try and keep your threads to one topic. It isn't helpful to yourself or the people trying to respond to you if you keep jumping all over the place with what you're talking about.

ok thanks..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its simply a coordinate grid much like a map. 3d rendering is also a form of coordinate grid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have four chickens and when four is squared I get the no. of pair of socks I have. There must be a link between socks and chickens?

Pie squared is not exactly equal to 9.8 m/s/s

It is just an approximation which sometimes help you in problems where g/pie becomes 1!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier Swansont actually pointed out there is a rough connection via the choice for the length of the meter. Novel bit of unit history.

 

#4 Swansont's Comment

#9 Janus's analysis

 

Though if you switch unit systems this sort of relationship can easily vanish.

 

I'm wondering if this type of occurrence explains (some) other numerology-esque observations as well. Time seems to have the largest potential. Good food for thought.

 

Edit: Unsure of equation.

Edited by Endy0816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have four chickens and when four is squared I get the no. of pair of socks I have. There must be a link between socks and chickens?

Pie squared is not exactly equal to 9.8 m/s/s

It is just an approximation which sometimes help you in problems where g/pie becomes 1!

 

There must be a link between socks and chickens?

 

Yes there actually is... ;)

 

 

 

But then what defines 1??? What is relative to 1??

 

Everything?

 

How can you divide chickens and socks and get a meaningful answer?? :blink:

 

Oh by the way, socks come in two pairs ;)at least conventionally..

Earlier Swansont actually pointed out there is a rough connection via the choice for the length of the meter. Novel bit of unit history.

 

#4 Swansont's Comment

#9 Janus's analysis

 

Though if you switch unit systems this sort of relationship can easily vanish.

 

I'm wondering if this type of occurrence explains (some) other numerology-esque observations as well. Time seems to have the largest potential(ancient: Arc distance / Apparent speed of Sun). Good food for thought.

can easily vanish?.............Umm, ok, where does it go??

 

This is not fair, science does not believe in magic... :o:o

 

 

where does it go?? :confused:

 

 

 

 

I hear that light also takes the shortest path to travel, something I heard in Snell's Law:

 

 

 

Snell’s law and light traveling along the shortest path

 

I just read some articles on the ecliptic plane and celestial planes of planets, and cannot help to ask, if pi ratio describes I guess a perfect circle, then how does the " warping of space and time" apply to the use of pi ratios as per cosmology is concerned?
Meaning that not all things are perfect circles, this is why I wonder if pi ratio is merely " time" independent, because it's used as a perfect circle and a precise way in describing time inside cycles.
Now as per the meter is concerned......Nature, from what I know is not a perfect circle but is time dependent ?
Michio Kaku said that neutrinos traveled faster then c by 60 seconds, or something to that nature, looking at it now, is that the same as 1 second of arc? Or 1 frequency? They did use GPS for the reading, he stated this as well. He did say twice the problem is circular.
Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Michio Kaku said that neutrinos traveled faster then c by 60 seconds,

 

There was an experiment that appeared to show this (it was very famous at the time). Eventually they tracked down the error - a faulty cable connecting one of the instruments, I think. The final result was that the neutrinos travel at so close to the speed of light, we can't really tell the difference.

 

(And it wasn't 60 seconds, it was 60 billionths of a second over a distance of about 700 km.)

 

 

can easily vanish?.............Umm, ok, where does it go??

 

If you measure g in feet/s/s then there is no connection to the value of pi (the connection has "vanished" or was never there).

 

 

How can you divide chickens and socks and get a meaningful answer?

 

You can't. And even though chicken and socks was a joke, this is a very important point. One way of checking equations in science is to do "dimensional analysis" - check that the metres, seconds, chickens, etc on one side of the equation are the same on one side of the equation as the other.

 

That is why one of the answers to your initial question was:

 

pi has no units, so it cannot square to a something with units. As such I don't know how to answer your questions scientifically.

 

You were trying to convert between something with no units and something with metres and seconds. This is like trying to convert between chickens and socks: meaningless.

 

 

I just read some articles on the ecliptic plane and celestial planes of planets, and cannot help to ask, if pi ratio describes I guess a perfect circle, then how does the " warping of space and time" apply to the use of pi ratios as per cosmology is concerned?

 

Pi does not just apply to perfect circles. For example, the equations for an ellipse also involve pi.

 

But you are right, in curved space, the ratio of diameter to circumference is no longer pi.

 

If you draw a circle on the surface of a ball and measure the circumference and diameter, you will find they are not in the ratio pi. In fact, the ratio changes depending on the size of the circle. For a small circle, the value will be close to pi. For the largest circle, it will be 2 (I think).

 

But I bet the formula connecting the size of the circle and this ratio ... involves pi!

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There was an experiment that appeared to show this (it was very famous at the time). Eventually they tracked down the error - a faulty cable connecting one of the instruments, I think. The final result was that the neutrinos travel at so close to the speed of light, we can't really tell the difference.

 

(And it wasn't 60 seconds, it was 60 billionths of a second over a distance of about 700 km.)

 

 

If you measure g in feet/s/s then there is no connection to the value of pi (the connection has "vanished" or was never there).

 

 

You can't. And even though chicken and socks was a joke, this is a very important point. One way of checking equations in science is to do "dimensional analysis" - check that the metres, seconds, chickens, etc on one side of the equation are the same on one side of the equation as the other.

 

That is why one of the answers to your initial question was:

 

 

You were trying to convert between something with no units and something with metres and seconds. This is like trying to convert between chickens and socks: meaningless.

 

 

Pi does not just apply to perfect circles. For example, the equations for an ellipse also involve pi.

 

But you are right, in curved space, the ratio of diameter to circumference is no longer pi.

 

If you draw a circle on the surface of a ball and measure the circumference and diameter, you will find they are not in the ratio pi. In fact, the ratio changes depending on the size of the circle. For a small circle, the value will be close to pi. For the largest circle, it will be 2 (I think).

 

But I bet the formula connecting the size of the circle and this ratio ... involves pi!

I bet it does...... I am now ready for pre-calculus and pre-algebra...should not take too long....I hope...

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a side note here is the procedure to calculate a planets mass lets say you just spotted a new planet and would like its basic characteristics

 

http://www4.wittenberg.edu/sgmoa/supplemental/FindExtrasolarPlanetMass.pdf

http://www.sfu.ca/colloquium/PDC_Top/astrobiology/discovering-exoplanets/calculating-exoplanet-properties.html

In your link here:

 

http://www.sfu.ca/colloquium/PDC_Top/astrobiology/discovering-exoplanets/calculating-exoplanet-properties.html

 

 

I see Kepler's Third Law law uses pi ratio squared, " looks like I am several centuries too late on this" however,

I noticed something peculiar here:

 

 

 

 

gravit1.gif

 

 

 

 

Copied and pasted information:

 

As an example, since the Sun is about three hundred thousand times heavier than the Earth, ignoring the mass of the Earth in this calculation would introduce an error of less than 0.001%. The equation can be solved for the only remaining variable which is the orbital radius, 'a'. Or 'a' = x^2 = -1?????

 

 

 

Um....Isn't 0.001 used as a frequency?

 

 

This really now complicates things does it?

 

I never even knew this " really " I did not, thanks for the link!

 

Now, pi ratio " obviously squared " = close to 9.8 m/s/s, would this be referencing earth as the center of the Universe??

 

 

It looks like so...

 

 

Think about it in relation to time. I know I am not the only one whom has thought of the correlation, however I am more intrigued with the statements:

 

 

 

 

As an example, since the Sun is about three hundred thousand times heavier than the Earth, ignoring the mass of the Earth in this calculation would introduce an error of less than 0.001%. The equation can be solved for the only remaining variable which is the orbital radius, 'a'. Or 'a' = x^2 = -1?????

 

 

Earth is measured in kilograms right?

 

So how could " any metric" system describe "energy" within:

 

10^3 = kilo = Distance and grams= milla = Time??

 

GOSH! That is very small!

 

 

Here is a link on this:

 

Black Holes and Sub-millimeter Dimension

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9808138

 

 

 

We are still in space here so this inquiry should still be a valid case here.

 

 

 

So then, wouldn't the " kilogram" have two separate systems of measure that make them both inversely proportional not to the square of the distance but to ----------------------> time! as in E=mc^2???????????

 

I get this logic from:

 

 

As an example, since the Sun is about three hundred thousand times heavier than the Earth, ignoring the mass of the Earth in this calculation would introduce an error of less than ------> THERE--------->0.001%. The equation can be solved for the only remaining variable which is the orbital radius, 'a'. Or 'a' = x^2 = -1?????

 

 

Again shouldn't that be saying this:

 

The equation can be solved for the only remaining variable which is the orbital radius as x^2 = -1?????

 

 

 

 

 

About 10^3 = kilo = Distance and grams= milla = Time.

 

 

 

1 micron = 1 000 nanometers

1 μm = 1 000 nm
TT?1 micron = 1 micrometer
1 μm = 1 μm
TT?1 micron = 0.001 millimeter

 

1 μm = 0.001 mm

 

 

 

 

Link for these units is here:

 

http://www.aqua-calc.com/what-is/length/micron

 

 

 

 

 

a^3 is only obvious here as volume, acceleration, and time rather the speed of light squared as mass and energy equivalence..

Now wonder space is flat, not necessarily outer space but both spaces inversely..This radius must then describe the straight path of a -1 complex number relation in QM subjects. All exponent "then" are merely arc minutes*.5 = +1. I guess their is more to a static universe than we know ???

 

 

I think pi ratio does have units but not units we " recognize" as a metric but maybe static units, or something :blink: :blink::blink:......

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your link here:

 

http://www.sfu.ca/colloquium/PDC_Top/astrobiology/discovering-exoplanets/calculating-exoplanet-properties.html

 

 

I see Kepler's Third Law law uses pi ratio squared, " looks like I am several centuries too late on this" however,

I noticed something peculiar here:

 

 

 

 

gravit1.gif

 

 

 

 

Copied and pasted information:

 

As an example, since the Sun is about three hundred thousand times heavier than the Earth, ignoring the mass of the Earth in this calculation would introduce an error of less than 0.001%. The equation can be solved for the only remaining variable which is the orbital radius, 'a'. Or 'a' = x^2 = -1?????

 

 

 

a is the length of the semi major axis (orbital radius). you need to calculate for "a" depending on the orbital period. (orbital period is the time it takes for an orbiting body to complete of full orbit. the error is the accuracy of the model method. this has no relation with the rest of your post.

 

a better formula relating orbital period, (time) semi major axis and bodies gravity is covered here. (due to the extreme difference in the suns mass and the Earths mass the center of gravity is the Sun itself in Kepler's laws so the sun is stationary)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_orbit

 

 

keep in mind orbiting bodies are elliptical which is where it vis-visa equation comes into play (also on that page).

 

here is what the semi-major axis means

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-major_axis

 

"In geometry, the major axis of an ellipse is the longest diameter: a line (line segment) that runs through the center and both foci, with ends at the widest points of the shape"

 

for an ellipse you have two axis the semi-major axis and the semi minor axis.

a is the semi major axis

b is the semi minor axis

Earth is measured in kilograms right?

 

So how could " any metric" system describe "energy" within:

 

10^3 = kilo = Distance and grams= milla = Time??

 

GOSH! That is very small!

 

 

Here is a link on this:

 

Black Holes and Sub-millimeter Dimension

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9808138

 

About 10^3 = kilo = Distance and grams= milla = Time.

1 micron = 1 000 nanometers

1 μm = 1 000 nm
TT?1 micron = 1 micrometer
1 μm = 1 μm
TT?1 micron = 0.001 millimeter
1 μm = 0.001 mm

 

Link for these units is here:

 

http://www.aqua-calc.com/what-is/length/micron

 

 

your not ready for a technicolor article this will only confuse the bugger out of you or in this case M theory (ADS/CFT) correspondance= string theory models

stick to the standard model until you understand it before trying to learn the alternatives ( trust me geometry is something you need stronger skills in before you tackle string theory geometry)(don't feel bad though, very few people understand string theory based geometry)

 

"Technicolor theories are models of physics beyond the standard model that address electroweak gauge symmetry breaking, the mechanism through which W and Z bosons acquire masses" key note not standard model

 

for that matter what little I know of it, it confuses the bugger out of me lol

 

the link on the unit names is a good reference to use

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.