Iwonderaboutthings Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 If pi ratio " was" squared and = 9.8 m/s/s how would this change the whole of science? To continue, and if their was "a physical unit of measure" to prove pi ratio squared "is" = 9.8 m/s/s provided for the science community, how could this be tested to be proven physically? I am aware that frequencies waves travel exponentially to infinity either in a medium and or vacuum. I am 100% certain, that our concept of infinity " does " have an end, within a system's metric of measure. If it is true that 9.8 m/s/s is due to acceleration on the earth's surface, then the issue is defining 1 as in my findings states that 1 = 0^.5 "exponentially" in relation to acceleration on the earth's surface...Meaning that it appears to be that distance does not exist.. What new discoveries can this provide QED, QM, Radio Frequencies?? I am curious to know.... Another question: How does, a " new " fundamental law of nature get published? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 pi has no units, so it cannot square to a something with units. As such I don't know how to answer your questions scientifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) If pi ratio " was" squared and = 9.8 m/s/s how would this change the whole of science? To continue, and if their was "a physical unit of measure" to prove pi ratio squared "is" = 9.8 m/s/s provided for the science community, how could this be tested to be proven physically? It is just a coincidence. There is nothing special about 9.8 m/s/s. It is just the average gravity on Earth. It changes from place to place and with altitude or depth. And it depends on the (arbitrary) units used to measure it; it is about 32 feet/s/s and about 7.1*10^10 furlongs/fortnight/fortnight. I am aware that frequencies waves travel exponentially They don't ravel "exponentially" (I'm not even sure what you mean by that. How does, a " new " fundamental law of nature get published? In peer reviewed journals. Edited July 12, 2014 by Strange 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 It is just a coincidence. There is nothing special about 9.8 m/s/s. It is just the average gravity on Earth. It changes from place to place and with altitude or depth. And it depends on the (arbitrary) units used to measure it; it is about 32 feet/s/s and about 7.1*10^10 furlongs/fortnight/fortnight. It's not actually a coincidence. One of the original ideas for the meter was that it was the length that would give a pendulum a half-period of 1 second. But the idea was abandoned; g is not constant everywhere and some wanted to redefine the second for use in a decimal time system. The choice of the distance from equator to north pole being 10,000 km didn't change the meter much from this other value. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 It's not actually a coincidence. One of the original ideas for the meter was that it was the length that would give a pendulum a half-period of 1 second. Amazing. I never knew that. A bit more background here, for anyone interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_pendulum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) It is just a coincidence. There is nothing special about 9.8 m/s/s. It is just the average gravity on Earth. It changes from place to place and with altitude or depth. And it depends on the (arbitrary) units used to measure it; it is about 32 feet/s/s and about 7.1*10^10 furlongs/fortnight/fortnight. They don't ravel "exponentially" (I'm not even sure what you mean by that. In peer reviewed journals. You are 100% correct, they " don't " travel exponentially, they remain " stationary" static in other words. However, this is " an inversion" issue " in a sense." For example, in telecommunications RF " electro" and magnetic waves, IE " two forms of communication that are coupled together, " both" travel in opposites directions from the source. But the source of propagation is the source where the waves initially are set this being at 0. IE, a device that creates magnetic fields for radio communication, internet, cell phones, etc. Units are chosen within certain acceptable and permissible guidelines within compliance and regulation IE safety purposes of which insures stability and proper " care" of devices that deal with " information technology" not to mention damaging equipment and etc. THAT IS A GOOD THING! However, these " regulations" have nothing to do with how nature regulates fundamental laws of which are not understood fully.The measurement problem is one of them, the gravity problem on the earth's surface is another. I want to also say Radiation Resistance...As per telecommunication and man made antennas of which I look at being no different than a metric system that describes the fundamental properties of the " source" in question, in this case the distance from the origin. Radiation resistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_resistance Voltage Standing Wave Ratio For example here, VSWR " information and frequency waves" 'some" cannot be matched to the source. I assume the guidelines of the chosen metric preference or the math that describes the base of that system would initially set the source to 1. However, since they are both " electric" and magnetic frequencies involved here, your statement of they don't travel exponentially is true " physically" due to the nature of squared units. Just an example here: IE [magnetism = 1 + electrical = 1] = x^2 = 0... Just plug in the variables?? How would you derive anything then?? x^2=-1 it is merely the square root of the exponent, and is not helpful due to the nature of imaginary units being 1/2 real "exponentially" that is why we are left with uncertainties, probabilities, that are counter intuitive... VSWR Ratings "ITS WORTH READING" http://www.tech-faq.com/vswr.html VSWR Definition 1.0:1 One to one. Exact match. An ideal that cannot be accomplished with current technology. 1.5:1 One point five to one. Good match. Only 4 percent loss in power. 2.0:1 Two to one. Acceptable match. Approximately 11 percent loss in power. 6.0:1 Six to one. Poor match. Approximately 50 percent loss in power. 10:1 Ten to one. Unacceptable match. Most of the power is lost. infinity:1 Infinity to one. Useless to measure, as the mismatch is so great. Now, Perhaps I should have mentioned " particles waves" as standing waves in a virtual " your words" It changes from "place to place and with altitude or depth." My focus is more concerned with the place and altitude... It appears to describe a flat hyper surface, that is " virtually" in all places and in all locations in space that is "static." But I am trying to avoid, the words, Quantum Realities, Plank Scale, QED. Although I think this is far more incredible. We will eventually need to add those to this topic, somewhere... You are 100% correct, they " don't " travel exponentially, they remain " stationary" static in other words" " standing still", of which does not necessarily guarantee a productive form to derive things from, at least from my point of view, or perhaps remain within boundaries and limits of something that has no dimensions nor direction at least in a Quantized Form, frequencies waves and information in other words.. Again. I want to make it clear you are correct in the physical cases of science. So I guess the issue is getting pi ratio's absolute value, so we can pin point its physical location When I say its physical location, I mean its frequency, since a wave can act both as a particle and wave, you can just imagine how " umm" I am lost for words here" science would be... However, I need to hear it from a true scientist.. How would that change the whole of science???? Edited July 12, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 You are 100% correct, they " don't " travel exponentially, they remain " stationary" static in other words. It was the word "exponentially" I was objecting to. Obviously waves travel, they don't do it exponentially. So I guess the issue is getting pi ratio's absolute value, so we can pin point its location Pinpoint the location of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 pi has no units, so it cannot square to a something with units. As such I don't know how to answer your questions scientifically. I don't know how to answer your questions scientifically., You never fail to surprise me ajb, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Amazing. I never knew that. A bit more background here, for anyone interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_pendulum And thus the fact that pi squared equals 9.86960 actually naturally falls out from this choice for a meter. The half period for a simple pendulum is [math] T= \pi \sqrt{\frac{L}{g}}[/math] therefore: [math] \pi^2 = T^2\frac{g}{L}[/math] As already explained, The length L which solves this equation for T = 1sec was to defined as 1 meter. So we replace L with 1m. g is measured in m/s^2 so we replace it with X m/s^2 and replace T with 1s . In the resulting equation, all the secs and meters cancel out and you get [math]\pi^2 = X[/math] Ergo, the fact pi squared closely matches the number of meters per/sec/sec in one g is because the meter was based on a value that was dependent on both g and pi. No fundamental revelation of physics here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) It was the word "exponentially" I was objecting to. Obviously waves travel, they don't do it exponentially. Pinpoint the location of what? Obviously waves travel, in a sense here as waves, they don't physically though.. I guess to proceed productively we will need to have a complex discussion in terms of Holographic Universe and The Plank "Scale." Those are the only choices open to a technical discussion on empty space's definition..Its like the ABS construct, and 26 letter limit a hurdle. Earth has an equal amount of negative and positive charges making earth an incredible reference point in space, its grounded. Thus pi ratio and earth represent that location in that space in that time or dimension. I will wait to see if others get what I just said... Space, does not necessarily mean the aether... When I say space I mean a Null solution to a mathematical balance of an imbalance of nature that follows time's intervals exponentially "Data" IE history and cycles, eras, time travel, the future the past, etc. In my opinion and experience in Theoretical Physics, our concept of "space" who cares about anything else" is also not fully understood...If how to solve the distance is the main concern, then the main concern does not have a solution because its empty right? Thus it does not exist.. Why bother? Since pi ratio is virtually used in " All known Equations" I am not going off Topic.. If Moderators Warn Me About This, Then Ban Me Now.... Now I am going to start typing the exact words here, so there is no confusion.. PE -->Potential Energy or Kinetic Energy, which ever is which, for example, in the form of electrical engineering " suggest" that electron's have a potential energy when they are pulled away from their " natural" response to magnetism, and or the attraction of opposite charges. The resister, and or the loads, " absorb " this Potential Energy and transform the energy as a useful source for " man made creations." I assume this to be termed " Technology "? This is a man made basis, not even close to nature not fundamentally correct in any sense, because it goes against the laws of Nature. Potential Energy is a man made creation, not a natural solution to a balanced mathematical description of nature. Be carefull how you interpret this, as the physics on earth, is believed the same in all the universe, as such as in man made chambers here on earth of empty space, think about that.. They follow the same path as waves in matter and in "empty space" connected to history, data, and information.. This would then imply earth as the center of the universe then, that is logical to think.. Why??? Because we use pi ratio all the time in our equations.. Like I said, Space, does not necessarily mean the aether... Now. I am not disagreeing with fundamental laws, I am questioning the integrity of our concept of " SPACE." As pure mathematics derives quantities that perform just as well in matter as in empty space, rather this be a vacuum or what have you. Again: Electro Magnetism is a Perfect Example here.. I am greatfull for the SI units of which is a universal metric we would surely be lost.. Now, I am not a big believer in all this by the way, but that is how physics works..I deal with pure dimensional analysis, no geometry either...Many Fundamentals Laws break down as speeds approach c, Coulomb's law is on of them, Elbert Einstein's Field Equations break down due to infinities, ie black holes.. Again, I am not a big believer in all this by the way, so why mention it? Because it is a physical issue and mathematics is connected to it.. This being the case, you can see why now this conversation requires an open mind a natural solution to a balance mathematical description of nature. I will not further explain anything in technical details, until I see others in an open minded discussion.. Edited July 12, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Iwonderaboutthings, do you know how to calculate 9.81 m/s acceleration (or other planet/moon acceleration) purely from experimental observation.. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Earth has an equal amount of negative and positive charges making earth an incredible reference point in space, its grounded.. And so does pretty much every other object in the universe. I don't see what that has to do with Pi. Except as we have now learnt, the meter is related to Pi. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Another question: How does, a " new " fundamental law of nature get published? By having, as a minimum, some of these characteristics: Being based on observation. Not conflicting with prior, thoroughly validated findings. Containing no illogical elements. Having tightly specified definitions. If the foregoing is true, I recommend you start a thread on a new topic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) And thus the fact that pi squared equals 9.86960 actually naturally falls out from this choice for a meter. The half period for a simple pendulum is [math] T= \pi \sqrt{\frac{L}{g}}[/math] therefore: [math] \pi^2 = T^2\frac{g}{L}[/math] As already explained, The length L which solves this equation for T = 1sec was to defined as 1 meter. So we replace L with 1m. g is measured in m/s^2 so we replace it with X m/s^2 and replace T with 1s . In the resulting equation, all the secs and meters cancel out and you get [math]\pi^2 = X[/math] Ergo, the fact pi squared closely matches the number of meters per/sec/sec in one g is because the meter was based on a value that was dependent on both g and pi. No fundamental revelation of physics here. When you say: 9.86960 actually naturally falls out from this choice for a meter. are you saying the mathematics naturally falls? the electro motive force? the potential energy? photo synthesis? electro static equilibrium? energy of a photon? Aren't these physical things? Or are you talking about energy? Frequency? What brings the source L " assume to be distance" back into balance " exponentially" Is it magnetism? Since variables mean many things, what is that big X mean?? Yes I can see it is pi^2 = X, but why did you use a big X? Also can you show a numerical value if you may please, I am very confused on what you just stated. That square root is basically the exponent of X? x? You hear me now?? From what I am seeing you can simply replace Coulumb's Constant By: Coulomb's constant Ke = 8.987551787*10e9 = 89875517870 C N*m^2*C-2 To: Coulomb's constant Ke = 1 meter?? What then would define this 1/2 cycle?? Is it that square root in your " Example" ??? And so does pretty much every other object in the universe. I don't see what that has to do with Pi. Except as we have now learnt, the meter is related to Pi. Strange, I am kind of a " retard" when it comes to understanding things in a practical sense... Anyone whom knows me, knows I have no ego, I am straight forward when I speak Are you saying that " some of you" here had no idea that Pi ratio" was connected to the meter?? Please answer " Yes or No" If you say Yes, then this means that some people here did not know.. If you say No, then this means that some people here did know.. To imply we as I have noticed includes a whole group.. Things like this, confuse me " seriously." Then I can " understand how to continue this INTRO conversation that appears to be legitimate for a New Topic on a new fundamental law I have discovered. Edited July 12, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 When you say: 9.86960 actually naturally falls out from this choice for a meter. are you saying the mathematics naturally falls? To "fall out" is an English idiom that means that something is a consequence of something. In this case, the fact that g is approximately pi^2 is a consequence of the way the metre was originally defined. Are you saying that " some of you" here had no idea that Pi ratio" was connected to the meter?? Please answer " Yes or No" Yes. I, for one, had no idea that the metre was originally defined in that way. (I have studied history of science, but that detail had passed me by.) Perhaps I am the only one here who was not aware of that, in which case my use of "we" was inappropriate. So thanks for starting this thread and brining this little bit of new information to my attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) By having, as a minimum, some of these characteristics: Being based on observation. Not conflicting with prior, thoroughly validated findings. Containing no illogical elements. Having tightly specified definitions. If the foregoing is true, I recommend you start a thread on a new topic. From your list there seem to be a perfect match, and yes I need to open a new topic on this... I would like to keep this one open for some time and contribute perhaps some things here that can serve in the new thread in regards to the meter and other units of measure, the micron being one, the milla being the other.. This may make things " easier for all of us." I am concerned with this one though: Containing no illogical elements. My findings suggest that like terms , like the kind found in algebra, is a metric to metric conversion system. No, not a conversion unit table, but rather one that derives from a conversion unit table. It derives from metric to metric, and defines 1 in that derived metric of personal choice. Thus 1 would then be defined out of the scope of zero empty space " What Ever Space Is At This Point", but doing so " harmonically, modulated within the domains" infinitesimal frequency limit" ...Think in terms of harmonic oscillations. I think this is the reason for Eisenstein Field Equations Braking Down..IE "Black Holes." A measurement of mismatched impedance, its simply the phase, it is this meter rather this whole.. And it is! It just gets very involving... This link here would describe this: Voltage standing wave ratio (VSWR) is a measurement of mismatched impedance in an RF system and is stated as an X: Page 89, it is an incredible article by the way... http://faculty.ccri.edu/jbernardini/JB-Website/ETEK1500/1500Notes/CWNA-ed4-Chapter-2.pdf Now,,Is this what illogical elements, means?? If yes, and I assume this the case, then wouldn't anyone agree "then" why 1 must be defined. Conversely, things get weird at this point, because it appears to be inversely the opposite answer. Which may be why, " the universe appears to be static" When see illogical elements, I see unlike terms, sorry if this is incorrect, I will let you answer now Edited July 12, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please keep new and odd notions to the Speculations Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 From your list there seem to be a perfect match, and yes I need to open a new topic on this... Here are two alternative responses. Please select the one that you find most satisfactory: Response A There is no match at all: 1. If your speculation is based on observation, then it is observation you have misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misapplied. 2. Your suggestion, while not directly conflicting with prior, thoroughly validated findings, does not seem to intersect with them in any meaningful way. 3. Your argument contains no logical sequence I can discern. 4. You have not attempted to define anything and your comments are wooly, vague and rambling. My suggestion was that you abandon this misguided topic and try something else. My apologies for not being clearer - I was trying to break the bad news gently. Response B Unfortunately I quite lack the intellectual capacity to follow your rigorous and insightful perspective on these matters. Thank you for the glimpse of paradise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 To "fall out" is an English idiom that means that something is a consequence of something. In this case, the fact that g is approximately pi^2 is a consequence of the way the metre was originally defined. Yes. I, for one, had no idea that the metre was originally defined in that way. (I have studied history of science, but that detail had passed me by.) Perhaps I am the only one here who was not aware of that, in which case my use of "we" was inappropriate. So thanks for starting this thread and brining this little bit of new information to my attention. Hymm, maybe they didn't understand what the meter was and as a consequence now we are all " well not on the same mind frame . Its a joke! Since this is now acknowledged, can we all now understand, and I mean everyone here, how important it is to define a metric system, based on nature's rules and not man made preference? And derive good results that are not linked to consequence? We end up in black holes, uncertainty, cycles, counter intuitive concepts that leads us in the null of empty space " history repeats itself.." Lets face it, to advance to better technologies I think this would stand a good thought here.. Don't get me wrong, we would be lost in outer space had it not been for our SI system. In regards to the meter and the speed of light " now " I do have an experiment, that proves that a white peace of paper does " show you colors" right in-front of your eyes. I am willing to copy it and post it here, to be printed and members here can see it for themselves.. But I am not sure if anyone, in the history of science has noticed this, I have searched and searched in libraries " rare book section" online and etc and have had no results, so from what I know I am the only one whom has noticed this.. It would be very embarrassing, had someone in the past did this, and I took some credit for their finds... This is why I am very careful with what I claim to be mine and mine only especially dealing with science.. However, I have read that human perception " color " cannot see, say yellow and blue together " or something like that" as one solid color, because we as humans propagate light beams out of our eyes or something to that nature, I know it sounds crazy, I will try to find the link,,,I don't really remember it and it bothers me not to have the link. Anyone here read, heard about this?? ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please keep new and odd notions to the Speculations Forum. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 we as humans propagate light beams out of our eyes or something to that nature No. Nothing of that nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Your threads are such chaotic (f.e. post #10, #14). You can't talk about one subject at a time. Do you have ADHD? When scientists are making experiment, we are trying to reduce influence of other forces to null, and calculate thing that we're interested in at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 Here are two alternative responses. Please select the one that you find most satisfactory: Response A There is no match at all: 1. If your speculation is based on observation, then it is observation you have misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misapplied. 2. Your suggestion, while not directly conflicting with prior, thoroughly validated findings, does not seem to intersect with them in any meaningful way. 3. Your argument contains no logical sequence I can discern. 4. You have not attempted to define anything and your comments are wooly, vague and rambling. My suggestion was that you abandon this misguided topic and try something else. My apologies for not being clearer - I was trying to break the bad news gently. Response B Unfortunately I quite lack the intellectual capacity to follow your rigorous and insightful perspective on these matters. Thank you for the glimpse of paradise. Ayyyyyyy see, thanks Hymmm let me do a little more research, and I will take your advice more strongly, thanks Your threads are such chaotic (f.e. post #10, #14). You can't talk about one subject at a time. Do you have ADHD? When scientists are making experiment, we are trying to reduce influence of other forces to null, and calculate thing that we're interested in at the moment. ADHD?? Due to your rude words, I have asked to be banned.. I am a human being with emotions and don't need to tolerate this rude and cold behavior.. Yes, science is not for me because of this... I will now enjoy life, and leave the unknown alone.. As you can see, its all empty out there, so have fun... MODERATORS, I WILL NEVER AGAIN COME TO THIS FORUM..PLEASE BAN ME FROM THIS SITE.. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Due to your rude words, I have asked to be banned.. Oh for heavens sake, grow up. It was just a question. And hardly a rude one. It helps if people can understand the people they are conversing. In your case, you have a very chaotic and hard to follow way of conversing, throwing all sorts of random ideas together. It would be helpful to know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) I am sorry if you feel offended.. That was not mine intention. Somebody with ADHD can't concentrate on one subject for longer time. Edited July 12, 2014 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) I am sorry if you feel offended.. That was not mine intention. Somebody with ADHD can't concentrate on one subject for longer time. You should have already known this, if you " were reading this thread" I already stated that I am kind of retarded... how ironic wouldn't you say??? ADHD is off my OP by the way... ADHD is a point of view.Maybe the subject is bored whom knows. Some of the greater people had some form of mental disability the world just Loved to pick at... Einstein being one of them and a believer in god... Albert Einstein Interviewed about Dyslexia http://www.ghotit.com/2010/06/einstein-dyslexia/ I can't help it I am human and need to acknowledges my feelings at this time science is not for me because I don't know how to speak on their terminologies and it frustrates them. In turn emotions get hurt people think they are dumb, then we don't get anywhere in the world. The universe was not made over night think about that..Some areas need special care.. Thanks for the apology, it shows you are greater person than most.. That is a big step scientifically... Thanks everyone and have a great time with new discoveries. BUT! I have to admit, I did not notice you asked me if I knew how to derive pi ratio from planetary motion which I assume is f=ma.. Simply no I don't, I don't need to... Edited July 12, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts