Oops!That wasn't fair. I'd just taken a sip of my beer and now my nose's dripping and in a bit of pain.
Well, I really don't have that much sympathy right now, I am in a manufacturing facility that is about 95 degrees F.
Oops!That wasn't fair. I'd just taken a sip of my beer and now my nose's dripping and in a bit of pain.
Oops!
Well, I really don't have that much sympathy right now, I am in a manufacturing facility that is about 95 degrees F.
I'm really glad this quote has the original wording. Elsewhere folks change "thinking" to "level of consciousness", which is not what he said nor meant.But it's the only thinking we have.
Nonsense. Pi is just a number. It doesn't change, regardless of what space you're talking about.Pi is not a constant in relativistic (real, actual., non Euclidean or Pytagorean) space, in which circles may rotate.
That's a comment I would expect of someone like Spellbound, Daecon. What reality is it that makes anyone believe that mathematics is more solid than the real world? Mathematics comes out of your head, reasoning with what you already think you know. Reality, more often than not defies whatever is between your ears and sometimes raises the ante, because your very survival may sometimes depend on understanding things that outside your finite mind or beyond your grasp. Did anyone outside of the Manhattan Project really understand nuclear physics before the first atomic bomb was dropped?The actual mathematics in reality of that situation is something I'm not qualified to comment on.
What about circles that don't rotate, but jitter, vibrate, or jump up and down?Pi is not a constant in relativistic (real, actual., non Euclidean or Pytagorean) space, in which circles may rotate.
OK then, let's try this exercise:Danshawen, just to clarify, "pi" isn't shorthand for "circumference divided by diameter", it's shorthand for the number 3.14159265 etc. It just so happens that it's the same number that you find when you divide the circumference by the diameter of a static, non-rotating circle.
If a circle is rotating at relativistic speeds, the length of the measured circumference would be shorter, and so the value of that specific circle's circumference divded by its diameter will be different, but there would be a correlation between the speed and that value.
However, it would be incorrect to refer to that value as "pi", for the reasons mentioned in the first paragraph.
A calculation of pi doesn't make any reference to externalities. Pi is mathematically defined. It has no dependence on measurement.He has already calculated pi in the static case to as many decimal places as needed to specify the circumference of the rotating ring. He knows what circumference to expect and sets out to actually measure it as it flies past. He checks and finds that circumference from his calculation is considerably different from what he measures. Which one of those is "pi" again?
No, the number 3.14159265... doesn't change when something is rotating. It's still 3.14159265...pi CHANGES when something is rotating
The diameter (radial) shrinkage is one means to resolve the paradox, and it was also my first idea to resolve it, about 40 years ago.So Danshawen as the diameter shrinks does the circumference also shrink or does it stay the same while the diameter shrinks?
The circle that shrinks does it still remain similar or does it change shape?