It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dear Mathematicians.. a question for you.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by 0mage
 

Can you give a simple answer to this one question please? Why do you insist on creating these slabs with a constant radius within each slab?




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by 0mage
 

Can you give a simple answer to this one question please? Why do you insist on creating these slabs with a constant radius within each slab?


because this is the method the equation uses to 'Build' a sphere from scratch. such are the building blocks of the sphere. as stated earlier. the equation does not magically create a complete sphere. it can be broken down into all the steps required to achieve the complete equation. thus steps.. create steps!

Im sure any scientist/mathematician can confirm for u that neither sphere nor circle created through man's accepted calculations is perfect. the search goes on for this perfection!



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
it is there in the design of multiplication and what multiplication means

5x5 can be broken down as
(1*5) + (1*5) + (1*5) + (1*5) + (1*5) = 25



the progression is 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 0mage
 





can u still not see that a radius height of 5 actually creates 5 cylinder slabs? it then adds the total volume of all the slabs together?

To begin you have a sphere then you can circumscribe the cylinder. Now you may divide the cylinder into slabs but for what purpose? You are confusing yourself with unnecessary complications. A sphere is 3D, a circle is 2D. You can't stack circles to create depth or height. Do YOU not see that?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by 0mage
 





can u still not see that a radius height of 5 actually creates 5 cylinder slabs? it then adds the total volume of all the slabs together?

To begin you have a sphere then you can circumscribe the cylinder. Now you may divide the cylinder into slabs but for what purpose? You are confusing yourself with unnecessary complications. A sphere is 3D, a circle is 2D. You can't stack circles to create depth or height. Do YOU not see that?


heh. you think im moving backwards, when in fact i am moving forward. lol have you ever heard the term reversing forward?

i lol


i see where you are stuck. and perhaps it is just as well. however i know i am correct as i hold tonnes more calculations that 'perfectly' interlock with eachother. worked forward and back to prove accuracy.

I close with this statement

The equation for circumference as well as volume of a sphere is flawed. it will never create a perfect sphere or circle. never has and never will. you can confirm that statement with your most learned scientist/professor.

and if they say it is not flawed.. ask them to create a perfect sphere. they will offer you "near perfect" at best and no company can create one and claim it perfect. then you will ask yourself "why?" and return to this thread for study
edit on 20-5-2012 by 0mage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
The issue is, if you use calculus and rotate around the axis, you see that you get the same result as the method you are trying to refute. Calculus has also been used to prove that pi is correct and that the formulas for area, circumference of circles and volume of spheres are correct, so you are missing something in your reasoning.
Several have explained that, and you are still disagreeing, but disagreeing with something doesn't make it false.
Please, take the time to look at the other proofs and see that it is very accurate using many different methods than the one you are looking at for now. It may also help solidify the explanations given to you and help you understand a little better.
Good luck!
edit on 20-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


pi may be correct friend. but only in it's complete state which is a recurring decimal. show me where u use the entirety of pi in any calculation and i will concede.


the minute you round off pi to 2,3 or 10 decimals places after the point to use in a calculation u are no longer using pi.. but a fraction of it so to speak

edit on 21-5-2012 by 0mage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


pi may be correct friend. but only in it's complete state which is a recurring decimal. show me where u use the entirety of pi in any calculation and i will concede.


the minute you round off pi to 2,3 or 10 decimals places after the point to use in a calculation u are no longer using pi.. but a fraction of it so to speak

edit on 21-5-2012 by 0mage because: (no reason given)


That's where significant digits come in. You use the most precise measurement you are given and any mistake made by using the rounded value for pi is negligible due to the other measurements. If you are only measuring to the nearest mile and want to look at feet, the problem is in your measurement, not in the value of pi. If you are measuring in millimeters, the mistake is only in millimeters. That's how measurement works.
Since we can't measure in infinitesimal amounts, we cannot get infinitesimal accuracy.
Also, we generally leave calculations in terms of pi unless it is a direct measurement, hence taking the guesswork out of it. pi is 100% accurate, 3.14 or 3.14159 or even 3.14159265 are subject to error, so we leave it in terms of pi until we determine the number of significant digits reducing the error to a measurement error, not a mathematical error.

...and it's actually a non-terminating, non-repeating decimal, not a recurring decimal. Recurring decimals are the same as repeating decimals and can be expressed accurately as fractions.
edit on 21-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


i see.
so u say there is an error? but it is a measurement error? even tho the measurement is used in calculation? sounds like ur heading along the path that unravels a mind into the madhouse. dont confuse yourself.. measurement errors is a topic all of it's own. but indeed another branch of the inaccuracies embedded within modern math. They are EVERYWHERE! lol

but forgive my humorous outlook on the past works of great mathematicians. i am totally not laughing at them knowing that they left messages in their work for those who could venture along their same path of discovery and use their minds in the ways of pythagoras, davinci, einstein etc. the message is clear to any such adept visionary innovators. Corrode the work so that it will not let the full power of manipulating energy fall into the hands of tyrants. the world is not ready.. but we're close.

will it be me to release the all pervasive truth that unveils all the hidden mysteries of mathematics making today's most complicated calculations reduced to such simplicity that even a child would understand? maybe, maybe not. but while i continue to entertain this world i will be observing all aspects of human civilization across the globe as i have been for some time. but any wise man who releases this information or seeks it for monetary gain has already proven to have failed in understanding. The human race is still very irresponsible. but most certainly, the numbers are growing for those that are becoming awake and aware. who knows what ill do.. i suppose that when i see the sign i can conjure this work forthwith and do what is necessary to make it public. but most likely, in such a time.. we wont even need it since mathematics itself will be looked upon in the same manner as we look upon old cathode ray tube televisions while we watch our movies on Led displays


but only a fool would give the formulas for limitless energy or even try to create such a thing under such a wicked world. in their search for wealth and material gain, they will be solely responsible for the slaughter of millions, even billions of men women and children. A true scientist is not a scientist for money.. he/she is a scientist for discovery!


edit on 21-5-2012 by 0mage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


i see.
so u say there is an error? but it is a measurement error? even tho the measurement is used in calculation?


yup, that's the way it works dewd. The basis of math is measurement, so measurement errors are pretty much the only kind other than operational mistakes.
So, since you aren't focusing on measurement errors, it must be an operational mistake that is giving you such difficulty.
Don't divide by zero, that's bad


The only other thing you could possibly be proposing would be using a different base than our standard base 10, which the Egyptians did btw, they used base 2 and fractions as opposed to decimals that we use in base 10.
edit on 21-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


hahaha now ur definately fishing. the egyptians most certainly did not use base 2. but good on you. it would seem you know exactly where this is all coming from. or was that just a lucky guess?

again.. u cannot use a rounded infinite recurring decimal in calculations and achieve precision. it simply does not compute.

regarding dividing by 0. i do it all the time lol



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


hahaha now ur definately fishing. the egyptians most certainly did not use base 2. but good on you. it would seem you know exactly where this is all coming from. or was that just a lucky guess?

again.. u cannot use a rounded infinite recurring decimal in calculations and achieve precision. it simply does not compute.

regarding dividing by 0. i do it all the time lol


Not exclusively, but they did use it


I didn't say to use the rounded decimal, I said use pi

You don't get a rounded recurring decimal unless you try to simplify a fraction into a decimal. Pi is not recurring, it is non-repeating, non-terminating, ie, irrational.

If you are dividing by zero, then you are making serious errors in calculation and omitting possible solutions.
edit on 21-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


how then do u use pi in calculations without rounding it off at some point within it's infinitely recurring decimal?

u must round it off at some point no?

thus again.. the minute.. the second u round off pi to how many ever places after the point you are no longer working with true pi. and the ramifications are most certainly not negligible. see: man's incapability to create a perfect circle or sphere.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


how then do u use pi in calculations without rounding it off at some point within it's infinitely recurring decimal?

u must round it off at some point no?

thus again.. the minute.. the second u round off pi to how many ever places after the point you are no longer working with true pi. and the ramifications are most certainly not negligible. see: man's incapability to create a perfect circle or sphere.


Only if you're working with measurements and need to produce a new measurement. If you are working in pure mathematics, leaving it in terms of pi is perfectly acceptable and accurate. Numbers are just numbers and pi is a number, just not a numeral


If you are wishing to create the measurements of a circle, you are using measurements. If you wish to re-create a circle, or create your own accurate circle without a pre-set radius, use a compass.


edit on 21-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


lol a compass. ur only hope of discerning the 'method of construction'

compare the method of construction used by a compass. describe the process used. examining the results will give you the value for completed pi with its full set of infinite recurring decimals.

now when you calculate or work it backwards.. you most likely will round pi of to 2 decimal places at 3.14. completely ignoring the infinitely recurring decimals. do u think it will give u the exact same circle you just examined?

this is what it should do. failure to use true pi in full form without rounding cannot give u the exact same circle. im sure u see this?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 0mage
 


Ur funny my wife, but do tell me why would you care at all
What is the size of a ball?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


lol a compass. ur only hope of discerning the 'method of construction'

compare the method of construction used by a compass. describe the process used. examining the results will give you the value for completed pi with its full set of infinite recurring decimals.

now when you calculate or work it backwards.. you most likely will round pi of to 2 decimal places at 3.14. completely ignoring the infinitely recurring decimals. do u think it will give u the exact same circle you just examined?

this is what it should do. failure to use true pi in full form without rounding cannot give u the exact same circle. im sure u see this?


ahhh but you keep wavering back and forth between physical and theoretical. You'll have to choose one or the other because you can't have both

Physically, the closest you can get to perfection is the use of a compass, theoretically, the closest you can get is the untruncated value of pi. You cannot have both just as you cannot have life and death at the same time.... unless of course you are a certain feline belonging to a guy named Heisenberg, but that would be theoretical as well....and physical...yet still theoretical depending on the physal state of the viewer



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Only with the theoretical perfect duplication and perfect measurement could you have a perfect sphere. One point, the center, extended the distance of the radius and duplicated. Then, turned perpendicularly in space and rotated around the original point at the same given distance, duplicating infintesimally until returning to the starting point to form a circle. That circle would then be rotated about the original point and dupliated infintesimally until each point meets its polar opposite, giving you the perfect sphere. (hence volume= 3 dimensions, the rotation/translation of 2 dimensions).



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snglddy
reply to post by 0mage
 


Ur funny my wife, but do tell me why would you care at all
What is the size of a ball?


oh, just my imagination
that's all




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

ahhh but you keep wavering back and forth between physical and theoretical. You'll have to choose one or the other because you can't have both

Physically, the closest you can get to perfection is the use of a compass, theoretically, the closest you can get is the untruncated value of pi. You cannot have both just as you cannot have life and death at the same time.... unless of course you are a certain feline belonging to a guy named Heisenberg, but that would be theoretical as well....and physical...yet still theoretical depending on the physal state of the viewer


Ahhhh
Alas it is not i that am waivering back and forth between physical and theoretical but the equation itself. All infinite recurring decimal figures enter the theoretical realm. but first a question. how achieved is your logic and mathematical prowess? and do you have the imagination that will balance off your level of logical thinking?
If you may please google "brain dancer" and tell me which way she spins. and how difficult is it for you to make her spin the other direction.

Pythagoras knew well that all things are rooted in the world of imagination. that logic does not create a thing except to replicate the template which is set in motion by a chaotic force of consciousness. set in motion... set in motion..


u can envisage a robot. all the code is programmed. the chips are soldered and all the circuits are well connected. but that robot will not move or do one single computation until it is given a power source. thus.. the chaotic force of electromagnetic energy sets the robot in motion and allows it to operate. without it.. it is just an empty shell. demonstrating that logic is not the foundation. A perfect melding of the two - logic and theoretical/imaginative/creative forces will set it in motion. The question is.. can consciousness/imagination/creativity stand on its own and operate without a shell? I would tell you the answer is a resounding yes.. but perhaps you would not believe me.

Thus the answer to your statement is yes.. one can be both dead and alive at the same time. but modern math cannot compute this and will end up with division by 0 error. but in truth... if an infinite recurring decimal can exist at all, then so must infinity and thus.. 1/0 is a very valid equation. we must remember that 0 is not 'nothing'. altho it may seem to be.
edit on 21-5-2012 by 0mage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join