Dennisg

Thanks people for your imput - its just a thought and not a perfect one at that

What is of interest to me is that this is a completely negative result – science is in effect denying the possibility of its own existence. There must be some significance to this that goes beyond petty issues.

Cool. Perhaps gravity is the memory that things have of being once one. Thanks for your reply but I don't think you get the point.

No. The existence of the universe is itself unscientific because it came into being though the appearance of incomprehensible amounts of energy and matter from nothing and nowhere. According to science matter must come from something – it cannot simply suddenly appear. If even a small amount of matter should likewise appear today science would be unable to explain it and it would be considered a miracle. The principles and laws of science cannot explain how matter can be created from nothing. But still science does not consider existence of the universe a miracle. The laws of physics that scientists believe in rule out the universe’s existence. Scientists believe in a system of thought that denies the very existence of the world they live in.

One point here is that the current definition breaks down with circles where d = planks length because r no longer exists.

This answer is based on the assumption that there is no limit to "smallness" Since the plank length is that limit then Euclidian geometry needs to be updated.

Please back this assertion with some evidence.

. Because of uncertainty at the plank scale it definitely couldn't be defined as a hexagon - a proto circle would be more apt. What this shows is that pi in not one mumber but depends an scale. At our scale the differences are so small the we cannot measure them. Hey don't rock the boat - you might fall off.

A circle with a diameter = 2plank lengths can have only 6 points that define its circumance. A straight line drawn through any of these points (tangent) will only intersect one point – therefore the line between any two points is curved. One can then can calculate the area of the “circle” by calculating the area of the 6 “triangles” and then calculate pi = A/r squared. not really - just pushing things.

You keep making that assertion but - for the love of Godel - based on what?

I wouldn't say that pi is "just one number" because at the plank lenght scale pi is close to 3.0 Having an absolute limit on how small things can get does change things - don't you think so?

This assumes that shape of the outside of the circle is perfectly round. While pi applies to space, seems to be independent to the number of dimensions, that is the pi of two dimensions is the same as the pi of three dimensions. This seems logical enough but it does some something about pi itself. What about pi in four dimensions – would the features of four dimensional space alter pi?

If Newton had devised a theory of Gravity that was partly wrong and as a result 100 million people lost their lives – then Newton would be responsible. The “Evolutionary” ideas of survival of the fittest and chance have indeed led to the loss of at least 100 million lives. But somehow evolutionists are careful not to take any responsibility. They can’t be blamed for gravity and so they can’t be blamed to what they got wrong about evolution. Frankly this kind of reasoning disgusts me.

Gravity is not a social world view - evolution is.

God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.' Gen 3:3 As you can see it does say what I said it said.