Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why Pi = 3.141 .. instead of 3.144?

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
c=πd
or
c/d=π

If the result for π is not correct, then the measurement of c (circumference) and/or d (diameter) is not accurate.


This is algebra and is correct, but the value of pi is arithmetic and I am still saying th 3.144 is as correct as 3.141 depending of the application.




posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


Good post, but can you debunk the maths in picture with pyramid?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by JackTheTripper

Originally posted by abecedarian
c=πd
or
c/d=π

If the result for π is not correct, then the measurement of c (circumference) and/or d (diameter) is not accurate.


This is algebra and is correct, but the value of pi is arithmetic and I am still saying th 3.144 is as correct as 3.141 depending of the application.


If you're saying the value of Pi depends upon its application, you have answered your own question.
3.144 worked for the pyramids but doesn't work so well for circles.

edit on 10/29/2011 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Not actually - the question was why we use the value 3.141... which cannot be argumented why instead of the proofed 3.144.




3.144 worked for the pyramids but doesn't work so well for circles.



the maths on the picture with pyramid and circle bunks this claim.
edit on 29-10-2011 by JackTheTripper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JackTheTripper
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Not actually - the question was why we use the value 3.141... which cannot be argumented why instead of the proofed 3.144.


We use the value 3.14159... because many things we do now, produce now, require that level of precision. A small error over short distances makes little difference relatively speaking. A small error extrapolated over large distances is no longer a small error.

edit on 10/29/2011 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Because the Pyramids are more like a physical representation of a golden spiral more accurately. Do this take a pic of that pyramid and from the point at the top draw a spiral widening as it goes to the bottom.... 3.144 works perfectly to the golden spiral dimensions. then look at the pyramid from a top view and you will see it looks like a circle if you erase the concentric circles before it. you will be left with the base circle. Also there is something about the number of circles created by doing this which is Also a Fibonacci number.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Please stop repeating those doctrines you're indoctrinated with. Take a moment, do a reality check and check the pictures of the pyramid and circle. Do the math and tell me something insightful what you can come up with those pics instead of playing a parrot



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Also there is something about the number of circles created by doing this which is Also a Fibonacci number.

Great post, seems we are getting to somewhere =) ... Can you elaborate more on this?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JackTheTripper
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Please stop repeating those doctrines you're indoctrinated with. Take a moment, do a reality check and check the pictures of the pyramid and circle. Do the math and tell me something insightful what you can come up with those pics instead of playing a parrot


I take offense to your implications. I am open-minded.
What I see here, though, is someone unable to admit that things change over time.

But I will go back and review your assertations. Maybe I'll catch tbe glimmer of something overlooked.
... maybe I won't.

Not sure though, how many times I can say that maybe we are more accurate in our measurements now than they were then....
and then we have to contend with measuring things that have eroded over 1000's of years, and our extrapolations and assumptions of how those things were "back then"....




posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
The PI ANO tells it all. In gematria code
Piano = 16 + 9 + 1 + 14 + 15 = 55
Organ = 15 + 18 + 7 + 1 + 14 = 55

De codes van da Vinci, Bach, pi & Co
www.youtube.com...
books.google.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


I am sorry, didn't mean to offend.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
OT: Sunflower seeds originate from a central point and move radially outwards as new seeds are formed. It wasn't until 1993 that it was proven that the optimal angular displacement for newly formed seeds is phi fraction of a circle (0.618034*360, about 222.5 degrees)

The apparent opposing spirals of seeds observed in sunflowers are an optical illusion due to the fact that ratio of the successive Fibonacci members approximates Phi. If you count the apparent number of arms in these spirals, you'll find that they always equal two adjacent Fibonacci numbers whose ratios to the succeeding numbers are slightly above and below phi.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Okay, I'm done.

I'm re-formulating my formulations.
edit on 10/29/2011 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Based on that, the quadrant lenght of the circle multiplied by four is 3.1446 and thus yields "rational" value for pi.
edit on 29-10-2011 by JackTheTripper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   

So, point A = point O, point E = point C... where's point B in the circle? Point D?

In one image, the pyramid, points A & B share the same X and Y coordinates, but differing Z, and in the other, the circle, point B has no corresponding point, and is replaced with point D... and the circle has no Z axis reference.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by JackTheTripper
 


You must've replied whilst I was reformulating.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
www.goldennumber.net...
edit on 29-10-2011 by JackTheTripper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
I don't have anything to add, since all of this, other than pi, is way over my head, but you all are flippin' geniuses for making sense of any of it. You should all get together and build me an anti gravity device or something Thanks for the read though, and the hours of research to follow.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodDocGonzo
I don't have anything to add, since all of this, other than pi, is way over my head, but you all are flippin' geniuses for making sense of any of it. You should all get together and build me an anti gravity device or something Thanks for the read though, and the hours of research to follow.


Last time I "really" had to deal with Pi was 10th grade, 1986,

And I'm not really all that sure I could help with your anti-grav device but I hear hot air balloons, helicopters and airplanes work well for getting off the ground for somewhat long periods of time, otherwise you'd need to be an astronaut.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian

So, point A = point O, point E = point C... where's point B in the circle? Point D?

In one image, the pyramid, points A & B share the same X and Y coordinates, but differing Z, and in the other, the circle, point B has no corresponding point, and is replaced with point D... and the circle has no Z axis reference.


Even if you ignored Z, A and B should have the same X / Y coordinates. D appears to be an artifact, analogous to B, if the Z axis were to become ... well ... flattened out and pushed B out the side.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join