# variable pi formula

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?
I don't know what it means, but it sure is pretty]

Pi is math. Pie is physics. :lol:

Measurement does not get the number pi
Measurement provide that ( A1 : A2) > ( O1 : O2)
Page 3 in the article “Physical theory of sophisticated lines”
To prove the theory ,should conduct the experiment described in the drawing.
small sophisticated line that a appears in the drawing belong to a steel cylinder
A1=2mm with internal number 3.14198
Big sophisticated line that appears in the drawing belong to a steel cylinder
A2 = 100 mm with internal number 3.14165
The cylinders are pressed each other ,and when the small cylinder turns , also the big. Cylinder Turns. According to the theory ,if the little cylinder will turns 50 rounds ,
the big cylinder will turn a full circle + 0.033mm ( = 0.0378 degrees )
The 0.033mm , discoverable with a laser beam that reaches further screen.
This discovery of 0.033mm proved the theory

The article…physical theory of sophyisticated lines

This is getting repetitive].

Yes, there’s nobody at home.

there’s nobody at home.
I don't even think the lights are on.

I would like to thank to forum members, about the discussion of variable pi.
If accepted scientific institution will conduct the experiment I suggested ,he will get the result …………………. ( A1 : A2) > ( O1 : O2)
This result is a revolution in geometry , physics , and math.

Duplicate of post below, therefore deleted (again :red: )

I would like to thank to forum members, about the discussion of variable pi. If accepted scientific institution will conduct the experiment I suggested ,he will get the result …………………. ( A1 : A2) > ( O1 : O2) This result is a revolution in geometry , physics , and math.
aetzbar, do you want a decent discussion or are you going to totally ignore what we have been saying is response to your posts? If you are not going to take on board what we have been saying then we are wasting our time trying to respond to you, which is why some of us are becoming less than patient and polite. I asked the question, "Are you hoping to change the value of ‘2’ as well?" Let me explain. '2' is a number, an integer defined by the arithmetic operation (1+1). Pi is a number, a transcendental number, (that is it cannot be the root of a polynomial equation) initially defined by the ratio of the circumference of an ideal Euclidean circle and its radius, but it can also be expressed as an infinite series as I showed you. As I said when you measure Pi you can only measure an approximation of the ideal number because of the errors and limits of the experiment. Take my example of '2'. Suppose I have a 2 metre steel rule and measure its length carefully using an ultrasonic tape measuring tool and I get the answer 2.00003 metres. Does this mean the number '2' has now changed its value to 2.00003? Of course not, I have simply measured the length to an accuracy of +/- 0.00003 metres, to within 0.03 mm. That is what your experiment is doing with Pi - and the smaller the radius of the cylinder the greater is the error relative to its circumference and diameter and the bigger the change (the error) in your measured approximate value of Pi.

The experiment did not measure diameter and circumference for calculation pi
The experiment measures the ratio of turnes ( of tow cylinders) when their diameters ratio is already known
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
but pi is not fixed

The experiment did not measure diameter and circumference for calculation pi The experiment measures the ratio of turnes ( of tow cylinders) when their diameters ratio is already known 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 but pi is not fixed
As I said "when you measure Pi you can only measure an approximation of the ideal number because of the errors and limits of the experiment." So what are the errors and limits of the experiment? Or, as you have made the apparatus illustrated in your paper, with what precision has your apparatus been made?

The device is very successful and only needs to improve the laser beam ( to tiny dot)

The device is very successful and only needs to improve the laser beam ( to tiny dot)
Yes, but to what precision were you able to make it? In other words what are the likely errors of your experiment? Every experiment has errors of measurement and it is essential to have a good estimation of them when publishing results to prevent false conclusions being made.

Speaking of publishing results, if the OP were serious he’d send his paper to a peer-reviewed math journal instead of posting on Internet forums.

There is no mistakes.
With focused laser beam ,it is possible to measure angle of 0.001 degree.

The article should send a national laboratory of physics, to perform an experiment.
Journal of Mathematics disqualify the article, according to the conventional mathematics

There is no mistakes. With focused laser beam ,it is possible to measure angle of 0.001 degree.
I am not taking about mistakes, I am talking about +/-errors of measurement, often cited with so many sigmas of statistical significance. It is very difficult to make any sense of what you are saying in your paper, you will have to clarify that if you anyone to consider it for publication. You talk about pressing together a 100mm and a 2mm cylinder, to what accuracy are these cylinders manufactured? It is because the larger one is not exactly 50 times the diameter of the smaller one that the discrepancy arose on which you built your theory.

Then write it up and send it to a physics journal. You will accomplish nothing posting this on the Internet.

There is no mistakes. With focused laser beam ,it is possible to measure angle of 0.001 degree.
I am not taking about mistakes, I am talking about +/-errors of measurement, often cited with so many sigmas of statistical significance. It is very difficult to make any sense of what you are saying in your paper, (the title makes no sense for a start), you will have to clarify that if you anyone (self publication?) to consider it for publication. You talk about pressing together and rotating a 100mm and a 2mm cylinder; to what accuracy are these cylinders manufactured? It is because the larger one is not exactly 50 times the diameter of the smaller one that the discrepancy arose on which you built your idea of a 'variable Pi'.