Would you dare asking this question to your science professors?

[The Wizard of pi]

10 hours ago, Strange said:

What link? The only links in this thread are your (spammy) ones.

The question was not in your opening post.

The answer is, obviously: it depends. It depends on how accurately you need to calculate something. (You seem to confusing calculating the size of a sphere with its actual size. Or something.)

I can't believe anyone has given you a different answer.

What does that mean?

Huh? That makes no sense. But feel free to show, in suitable mathematical detail, how a sine wave can be closed into a sphere (whatever that means).

What is the "inward direction"? The along the radius towards the centre of the sphere? What does that have to do with the precision to which you calculate anything?

This is not a fact, it is .... I don't know. Just bizarre.

Are you talking about the cardinality of the integers versus the real number (ie the continuum)? What connection does this have with the precision of pi one uses?

If you ignore rounding (which no one does). But it doesn’t increase without limit. It is trivial to get an upper bound by rounding up (at any number of decimal places). And the unrounded and upper bound will converge so you can easily see how many digits are “enough”. 

 

wow! I don't really know where to start... Let's start with the "it depends to how accurately bla bla" It doesn't depend on anything, my friend! The physical reality doesn't accommodates to our practical conveniences... You keep talking about rounding a mathematical constant depending in the level of accuracy we expect based on making or predictions more... reliable? I'm talking about the way (God) the universe actually works. when I spoke about the infinite numbers in the realm of fractional numbers with respect to cardinal numbers was to explain to you that infinite is infinite however you want to see it. It exists in the smallest "microscopically tiny" fabric of space, places where our observation is limited but doesn't deny its existence. I guess the "weirdness" you mentioned above has to do with the abilities of humans to conceive realities completely off our own nature. perhaps our minds ate not equipped to assimilate that there is as much infinite within a point in space than in the entire universe. That's the beauty of the universe where we live! How the smallest thing could be as big as the biggest one. It's said that the human body has more bacteria species (not just bacteria in numbers but species) than the number of cells we have in our bodies. I can't make you see it, sorry. All I'm trying to convey with my views is that it is precisely the "weird" (using your words) nature of the fabric of space [its fractional, infinite and inwardly extension] where quanta spread the energy, recoil it back into a particle-mass and where the oscillation that produces EM waves are born.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtzuM96VWg-QwVpxpK2Bbq_VjjyW3nWhIuoh02Tsd8Q/edit?usp=sharing

the question is here. I have links from one article to the next. in fact you can read all my articles in Facebook by searching me by

you're always welcome.

[MigL]

All of our theories run into problems if fundamental particles are allowed to have a volume.
They are treated as 'point' particles.

I.E. no radius > no volume.

[The Wizard of pi]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have already been told that you are misrepresenting / misunderstanding this. The electron is not a sphere; it is point-like. And they do not have volume.

My point is pretty simple. When physicists use those equations I mentioned in blue and it’s time to introduce the value of pi, what value they’ll take?

3.14 or 3.141 or 3.1415 or 3.14159 or 3.141592… how many decimals they insert? 20, 30 or 100 decimals?

 

Let me help! Click in below!

 

https://www.piday.org/million/

This is the question I'd like you to ask them! how many decimals are enough to make it right? they will argue with the response of the secretary of state Hillary Clinton when the attack in Bengasi: "At this point what difference does it make?!"  I bet you anything they will avoid and ignore your question. They don't have an answer because they never thought about the implications that such "irrelevant" issue may have in almost all of the most fundamental physical equations.

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Let's start with the "it depends to how accurately bla bla" It doesn't depend on anything, my friend! The physical reality doesn't accommodates to our practical conveniences...

And reality doesn't care about the accuracy with which we do our calculations. The decimal expansion of pi is irrelevant to nature; it is just something we use in our calculations.

18 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

perhaps our minds ate not equipped to assimilate that there is as much infinite within a point in space than in the entire universe.

It is our minds that tell us this, so I guess they are equipped for it.

And the cardinality of the integers (or the continuum) is a very different thing from the (possible) infinite spatial extent of the universe. You seem to think that because they both use the word "infinite" that they must somehow be the same.

20 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

I guess the "weirdness" you mentioned ... the "weird" (using your words)

You are the only one to have used the word "weird" (in this post. So I have no idea what you are talking about. How about answering some of the questions you have been asked? For example:

• Does your model allow you to make any testable predictions? (If not, why should anyone take it seriously?)
• Can you show, in suitable mathematical detail, how a sine wave can be closed into a sphere (whatever that means).

13 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

When physicists use those equations I mentioned in blue and it’s time to introduce the value of pi, what value they’ll take?

What is wrong with you? The number that gives the required level of accuracy.

13 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

I bet you anything they will avoid and ignore your question.

You seem to be avoiding and ignoring the answer.

54 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

wow! I don't really know where to start...

Have you ever considered starting with the hypothesis that you don't know as much as you think you do? There is a lot of evidence to support that (unlike your incoherent idea).

[The Wizard of pi]

I referred as a circle and it is posted as a circle before if you look for it. Yes, a sine wave can be represented in a plane 2 d as a circle. my reference to a sphere is this:

Space is, as you already know mt point, a fabric of an infinite inward "universe" if you wish. The presence of pi in the volume equation makes it infinite, fractionally but infinite. I spoke about the incompatibility of space and energy together. Energy as EM energy in the electron is in a constant oscillation (resonance) within its own PERFECT VOLUME. (this capital letter is for another member who argued about the spherical shape of electrons.

As electron oscillates between two states 'particle' electric charge and 'cloud' magnetic field the magnetic polarity also oscillates into two polarity states and as the EM energy of the electron recoils back into its particle state, it becomes mass-charge but also it's an alternating oscillatory process where charges alternate from one spin to the opposite. In the case of bosons or photons, there's no charge because they don'e have rest mass but they do have a particle state (photons) and a cloud state that alternates into two polarities as well. you have heard that light has two polarities just as electrons have two magnetic momenta. All these processes are easily seen if we linked the oscillation aka resonance with the incompatibility between space and energy. Without my interpretation all you get is the same phenomenon without a theoretical explanation. yes you have equations and math ready to calculate those parameters but no argument that you could rely to in plain words. Physics is missing the explanation and the argument to explain in simple words how these processes take place and what's behind them.

50 minutes ago, MigL said:

All of our theories run into problems if fundamental particles are allowed to have a volume.
They are treated as 'point' particles.

I.E. no radius > no volume.

as for the concept "point particle" you have to be careful. a mathematical point could mean that the EM energy (mass and charge) of the electron in its particle state would be infinite and that's is an impossibility. The charge of the electron is not infinite and neither it's its magnetic momenta. the spin is 1/2 because around the atomic orbital electrons alternate their charge just as the example I posted of the LC circuit. a resonance process keeps alternating opposite spins and opposite magnetic polarities within one complete oscillation. the process is the same inside atomic orbits and outside. when outside or in the vacuum, electrons keep oscillating and alternating their magnetic polarities and their spins. I'm not talking that charges became positive or negative, please. spin is just the direction of the charge in space. the azimuth as it's also known.

[Strange]

Just now, The Wizard of pi said:

I referred as a circle and it is posted as a circle before if you look for it.

What? What did you refer to as a circle? Where di you post it before (why should I have to look for it)?

1 minute ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Yes, a sine wave can be represented in a plane 2 d as a circle.

Please show, in mathematical detail, what you mean by this.

1 minute ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Space is, as you already know mt point, a fabric of an infinite inward "universe" if you wish.

Space is not a "push" (infinite or otherwise). It is a measure of distances. You know, as you make with a ruler. No pushing involved.

2 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

The presence of pi in the volume equation makes it infinite, fractionally but infinite.

It isn't infinite. The volume of a sphere (of finite radius) is finite. The fact that pi has an infinite decimal expansion, does not make the volume of a sphere infinite. You are talking, what is technically known as, bollocks.

4 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Energy as EM energy in the electron is in a constant oscillation (resonance) within its own PERFECT VOLUME.

What is "EM energy"?

What is the "perfect volume" of an electron? (Bearing in mind IT IS A POINT PARTICLE - the caps are for someone who is apparently incapable of understanding that basic fact) 

5 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

As electron oscillates between two states 'particle' electric charge and 'cloud' magnetic field the magnetic polarity also oscillates into two polarity states and as the EM energy of the electron recoils back into its particle state,

Any EVIDENCE for any of this?

Any MODEL to make testable predictions?

5 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

it becomes mass-charge

What is "mass-charge"? And what evidence do you have for it?

6 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

In the case of bosons or photons, there's no charge because they don'e have rest mass

Some bosons have charge and some have mass.

7 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

you have heard that light has two polarities

Nope. Something else you made up?

8 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Without my interpretation all you get is the same phenomenon without a theoretical explanation. yes you have equations and math ready to calculate those parameters but no argument that you could rely to in plain words.

Bold: that IS a theoretical explanation.

Your word salad "explanation" (which you seem to be adding more nonsense to on the fly) has nothing to do with physics.

[beecee]

18 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

 Without my interpretation all you get is the same phenomenon without a theoretical explanation. yes you have equations and math ready to calculate those parameters but no argument that you could rely to in plain words. Physics is missing the explanation and the argument to explain in simple words how these processes take place and what's behind them.

Ignoring the rest of your rather weird rhetoric, let me correct you on your absolute gross misunderstandings and errors in the above.

[1] You have given no explanation that I have seen on anything other then your false, rather silly conclusions based on your interpretation of pi.

[2] The equations and maths are the language of physics and a requirement of any viable scientific theory.

[3] Science/physics constructs explanatory models based on our observations, with the support of maths/language, rather then made up word salad rhetoric.

 

[The Wizard of pi]

https://youtu.be/Ohp6Okk

who mentioned push? I said energy (EM energy) spread within the fractional nature of space (which yes is infinite) I can explain this twice sorry if you don't follow me. since the EM of the quanta is quantized (indivisible) it recoils back into its particle-like state and this oscillatory process occurs both in atomic orbital and in the vacuum of space. in orbitals it happens while the electrons moves around the nucleus of the atom [protons and neutrons] in the vacuum electrons appear and disappear as QM has proved making the fabric of the vacuum of space chaotic. The EM energy is the electric and magnetic energy of particles. Duality makes them both part of the process. no point-particle in the sense either. if you concentrate the energy of the electron in a point in space the charge of the electron becomes infinite. I spoke about the infinite nature of the space within the volume occupied by the quanta but never about infinite magnitudes of charge or infinite magnitudes of magnetic field. that;s a wrong characterization. in fact according to my theory, both states, particle-like and wave-like alternate each other at FTL speeds. bollocks may describe your capacity to understanding my points. I don't blame you for not being able to see it, don't feel bad for it, your brain is not wired in the same way mine is. Sorry about not being able to prove everything you quoted above. I just want you to understand that the irrational nature of pi does change the topography of space inside the energy volume of particles. Perhaps you should follow my advice and ask the same question to your professor or a friend with higher level of physical education. No offense but if your calculator can't blow up in fire and smoke trying to give you an answer you deny is not my fault, it's the way calculators work. they give you a few decimal spaces to the right of the point and they signal infinite or other sign. Sorry if you need me to explain in details or showing you proof of things that will be decades from now proved to be right. I'm just writing about them for my own ego. I want those scientists from the future to see that I was able to conceive the infinite nature of space, the production of EM waves and the resonance within the volume of quanta as a direct result of my interpretations. good night!

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Sorry if you need me to explain in details or showing you proof of things that will be decades from now proved to be right. I'm just writing about them for my own ego. I want those scientists from the future to see that I was able to conceive the infinite nature of space, the production of EM waves and the resonance within the volume of quanta as a direct result of my interpretations. good night!

Well sorry indeed since you have yet to offer any evidence at all to support your baseless claims. I also doubt very much whether your ego needs boosting.

As far as scientists in the future are concerned, I'm sure they'll proceed admirably, making new discoveries while standing on the shoulders of the giants of the past. Your own baseless unsupported rhetoric I'm sorry to inform you, will be forever lost in the infinite realms of cyber space, never to be seen or heard of again...thankfully!!!

[swansont]

5 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

I posted a comment just recently where I compared space and quanta to an analogical wave holding a digital one inside. The example wasn't complete although it was very effective. you know that a sine wave can be closed into a sphere too. So try to close the loops of both waves and you'll see that the empty not filled region of space will be bat the edges of the circle. this is the fractional nature of space. It can't be filled because energy comes in quanta and space is infinite and fractional into the most infinitesimal point in the vacuum.

Word salad. Show me the math. The model.

5 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

With all due respect... "nothing like that?" It's a fact that the more digits you input into pi (decimals) the larger into the inward direction (the fractional space) it gets. Have you ever heard that there are more fractional numbers than if you start counting 1-2-3-4-5-6- etc? If you always step half of the distance you'll never get to the end line. What's wrong with your analysis, Sr?

Where did I claim there was a problem with how we calculate pi, or say that it's not irrational?

5 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

I'd suggest that you think again what you just posted. The more decimals you input in the equation to calculate the volume of one sphere, the bigger the space grows. it grows in the fractional direction but it will keep changing! That's the difference between having pi as irrational in this universe. had been pi rational we were not having this chatting here.

I gave an example to rebut your claim, and "fractional direction" is nonsensical.

 

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

https://youtu.be/Ohp6Okk

who mentioned push? I said energy (EM energy) spread within the fractional nature of space (which yes is infinite) I can explain this twice sorry if you don't follow me. since the EM of the quanta is quantized (indivisible) it recoils back into its particle-like state and this oscillatory process occurs both in atomic orbital and in the vacuum of space. in orbitals it happens while the electrons moves around the nucleus of the atom [protons and neutrons] in the vacuum electrons appear and disappear as QM has proved making the fabric of the vacuum of space chaotic. The EM energy is the electric and magnetic energy of particles. Duality makes them both part of the process. no point-particle in the sense either. if you concentrate the energy of the electron in a point in space the charge of the electron becomes infinite. I spoke about the infinite nature of the space within the volume occupied by the quanta but never about infinite magnitudes of charge or infinite magnitudes of magnetic field. that;s a wrong characterization. in fact according to my theory, both states, particle-like and wave-like alternate each other at FTL speeds. bollocks may describe your capacity to understanding my points. I don't blame you for not being able to see it, don't feel bad for it, your brain is not wired in the same way mine is. Sorry about not being able to prove everything you quoted above. I just want you to understand that the irrational nature of pi does change the topography of space inside the energy volume of particles. Perhaps you should follow my advice and ask the same question to your professor or a friend with higher level of physical education. No offense but if your calculator can't blow up in fire and smoke trying to give you an answer you deny is not my fault, it's the way calculators work. they give you a few decimal spaces to the right of the point and they signal infinite or other sign. Sorry if you need me to explain in details or showing you proof of things that will be decades from now proved to be right. I'm just writing about them for my own ego. I want those scientists from the future to see that I was able to conceive the infinite nature of space, the production of EM waves and the resonance within the volume of quanta as a direct result of my interpretations. good night!

What quantifiable, testable predictions can you make with your model? 

[MigL]

You don't seem to understand the concept of significant digits in a calculation.

As for infinities cropping up in the calculation of the charge of an electron when its radius is zero, that is correct.
I suggest you look up renormalization; another concept you seem unfamiliar with, but otherwise essential to QED and QCD.

[Sensei]

8 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

HOW MANY DECIMALS OF PI IS ENOUGH FOR YOU MR/RS PROFESSOR, TO SAY "-THESE ARE ENOUGH"

[...endless repetition of word "decimal" in many posts...]

Decimal system is just one of infinite quantity of numeral systems..

Somebody can write [math]\pi[/math] using e.g. binary system. At least couple the most significant digits of it. And it will be series of zeros and ones:

%11.00100100001

 

Numeral system does not even have to use integer base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_representation

There are base-e, base-[math]\pi[/math], base-[math]\sqrt{2}[/math] numeral systems.

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Sensei

[Strange]

8 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

since the EM of the quanta is quantized (indivisible)

I don't know what you mean by "EM energy of the quanta". But energy is not always quantised.

Quote

The EM energy is the electric and magnetic energy of particles. 

Ah, thank you.

I don't know what you mean by "electric and magnetic energy of particles". This is a meaningless phrase as far as I can tell.

8 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

it recoils back into its particle-like state and this oscillatory process occurs both in atomic orbital and in the vacuum of space

I don't what you mean by "recoils back into its particle-like state". But the energy of a free electron is NOT quantised.

8 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

in the vacuum electrons appear and disappear as QM has proved making the fabric of the vacuum of space chaotic

This is true. Except, of course, QM hasn't "proved" it; QM predicted it and experiment has confirmed it. That is how science works: model -> prediction -> test. That is wy you are not doing science. (And your posts are too ignorant and incoherent to count as philosophy, either.)

But I don't what this has to do with the energy of a single electron. (I also find it odd that you use the results of a good, working theory. So you accept we have a theory but you still insist on promoting this mon-theory of yours. Weird sort of cognitive dissonance.)

9 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

if you concentrate the energy of the electron in a point in space the charge of the electron becomes infinite.

The charge of an electron is fixed. It doesn't change. (And, arguably, the energy [mass] of an electron is already concentrated at a point in space. Remember the fact that electrons have zero size?)

9 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Sorry about not being able to prove everything you quoted above.

I am not asking you to prove anything. (Science never proves anything.)

I am asking you for testable predictions that could, in principle, confirm or disprove your idea.

9 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

I just want you to understand that the irrational nature of pi does change the topography of space inside the energy volume of particles.

You need to provide some evidence of that. Or propose a prediction that can be tested.

It is so fundamentally wrong, no one is going to take it seriously without some evidence. Pi is just something we invented and use to do calculations, it doesn't have any effect of reality.

9 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Perhaps you should follow my advice and ask the same question to your professor or a friend with higher level of physical education.

I would be very, very surprised if anyone ever answered anything other than "it depends".

9 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

will be decades from now proved to be right.

A crackpot classic!

9 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

I'm just writing about them for my own ego.

Clearly. And your ego is so big you can't even consider that (a) you might be largely ignorant of science and (b) your ideas are largely meaningless.