Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar!


Share This Page

View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       Basic Theme       Prosilver Theme

about math...

Discuss conspiracies, mysteries and paranormal phenomena.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Post Reply
josephty1
Freshman Poster
Posts: 73
Joined: October 7th, 2015, 1:23 pm
Location: North America

about math...

Post by josephty1 »

Deleted
Last edited by josephty1 on July 27th, 2018, 1:13 pm, edited 7 times in total.
josephty1
Freshman Poster
Posts: 73
Joined: October 7th, 2015, 1:23 pm
Location: North America

Re: Is Pi 4?

Post by josephty1 »

Deleted
Last edited by josephty1 on July 27th, 2018, 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gravity25x
Freshman Poster
Posts: 127
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 11:49 am

Re: Is Pi 4?

Post by gravity25x »

Well I never really paid attention beyond Algebra 1 and just memorized how to do the problems (like the other 99% of people) so either way I'm good.
User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 7898
Joined: August 16th, 2012, 9:22 pm

Re: Is Pi 4?

Post by Cornfed »

Is this a parody of something?
droid
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 3143
Joined: September 19th, 2013, 11:38 pm

Re: Is Pi 4?

Post by droid »

Just another unfunny attention-whore time waster, with gems like this:
We should have always asked more persistently why the arc of the cycloid is 8r while the circumference is 2πr. As a matter of kinematics, it makes no sense. The same point draws both, so why the 21% miss? I will be told that it is because with the circumference, the circle is not moving along an x-axis, but with the cycloid, it is. It is the difference between a rolling circle and a non-rolling circle. It is this lateral movement that adds the 21%. But whoever is telling me this is missing a very important point: in the kinematic circle I am talking about, the circle is also rolling. If you are in an orbit, for instance, the circle is not moving laterally, but a point on the circle is moving. The circle is rolling in place, and it is moving exactly like the point in the cycloid. Therefore, we see it is not the lateral motion that adds the 21%, it is the rolling alone. A static circle and a circle drawn by motion are not the same. The number π works only on the given static circle, in which there is no motion, no time, and no drawing. Any real-world circle drawn in time by a real object cannot be described with π.

If we study the generation of the cycloid closely, we find more evidence of this, since the arc of the cycloid isn't some sort of integration of the circumference with the distance rolled. It can't be, because some point on the circle is always contiguous with the flat surface. We would have to slide the circle in order to add any of the x-distance traveled
What is actually happening is that with the cycloid, the x-to-y integration of distances is explicitly including time, as you see here:
Flat-earthers, No-forests-on earth, and all these other time wasters should be publicly tarred and feathered, seriously
1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?
gravity25x
Freshman Poster
Posts: 127
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 11:49 am

Re: Is Pi 4?

Post by gravity25x »

droid wrote:Just another unfunny attention-whore time waster, with gems like this:
We should have always asked more persistently why the arc of the cycloid is 8r while the circumference is 2πr. As a matter of kinematics, it makes no sense. The same point draws both, so why the 21% miss? I will be told that it is because with the circumference, the circle is not moving along an x-axis, but with the cycloid, it is. It is the difference between a rolling circle and a non-rolling circle. It is this lateral movement that adds the 21%. But whoever is telling me this is missing a very important point: in the kinematic circle I am talking about, the circle is also rolling. If you are in an orbit, for instance, the circle is not moving laterally, but a point on the circle is moving. The circle is rolling in place, and it is moving exactly like the point in the cycloid. Therefore, we see it is not the lateral motion that adds the 21%, it is the rolling alone. A static circle and a circle drawn by motion are not the same. The number π works only on the given static circle, in which there is no motion, no time, and no drawing. Any real-world circle drawn in time by a real object cannot be described with π.

If we study the generation of the cycloid closely, we find more evidence of this, since the arc of the cycloid isn't some sort of integration of the circumference with the distance rolled. It can't be, because some point on the circle is always contiguous with the flat surface. We would have to slide the circle in order to add any of the x-distance traveled
What is actually happening is that with the cycloid, the x-to-y integration of distances is explicitly including time, as you see here:
Flat-earthers, No-forests-on earth, and all these other time wasters should be publicly tarred and feathered, seriously
Oh the days where men (yes, only men) would get together and hunt down a politician (or other public figure) they didn't like and beat, tar, and feather him (and nothing would happen to them, since no one knew who they were, no cameras, no fingerprints, no dna..). Oh that would have been wonderful. 8) lol
josephty1
Freshman Poster
Posts: 73
Joined: October 7th, 2015, 1:23 pm
Location: North America

Re: about math...

Post by josephty1 »

Why would math have anything to do with sexuality?
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Conspiracies, Mysteries, Paranormal”