 # variable pi formula

Fixed pi formula is scientific belief ,and variable pi formula is scientific fact
Fixed pi formula
Pi of each diameter (from zero mm to infinite mm) = 3.1416
variable pi formula
O of A = A* ( pi of A )
A – circle diameter ( number of mm – from 0.001 mm and more )
O – circle circumference (number of mm )
Pi of A = 3.1416 + root of ( 0.0000003 : A )
Pi of A is variable from 3.1416 to 3.1589
Pi min = 3.1416
Pi max = 3.164

Fixed pi formula is scientific belief ,and variable pi formula is scientific fact Fixed pi formula Pi of each diameter (from zero mm to infinite mm) = 3.1416 variable pi formula O of A = A* ( pi of A ) A – circle diameter ( number of mm – from 0.001 mm and more ) O – circle circumference (number of mm ) Pi of A = 3.1416 + root of ( 0.0000003 : A ) Pi of A is variable from 3.1416 to 3.1589 Pi min = 3.1416 Pi max = 3.164
Does that apply to Euler's equation] as well?? Pi is not a scientific belief - it is a mathematical identity, just as 1 + 1 =2 is. or are you going to change that too?

The idea is revolutionary.
pi is a physical subject.
only a real experiment can discoverthe variable pi/
A detailed article …physical theory of sophisticated lines.

A little side-note:

Pi Day is an annual celebration commemorating the mathematical constant π (pi). Pi Day is observed on March 14 (or 3/14 in the month/day date format), since 3, 1, and 4 are the first three significant digits of π in decimal form. In 2009, the United States House of Representatives supported the designation of Pi Day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_Day
More seriously, I dug this up in wiki: “Proof that π is irrational” (and “transcendental”). IOW, it is not a “normal” number.

The number π (pi) has been studied since ancient times, and so has the concept of irrational numbers. An irrational number is any real number that cannot be expressed as a fraction a/b, where a is an integer and b is a non-zero integer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_π_is_irrational
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindemann–Weierstrass_theorem#Transcendence_of_e_and_.CF.80

Interesting topic. It started me musing.
Intuitively I feel that “Pi” is not variable. Fundamentally it is a transcendental number, meaning it can only be measured in the abstract and only as an approximation with increasing accuracy, depending on the extension, which has been calculated into the trillions without repetition. But it is functional in that it yields consistent results that a circle with twice the diameter yields exactly twice the circumference, regardless of accuracy of the approximation used.
However Pi only yields consistent results mathematically when it involves the circumference of a circle on a flat plane.
When that plane is curved such as spacetime itself, Pi becomes distorted and may yield variable results, relative to the observer

The ratio C/d is constant, regardless of the circle's size. For example, if a circle has twice the diameter of another circle it will also have twice the circumference, preserving the ratio C/d. This definition of π implicitly makes use of flat (Euclidean) geometry; although the notion of a circle can be extended to any curved (non-Euclidean) geometry, these new circles will no longer satisfy the formula π = C/d
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi. Comments? Be gentle, my knowledge of mathematics is limited to accounting.. :)

Galileo and Kepler refuted old scientific beliefs, with real experiments.
Fixed pi is old scientific belief. (Simple and easy)
But the reality is surprising
Pie varies from 3.1416 to 3.164
The greatest values of pi belong to tiny diameters

Galileo and Kepler refuted old scientific beliefs, with real experiments. Fixed pi is old scientific belief. (Simple and easy) But the reality is surprising Pie varies from 3.1416 to 3.164 The greatest values of pi belong to tiny diameters
That is to be expected. Any inaccuracy is amplified by smaller distances. I wonder if a true Pi can be arrived at with a fractal function. Fractals are especially good at overcoming problems with length measurements in irregular shapes, such as coast lines. I see no reason why fractals could not be used at Planck scale to measure the circumference of a perfect circle and its relationship to its diameter. If accuracy can be achieved at those levels, we get as close to perfection as is possible. I have a real problem with any proposal which invalidades the consistency of the mathematics in geometry. Most often the error lies in the theory. Seems to me that there is no logical reason why a perfect circle should not have a perfect relationship between its diameter and its circumference. The problem is that the number is open ended and any deviation in the number of decimals leads to a deviation in the result. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a perfect circle in reality, thus slight anomalies are to be expected. And if we introduce a circle which has a curved plane, Pi loses its meaning altogether, however, it could still be accurately established through the fractal function.
Galileo and Kepler refuted old scientific beliefs, with real experiments. Fixed pi is old scientific belief. (Simple and easy) But the reality is surprising Pie varies from 3.1416 to 3.164 The greatest values of pi belong to tiny diameters
You haven't answered my question. Pi is not a scientific belief it is a mathematical identity. If you think you can vary the value of Pi then do you think you can vary the value of 1 + 1 ? Pi can be expressed as a variety of infinite series, such as Pi = 4{1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 + 1/13 - 1/15 +.....-(-1)^n /(2n-1)} -the Gregory-Leibniz series. (Consult a mathematical textbook on the subject and read the mathematical proof for example here]) So do you think you are going to be able to change the addition and multiplication tables of ordinary arithmetic? e.g. 1+1=3?? You are a fool if you do.

When someone with an unusual handle joins a forum and posts a crackpot theory it is a good idea to use the Search Bar at the top of the browser to check where else the newbie is posting said crackpottery.

If pi is a fixed number, then was obtained (A1 : A2) = (O1 : O2)
A – diameter O-circumference
If pi is a variable number, then was obtained (A1 : A2) > (O1 : O2)
Simple experiment but very accurate
Little steel cylinder of 2 mm diameter ,pressed to big steel cylinder of 100 mm diameter.
If pi fixed, after 50 turns of little cylinder, the big cylinder turn 360 degrees
If pi variable, after 50 turns of little cylinder, the big cylinder turn 360(+ ? 0.02) degrees
Accurate physical experiment can discover the 0.02 degrees
The conclusion is:
Pi of tiny cylinder > pi of big cylinder

I know this isn’t a mathematical proof but intuitively it makes no sense that Pi would be variable. Lets say you were floating in space and in front of you were two circles beyond your reach. If you look at a circle in space with no frame of reference you don’t know its dimensions in units. If you fashioned an arbitrary but accurate measuring instrument and measured the diameter and circumference of the circle in the distance you would get as close an approximation to pi as your instruments would allow. Lets say they are accurate to 8 places ( 3.1415265). Now lets say there is an identical circle right next to it and you make the exact same measurement. You will get the exact same result.
Both circles have the exact same diameter from your vantage point and the exact same circumference. But what if one of them is actually 100 meters away and the other is 10,000 meters away from the observer. The observer has no way of knowing this because there is no frame of reference and they are beyond his reach. These two circles appear identical and will have identical measurements and give the same identical calculation for pi even though one is many times larger than the other.
I am not a mathematician but I can understand basic geometry proofs. Show me a proof in english ( not the poorly explained “proof” already posted) that would dispute my explanation.
The experiment that you propose might do the trick if it were necessary but its messy and full of potential experimental error. Besides simply proposing an experiment proves nothing. You would have to run the experiment and have it independently reproduced. Even if you could, experimental error would be the more likely explanation unless you can show mathematically why my reasoning is wrong.

Given circle diamrter 75.17mm - how to calculate his pi number ?
If there is no special calculation to 75.17mm, then there is an a casual decision:
Each circles has single pi number.
pi of 75.17mm = 3.1416 + root of ( 0.0000003 : 75.17 ) = 3.1416632

Given circle diamrter 75.17mm - how to calculate his pi number ? If there is no special calculation to 75.17mm, then there is an a casual decision: Each circles has single pi number. pi of 75.17mm = 3.1416 + root of ( 0.0000003 : 75.17 ) = 3.1416632
What total BS - aetzbar, don't you read anything written to you? Are you hoping to change the value of '2' as well? Pi is not measured, it is calculated from basic geometric concepts. DarronS was right - and there is no point engaging with such stupidity - what a waste of time. I'm signing off.

Sophisticated lines belong to Physics - not to Mathematics
There is no simple line segments, in sophisticated lines.
Therefore, it is impossible to apply on them, mathematical calculations. based on the Pythagorean theorem. Remaining option is to apply measures on them. Measurements can be done on a real sophisticated lines.
Real sophisticated lines appear in the production of steel cylinders.
A of steel cylinder can be measured accurately to 0.0005mm.
O of steel cylinder can not be accurately measured. Therefore the investigation of
sophisticated lines ,will deal the connection between A and I .
Each A has a unique internal number, between 3.1416 to 3.164
3.1416 will belong to infinite mm A 3.164 will belong to zero mm A

Sophisticated lines belong to Physics - not to Mathematics There is no simple line segments, in sophisticated lines. Therefore, it is impossible to apply on them, mathematical calculations. based on the Pythagorean theorem. Remaining option is to apply measures on them. Measurements can be done on a real sophisticated lines. Real sophisticated lines appear in the production of steel cylinders. A of steel cylinder can be measured accurately to 0.0005mm. O of steel cylinder can not be accurately measured. Therefore the investigation of sophisticated lines ,will deal the connection between A and I . Each A has a unique internal number, between 3.1416 to 3.164 3.1416 will belong to infinite mm A 3.164 will belong to zero mm A
You are failing the Turing test. Computers can do better.

Mathematics know calculate only the pi min( 3.1459……)
pie min belongs to an infinite mm diameter circle
A tiny segment of this circle, is almost a straight line.
Math does not know to calculate the pie of 0.001 mm diameter circle
A small section of line circle is not straight, so there is no mathematical calculation.
Pie belongs to Physics and measurements, and not to mathematics.
Difficult to accept this, but it is a fact

Sophisticated lines belong to Physics - not to Mathematics There is no simple line segments, in sophisticated lines. Therefore, it is impossible to apply on them, mathematical calculations. based on the Pythagorean theorem. Remaining option is to apply measures on them. Measurements can be done on a real sophisticated lines. Real sophisticated lines appear in the production of steel cylinders. A of steel cylinder can be measured accurately to 0.0005mm. O of steel cylinder can not be accurately measured. Therefore the investigation of sophisticated lines ,will deal the connection between A and I . Each A has a unique internal number, between 3.1416 to 3.164 3.1416 will belong to infinite mm A 3.164 will belong to zero mm A
Circumference:
The circumference of a circle is the distance around it. The term is used when measuring physical objects, as well as when considering abstract geometric forms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumference A steel cylinder is a "circular" physical construct where many physical variables are introduced in the construction and measurement becomes inexact. You yourself introduced a variable by identifying the "wall thickness" of the "steel" cylinder. A circumference of a theoretically perfect circle is a mathematical construct consisting of an infinite number of points arranged in a loop, where every point in the loop is equidistant from the center point of the circle (it does not exist in reality). If Pi is considered in a theoretical (mathematically perfect) circle, the ratio of circumference to diameter remains constant.

Fixed pi formula is scientific belief ,and variable pi formula is scientific fact
Mathematics cannot prove that the pi of 2 mm diameter, = pi of 150 mm diameter
Physics can prove that pi of 2mm diameter > from pi of 150mm diameter.
Pi is the subject of physics and not math subject.

Fixed pi formula is scientific belief ,and variable pi formula is scientific fact Mathematics cannot prove that the pi of 2 mm diameter, = pi of 150 mm diameter Physics can prove that pi of 2mm diameter > from pi of 150mm diameter. Pi is the subject of physics and not math subject.
OK aetzbar, one last time... Do you realise that when you measure Pi by measuring the diameter (d) and circumference (c) of a circular object and determining Pi = c/d then you are measuring an approximation of Pi, accurate to the errors of your measurements? And that when measuring a smaller cylinder then the errors relative to the actual measurements are larger? And that the Euclidean geometry definition of Pi as being c/d, or c = 2Pi r, applies to an ideal circle on a flat plane? And that Pi can be expressed in different ways as infinite sums - as I showed you above? Then please do learn something by reading up on it before going off with your own crazy ideas.
Fixed pi formula is scientific belief ,and variable pi formula is scientific fact Mathematics cannot prove that the pi of 2 mm diameter, = pi of 150 mm diameter Physics can prove that pi of 2mm diameter > from pi of 150mm diameter. Pi is the subject of physics and not math subject.
OK aetzbar, one last time... Do you realise that when you measure Pi by measuring the diameter (d) and circumference (c) of a circular object and determining Pi = c/d then you are measuring an approximation of Pi, accurate to the errors of your measurements? And that when measuring a smaller cylinder then the errors relative to the actual measurements are larger? And that the Euclidean geometry definition of Pi as being c/d, or c = 2Pi r, applies to an ideal circle on a flat plane? And that Pi can be expressed in different ways as infinite sums - as I showed you above? Then please do learn something by reading up on it before going off with your own crazy ideas. Thanks Ockham, for clarifying what I have also been trying to say in layman's terms. Question: Is aetzbar's scenario a misplaced application of the concepts of "limits"?
Calculating pi as Limit of a trigonometric expression.
http://calculatingpi.blogspot.com/