For the mathematicians PI doesn't exist??

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by avandonk

He is using a linear formula for speed and then thinks it represents circular motion. He most probably did not get past year 4 maths.

Exactly.

Regards

Steven

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

Of course Pi does not exist.

You guys got it all wrong. Pi is a piece of cake. Period.

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by multiweb

You guys got it all wrong. Pi is a piece of cake. Period.

Yeah
and it also something to eat with peas or at the footy with sauce and can of beer.

Barry

[The_Cat (Jeremy)]

Can add much to the discussion but:

Talking about pi , most of us know about the school boy approximation of 22/7 (very poor accuracy) but what about this for accuracy pi ~ 355/113 . This is easy to remember:

take the first 3 odd numbers (1, 3 and 5) then double up (113355) then put the long division sign half way (113 | 355)

Jerry.

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Enough of analysing Mathis's argument. Simply by examining his conclusion you can see that it is wrong without having to waste time looking for the fallacy. He fails to do what any self respecting mathematician would do and that is to subject his results to a sanity check--that is, to ask "Is the result I have supposedly proved a reasonable one?" If you look at the attached diagram, you can see that Mathis (in effect) claims that the perimeter of a square has the same length as the circumference of the inscribed circle. Since this is clearly bollocks, we can state, without even bothering to look at his "proof", that his reasoning must be faulty.

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by The_Cat

Can add much to the discussion but:

Talking about pi , most of us know about the school boy approximation of 22/7 (very poor accuracy) but what about this for accuracy pi ~ 355/113 . This is easy to remember:

take the first 3 odd numbers (1, 3 and 5) then double up (113355) then put the long division sign half way (113 | 355)

Jerry.

Quite good--accurate to better than 0.0000003

[sjastro]

The bullocks factor is that Mathis isn't disputing the value of PI=3.1416... for static situations. It changes to PI=4 for a "kinematic" environment.

To show how absolutely ridiculous this idea is, consider a turnatable.
When the turnatable isn't turning pi=3.1416.... When the turntable is rotating PI=4.

So if the turnatable is of a fixed radius, the circumference of the turnatable is larger when it is rotating.

Regards

Steven