Can Hydrostatic Equilibrium Explain Pi Radians???

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Can Hydrostatic Equilibrium Explain Pi Radians???

 

 

In this article here titled:

 

The shape of a planet in hydrostatic equilibrium

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02507222

 

 

It states the following:

 

A new technique for computing gravitational equilibrium surfaces (considering gravitational and rotational potential) as a function of depth is presented here for a hydrostatic planet, i.e. a planet where rigidity is neglected.

 

 

 

 

NOW, My reasoning behind Pi Radians is because it results in a perfect 1/2 of a circumference when used with a length that is not a multiple of 2 " from what I know."

 

 

Hydrostatic Equilibrium also refers to " trajectories", Kepler orbits and Parabolic coordinates of which are similar to

this perfect 1/2 of a circumference.

 

Radial trajectory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_trajectory

 

 

Parabolic coordinates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_coordinates

 

 

Could these trajectories be the result of pi radians " perfect half arcs and or half circles, where again rigidity is neglected of the object in question in this case example only: earth or any other celestial body?

 

 

If this " could " be the case then shouldn't pi radians be times 2 for the diameter and then times this diameter by pi itself for this perfect circle or sphere?

 

Where rigidity again is neglected for the celestial body such as earth per say?

 

This somehow does not make sense to me..

 

pi times diameter = circumference, but that must mean that their are 2 different pi ratios used then, because of the Hydrostatic Equilibrium.

 

 

Been on this for a some time now and still I have no answer.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[studiot]

 

Can Hydrostatic Equilibrium Explain Pi Radians???

 

 

I'm sorry I don't see what the question is.

 

What do geodetic potentials have to do with geometric constants?

And do you really mean pi radians or steradians (solid angle)?

[Iwonderaboutthings]

 

 

I'm sorry I don't see what the question is.

 

What do geodetic potentials have to do with geometric constants?

And do you really mean pi radians or steradians (solid angle)?

My apologies I meant steradians, but this is the first time I have ever heard of the word steradians so thanks!, I looked it up and now understand why I could not place my questions correctly, but yes I mean now steradians not necessarily (solid angle) but if this needs to be then yes solid angle).

 

However here it shows pi ratio being used with something refereed to as: Subtended angle? Not sure if this is radians though..

 

Subtended angle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtended_angle

 

 

 

Your question:

What do geodetic potentials have to do with geometric constants?

 

My answer in theory only and is my opinion.

 

I don't believe that fundamental constants are used properly.

The reason for this.

c, pi ratio, g, h and G including the number 1 itself, are all used "simultaneously" with different types of styles in math.

 

It makes no sense whats so ever to me.

 

 

The human body does not work in this fashion. The lungs don't digest, the heart does not think, the skin does not talk. It is obvious that if this is fact, and the human body is a creation of nature, then the same should hold true for numbers that represent this as fundamental constants of nature.

 

In this case I believe fundamental units are not being used in a organized fashion. Rather this be true or incorrect, these forces have been here for millions of years since physics, and QM ever was. I would love to meet the person whom said, " If it is not broke then don't fix it."

 

 

Science at times should question, "Should We" versus "What If we." Our world is falling apart, the economy is crazy, lay offs are all over the world. Science does not have all the answers I am sure I don't because I question my knowledge and know that there are errors in my field of study from those whom wrote the books. Nothing should not stop us from questioning these fundamental constants that seem to " just work."

 

 

With this new information " steradians" can my questions still be applied, mind you these are just ideas and thoughts.

Maybe there is more to these fundamental constants we are not looking at.... Whom Knows.

 

But just a note: I study fundamental constants, I have this passion with them you can say.

I know that the more we study these, perhaps in time we can find more meaning to their consistency which of coarse can explain so many other exciting things about the world and the universe we live inI don't believe in luck though, I believe in creativity.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[John Cuthber]

"It makes no sense whats so ever to me."

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but the universe doesn't know what makes sense to you and is under no obligation whatsoever to act in a way that you think makes sense.

[ACG52]

 

The human body does not work in this fashion. The lungs don't digest, the heart does not think, the skin does not talk. It is obvious that if this is fact, and the human body is a creation of nature, then the same should hold true for numbers that represent this as fundamental constants of nature.

To borrow another quote from you, "It makes no sense whats so ever to me."

 

I really can't see how you could possible draw this analogy.

[studiot]

All I can think of is that mathematics uses numbers and doesn't care what those numbers stand for, the mathematics is the same.

 

That is many quite different and unrelated phenomenon follw the same mathematical relationships.

 

So the temperature difference between a cooling object and its surroundings

The voltage on a capacitor discharging to earth

My bank balance after payday

 

All follow the same the same mathematical relationship.

That is the graph of each of these things, plotted against time, is the same.

 

It is the physical units that are different and quite irreconcilable, like your functions of the organs of the body.

You would no more take the temperature of my bank balance than you would the voltage..

 

Is this what you are asking about?

[Iwonderaboutthings]

"It makes no sense whats so ever to me."

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but the universe doesn't know what makes sense to you and is under no obligation whatsoever to act in a way that you think makes sense.

REALLY???

 

Why does sun light from outer space have effects on serotonin secretion in the human brain??? Are you sure your a chemist expert??? SORRY TO BE THE ONE TO ASK YOU THAT.

 

 

Unraveling the Sun's Role in Depression

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20021205/unraveling-suns-role-in-depression

 

Why is the double slit?

 

Where does human energy " the spirit come from?"

 

Why is the human body made of star dust??

 

Why in QM are the laws of Attraction?

 

Why does positive thinking promote good health?

 

Why do animals have more senses than humans??

 

Where did humans comes from??

 

Why do we have free will?

 

What is love?

 

And can " love" both be shared with:

 

men and men

woman and woman

man and woman

 

Why does music sound appealing?

Why do people pass away from old age?

 

 

I have answered questions "politely" and paid respect as I have been recommended...

I have no idea why you are commenting on my " personal" opinions and are disbelieving me, I am not a minister here.

 

We all have our point of view and in the Country I live in I have the right to freedom of speech.

 

 

On another note you have not answered my OP question.

Perhaps maybe you don't know how to answer my question???

 

 

Here it is again:

 

With this new information " steradians" can my questions still be applied, mind you these are just ideas and thoughts.

Maybe there is more to these fundamental constants we are not looking at.... Whom Knows.

But just a note: I study fundamental constants, I have this passion with them you can say.

I know that the more we study these, perhaps in time we can find more meaning to their consistency which of coarse can explain so many other exciting things about the world and the universe we live in I don't believe in luck though, I believe in creativity.

To borrow another quote from you, "It makes no sense whats so ever to me."

 

I really can't see how you could possible draw this analogy.

If you can convince me that your " thoughts" can be measured away from one thought to the next, as with dx you have my up-most respect, until then, what makes sense to me does not with you...

 

Its called relativity FYI, I was answering someone's question, you seem to be instigating a debate and diverging my OP, please do not do this.....

All I can think of is that mathematics uses numbers and doesn't care what those numbers stand for, the mathematics is the same.

 

That is many quite different and unrelated phenomenon follw the same mathematical relationships.

 

So the temperature difference between a cooling object and its surroundings

The voltage on a capacitor discharging to earth

My bank balance after payday

 

All follow the same the same mathematical relationship.

That is the graph of each of these things, plotted against time, is the same.

 

It is the physical units that are different and quite irreconcilable, like your functions of the organs of the body.

You would no more take the temperature of my bank balance than you would the voltage..

 

Is this what you are asking about?

In a sense, thanks I was asking about If Hydrostatic Equilibrium Explains Pi Radians..

The human body thing was my personal thoughts for another member's question here.

 

 

If mathematics shows no common relation to what it represents, then we truly live in a system that depends on another system that have no relation other than what people choose them to be??? You got to be joking right??

 

Nothing really wrong with that I suppose until a system needs a serious upgrade.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[studiot]

What I was getting at is that all the curves or graphs I mentioned look the same.

 

The constants are merely scaling values to make the data fit.

 

Of course some phenomena fit different mathematical curves, but the principal is the same.

 

I am suggesting that these fundamental constant can be viewed 'fitting parameters'.

[ACG52]

 

If you can convince me that your " thoughts" can be measured away from one thought to the next, as with dx you have my up-most respect, until then, what makes sense to me does not with you...

Its called relativity FYI, I was answering someone's question, you seem to be instigating a debate and diverging my OP, please do not do this....

Debate and discussion is what this site is about. Furthermore, as you are posting in Astronomy and Cosmology, it should bear some relationship to Astronomy and Cosmology. If you're trying to make some philosophical point, it should be placed there.

 

In either case, some relationship to science would be nice.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

What I was getting at is that all the curves or graphs I mentioned look the same.

 

The constants are merely scaling values to make the data fit.

 

Of course some phenomena fit different mathematical curves, but the principal is the same.

 

I am suggesting that these fundamental constant can be viewed 'fitting parameters'.

'fitting parameters' sounds exactly what I was thinking but sometime it is best to ask at least for me.

Sorry, I still have problems with proper terminologies.

 

So then 'fitting parameters' can be changed in the sense of further finding match-able "sound" parameters with the ones we currently use.

Could a wave function per say do this? Setting x as pi ?

That may sound crazy, but I am asking just a question here.

 

OR, could dimensional analysis be fine too?

And what type of math do you recommend ?

Debate and discussion is what this site is about. Furthermore, as you are posting in Astronomy and Cosmology, it should bear some relationship to Astronomy and Cosmology. If you're trying to make some philosophical point, it should be placed there.

 

In either case, some relationship to science would be nice.

My gosh I feel embarrassed for you and the chemist

Philosophy and especially the Universe go hand in hand.

So " assume " there is an exception with your suggestion.

It seems to be unavoidable.

Now, for the sake of others whom will read this thread here are some links to this fact.

Sir Issac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica

Galileo (Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/224058/Galileo

The Life Force of Sacred Sites : Shirley MacLaine

http://shirleymaclaine.com/articles/sites/article-315

Philosophy of mathematics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Eternalism (philosophy of time)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

At any moment you are more than welcome to join in on my OP.

I may not know proper terminologies I am still young here, but I am willing to learn them.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[ACG52]

 

The Life Force of Sacred Sites : Shirley MacLaine

http://shirleymaclai...tes/article-315

This confirms it as total nonsense.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

This confirms it as total nonsense.

That's your opinion, and well respected. I am not a believer in Newton, But I respect his attempts and field of study but that's how I think, this is how you think.

 

Oh by the way:

 

Sir Issac Newton's study of the Great Pyramid of Giza

http://www.gizapyramid.com/newton.htm

 

Is Quantum Mechanics Incompatible with

Newton’s First Law of Motion?

http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.4455v1.pdf

 

 

Bermuda Triangle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Triangle

 

 

 

So, I guess the answer is no then, you can't answer my question pertaining my --> OP

 

Giving me a -1 reputation will not change facts, you still have not answered my question pertaining to my OP.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[swansont]

In this case I believe fundamental units are not being used in a organized fashion. Rather this be true or incorrect, these forces have been here for millions of years since physics, and QM ever was. I would love to meet the person whom said, " If it is not broke then don't fix it."

 

 

Regardless, the protocol in science is to come up with a better mousetrap. To claim the constants are being used incorrectly is to claim that incorrect answers are being given, and that doesn't appear to be the case. Where are the errors?

 

Being contrary to some aesthetic of yours is not an acceptable criterion.

[ACG52]

 

 

That's your opinion, and well respected. I am not a believer in Newton, But I respect his attempts and field of study but that's how I think, this is how you think.

I was referring to the Shirley MacLaine woo.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

 

 

Regardless, the protocol in science is to come up with a better mousetrap. To claim the constants are being used incorrectly is to claim that incorrect answers are being given, and that doesn't appear to be the case. Where are the errors?

 

Being contrary to some aesthetic of yours is not an acceptable criterion.

You say to build a better mouse trap I agree!

So then:

Should a denominator be a value that is " always constant"?

In other words when inquiring a dirivitive, shouldn't the denomination be pi in its absolute decimal representation??

This would take care of that new mouse trap

The reason is because this "may" help as to why c, pi ratio and phase cycles are connected to electro magnetism or something to that nature.

This would replace the 1 deal we see all the time with

Lorentz transformation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_relativistic_equations

Pure thought here but As c = 1 second as time, this is not possible because 1 still needs to be squared.

The reason for this is in E-mc "squared"

The only method that for x^2 = 1 is x = +-i. or something to that nature.

To answer your question:

The issue is how c, h and G are all " somehow" related in the sense of time this is fact.

But then time has no rest mass or something to that nature.

Sin waves used by QM are then used as mentioned above.

But, if time is known to be everywhere then how on earth can anything be relative to anything??

Better yet what is relative to time itself? I sure don't know, is it 1? what is that relative too?

To place units in Cartesian Coordinates and not know what is relative to the Cartesian Coordinates themselves is " strange." My opinion here.

There is no information on this out there.

Better yet how can random numbers represent time and units and be somehow derived??

Here are some links to errors of h Titled: Determination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods.

I was referring to the Shirley MacLaine woo.

I'm just going to keep copying and pasting this:

 

So, I guess the answer is no then, you can't answer my question pertaining my --> OP

Edited July 16, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Bignose]

In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods.

Demonstrate this.

 

You can claim all you want in words, but that is hardly scientific. At its heart, science is the accurate prediction of observation.

 

So, you claim that a certain method is no longer accurate. Demonstrate that a new method is more accurate.

 

Make and post a plot of measurement (observation from nature), the prediction made by the old method, and the prediction made by your method.

 

If it is really more accurate, you will receive much attention. If you just keep posting word, wailing and gnashing your teeth against what you think are problems with current science without posting any demonstrable improvements, you will be ignored.

 

Science values demonstrated agreement between prediction and measurement above almost anything else. If you actually have that, you have something scientifically meaningful. If you don't have it, then you are posting on the wrong forum. Science forums respect science -- and again what is more valuable scientifically is agreement between prediction and measurement.

[swansont]

You say to build a better mouse trap I agree!

 

 

So then:

 

Should a denominator be a value that is " always constant"?

 

In other words when inquiring a dirivitive, shouldn't the denomination be pi in its absolute decimal representation??

What derivative?

 

Pi is irrational, so no, there should not be an absolute decimal representation.

 

This would take care of that new mouse trap

How? How cam making something wrong help?

 

To answer your question:

 

The issue is how c, h and G are all " somehow" related in the sense of time this is fact.

But then time has no rest mass or something to that nature.

Seeing as time is not a physical substance, I should hope it doesn't have rest mass.

 

Sin waves used by QM are then used as mentioned above.

But, if time is known to be everywhere then how on earth can anything be relative to anything??

 

Better yet what is relative to time itself? I sure don't know, is it 1? what is that relative too?

 

To place units in Cartesian Coordinates and not know what is relative to the Cartesian Coordinates themselves is " strange." My opinion here.

 

There is no information on this out there.

You aren't inquiring into science. It's more like metaphysics, except you are looking at some mystical connection rather than philosophy, so it's more like meta-metaphysics.

 

Better yet how can random numbers represent time and units and be somehow derived??

Random numbers represent time? I don't think so.

 

Here are some links to errors of h Titled: Determination

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

 

In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods.

That's an issue of experimental accuracy, not an error in the concept or an incorrect use of it. I don't see what your objection is. We determine the number to some precision. How is it wrong?

 

 

I'm just going to keep copying and pasting this:

 

So, I guess the answer is no then, you can't answer my question pertaining my --> OP

It's a nonsensical question. Those are tough to answer.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Demonstrate this.

 

You can claim all you want in words, but that is hardly scientific. At its heart, science is the accurate prediction of observation.

 

So, you claim that a certain method is no longer accurate. Demonstrate that a new method is more accurate.

 

Make and post a plot of measurement (observation from nature), the prediction made by the old method, and the prediction made by your method.

 

If it is really more accurate, you will receive much attention. If you just keep posting word, wailing and gnashing your teeth against what you think are problems with current science without posting any demonstrable improvements, you will be ignored.

 

Science values demonstrated agreement between prediction and measurement above almost anything else. If you actually have that, you have something scientifically meaningful. If you don't have it, then you are posting on the wrong forum. Science forums respect science -- and again what is more valuable scientifically is agreement between prediction and measurement.

 

Make and post a plot of measurement

 

Can you help me do this " the standard scientific way please???

 

I don't have a laboratory, I only use math. I am eager to see what I find with my space vectors...

 

 

 

Observation from nature

 

How do you do this " the standard scientific way please???

 

 

Yes I have seen derivatives examples on line, but unsure if they were " explained" correctly.

 

Edited July 17, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[ACG52]

So you don't really know anything about what you are criticizing.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

So you don't really know anything about what you are criticizing.

Not at all I am being couscous. Knowing how to calculate the forces of nature is one thing, but understanding the forces of nature is another...I respect the unknown very much and have top-most respect for them..They normally don't teach these in schools, you can say I learned through trial and error, you become wise...

 

Now, I have answered questions here to the best of my ability, please show me a "standard" method of how you would like me to continue the discussion as per requested by the " other member" I am sure you have been reading

What derivative?

 

Pi is irrational, so no, there should not be an absolute decimal representation.

 

 

How? How cam making something wrong help?

 

 

Seeing as time is not a physical substance, I should hope it doesn't have rest mass.

 

 

You aren't inquiring into science. It's more like metaphysics, except you are looking at some mystical connection rather than philosophy, so it's more like meta-metaphysics.

 

 

Random numbers represent time? I don't think so.

 

 

That's an issue of experimental accuracy, not an error in the concept or an incorrect use of it. I don't see what your objection is. We determine the number to some precision. How is it wrong?

 

 

 

It's a nonsensical question. Those are tough to answer.

" precession<------------YES that is the issue.

 

I have read your questions, thanks and I will do my best to get back with the answers soon..

Edited July 17, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[imatfaal]

So you don't really know anything about what you are criticizing.

Not at all I am being couscous. ...

 

 

Freudian typo of the year so far...

[Bignose]

Make and post a plot of measurement

 

Can you help me do this " the standard scientific way please???

Well, for one you download the paper I linked to, and you read it. Then you note all the sources that paper cites for the measured value... you may have to work your way back 2 or 3 or 4 sources.

 

Then you use the mathematics behind GR and use them to make predictions.

 

Then you use the mathematics behind your idea to make another set of predictions.

 

Then you plot all three sets of data... the original measurements, the predictions from GR, and the predictions from your math.

 

You don't need your own 'laboratory', you use the data that is already published.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Well, for one you download the paper I linked to, and you read it. Then you note all the sources that paper cites for the measured value... you may have to work your way back 2 or 3 or 4 sources.

 

Then you use the mathematics behind GR and use them to make predictions.

 

Then you use the mathematics behind your idea to make another set of predictions.

 

Then you plot all three sets of data... the original measurements, the predictions from GR, and the predictions from your math.

 

You don't need your own 'laboratory', you use the data that is already published.

What link?? What paper ? I don't see it anywhere Where do I find this please??

 

Freudian typo of the year so far...

Well here is something to consider about the usage of 1.

 

I believe " my thoughts here" that 1 will and shall always be " undefined" again it is because of imaginary units and 1 being squared. The number 872532296769.507 is a circumference with pi ratio / the speed of light as miles per hour then multiplied by h. However, the first division in my opinion breaks the whole dimensional sound imaginary unit " now a circumference" because it is a 1 that is undefined. The number has no relative positions it is just a number in empty space used with pi ratio.

 

It is the circumference and the number 1 that I only care about for now. I believe this might explain what 1 is and can further help us figure our what c, h and G are really all about.

 

 

To add, the complete cycle of 60 is 1 minute, however I use 60*60 for the " miles per hour" again another squared number as hour and minutes linked to 1 c and miles per hour, very confusing!

 

Hence, 1 in the first division is still un-defined..

 

1s /872532296769.5077 = 1.1460893811065e-12

60 s /872532296769.5077 = 6.87653628663901e-11

120 s /872532296769.5077 = 1.3753072573278e-10

This is why I believe that scientist should use caution because 1 is not defined but serves as a means for some prediction.

In either case its my choice.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Iwonderaboutthings]

So you don't really know anything about what you are criticizing.

 

 

Multiplying i is a rotation by 90 degrees counter-clockwise, 1 is still undefined, but defined as a ratio, precession, and or cycle. Imaginary units are still " undefined."

 

Rotation matrix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix

Edited July 19, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Bignose]

What link?? What paper ? I don't see it anywhere:unsure: Where do I find this please??

I apologize, I must have assumed I posted it in this thread, too -- I tend to post this same link in any thread where the OP doesn't like General Relativity to demonstrate just how successful GR really has been.

 

Anywho, here's the link http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072 Again, this paper is 100% about comparing the predictions of GR and what is actually experimentally observed. 89 pages, 299 references. It isn't 100% complete, but it is one heck of good compilation.

 

If you can show your idea makes better predictions than GR does in all the situations in the above paper, you will get some attention.