Looking outside the square for one moment, this is renes mastermind of trickery, the real meaning of the square and the circle is his very own philosophy of thinking, a circle may not be a circle, it could be a square, a subliminal message to creationists, hence jws piano music, it's suppose to a form of art nothing less, depicting renes own inner demons.
I personally believe gaddy because a circle has a different circumference in different forms and dimensions. Imagine a seventh dimensional curve. Alot different than from on paper.
Seriously I am really confused about what you think you have shown here. You certainly have not "squared the circle in a finite number of steps". What is the claim behind this other than the demonstrably incorrect implication that the areas equal?
Its a scam made by someone who doesn't understand Geometry and intended to be shown to those who do not understand Geometry. In fact, that lame Ralph Rene website is selling this bogus paper for $14.. go figure..
Um...that is all fine and good...and your math is correct....However, the Areas are NOT the same. This is a completely invalid and incorrect assertion.
*facepalm* Are you really this retarded? The areas are obviously NOT equal dipshit. It's quite obvious. Take a freaking geometry course. A HIGH SCHOOL geometry course would suffice. Hell, a middle school teacher could tell you that this method is a bunch of bullshit.
That's not to square a circle Demonstration: Square Area: SQRT(2)+SQRT(3) = 3.1462... Circle Area: Pi =3.1415... They are different, this shows that is not square, also is a bad approximation. And it was to be expected as there is a sampling theorem that it is impossible to do this with methods of classical geometry. Bye ;)
A very beautiful and elegant way of squaring the circle, well done. What a lot of people posting fail to realise is that this is not how Pi is calculated but a way of approximating using drawing tools. Of course it will always be an approximation as circles, straight lines and squares do not exist! they are purely representations of mathematical principles. Pi is nowdays commonly worked out using huge numbers of segments set together, to create rectangles! Hope this helps any confusion.
Well I've decided to work on finding the actual circumference of a circle from within the circle, and a friend after I had told them about my desire, told me about this video, it holds merit but wouldn't it be possible to find the trigonometric circumference from within the circle alone, this video might lead to an easier dissertation.
@donesean Read my comment further below about pi being proven to be a transcendental number. Transcendental numbers can not be constructed using geometry and trigonometry.
Hey, I've got a proof that pi equals 1. Draw a circle with radius 1. Then construct a square using that radius as one side. Voila! The square and circle have the same area, yet the square's area is obviously 1, so pi must be 1 as well! That's basically what Gaddy did: he constructed a square with approximately (but not exactly) the same area as the circle, then used the false claim of equal area to establish his new value for pi.
So because the rocks from 10m below the surface of the moon differ from those collected on the surface by the Astronauts, it some how proves a hoax??
I think you would find a similar discrpancy in rocks types here on Earth, if you compared surface rocks with rocks collected 10 m below the surface. Does that mean we are all living on a hoax earth?
If the rocks 10m below the surface matched the rocks and dust found on the surface, then that would be a huge anomaly and would go a long ways towards proving a hoax, since the rocks and dust on the surface has undergone 4 billion years of bombardment by micro meteorites. Those micro meteorites cause contamination of the surface materials due to the inherently different makeup of the micrometeorites.
Because all points which can be constructed using a compass and straightedge (not just some points, but ALL points) are constructable numbers. This makes it impossible to square the circle since it already has been proven that pi is a transcendental number, meaning that pi is NOT constructable. This makes all attempts to derive pi by squaring the circle doomed to failure.
I am not following you man. PI was never weird or strange to me when I knew her. Nor its derivation. This is not how it was derived. I saw it once but can't remember at the moment; it is to do with the circe and sine and cosine and it was far far far far more simple than this. This is ridiculous. I think someone is having a joke.
You are right. The video is not how pi is derived since pi can not be precisely derived through any type of constructional means. Check Wikipedia's entry for pi. They show a couple of mathematical ways to derive the value of pi.
Squaring the circle: This was a problem proposed by the ancient geometers. It was proven by Ferdinand von Lindemann in 1882 that π is transcendental, and consequently this figure cannot be constructed in a finite number of steps with an idealized compass and straightedge. A mathematical proof is just that -- a proof. Mathematical proofs stand by themselves and need no further explanation.
Anyone who "thinks" that they have derived pi by construction means is in error.
What does pi mean? Pi is simply the ratio of the circumference of a circle versus its diameter. Pi doesn't mean anything more than that.
If you can prove that pi can be constructed, then you will prove thousands of mathematicians wrong, and prove wrong the inherent proof that pi can not be constructed by physical means. Remember, any physical means of constructing pi must be accurate to at least one trillion digits since the value of pi has been calculated to over one trillion digits.
well done, Plaid, looking it up on wiki. so your statement that Pi cannot be figured by construction is total pile of rubbish then, isn't it?
All you have to do is make a circle in sand, take a showlace, use it for radius and then lay on the circumference and just simply count how many times you do it. it's #1 lesson in geometry. your claims about the impossibility of construction are loonybin -- as your moon stuff. Wonder why you disseminate so much garbage?
@GoneToPlaid Ok You take a room and you take a step towards the wall you half that step every step further what's the difference if it is a square room or a circle I think your all confused about this video, my math skills aren't that good but I still believe gaddi was right
In 1768 Johann Lambert proved that pi is an irrational number which can't be written as the ratio of any two integers. In 1882 Ferdinand von Lindemann proved that pi also is also a transcendental number, meaning that there is no polynomial function which has rational coefficients of which pi is a root. The fact that pi is a transcendental number also means that it is impossible to construct pi, and this also means that it is impossible to square the circle to derive pi. Why? ...
I dont think that is how pi was derived. Squaring the circle would have both shared the common centre of the circle. This is just a silly variation of it, because I dont see how you can varify from that model if the square has same area as the circle. Correct me if I am wrong.
Exactly. It is impossible to verify in this construction that the square has the same area as the circle. In short, this construction is merely just fun with lines, arcs and circles.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That was very enjoyable Jarrah. I have always considered pi to be very slightly inaccurate yet very close to preciseness. I also feel that Avogadro's number is close to precise yet still slightly inaccurate; along with Y to the zero being equal to 1. Y times itself zero times would equal itself or zero; would it not; anybody out there?
Has anyone noticed the lack of the usual suspects here. Three theories:
(a) They are scared about dipping their toe in the water.
(b) This is above and beyond them.
(c) This is not Apollo, so they cannot feed their hate frenzy while sat in front of their PC naked, masturbating over pictures of Bart Sibrel while playing death metal in the background.
Well Fractal, I was anxious to know about the latest 'Pi-developments' and was searching YT for videos like this one. Yes, I noticed the lack also. And really laughed about your ABC....
This reminds me of the time, as I was just entering college, when I was dumb enough to attempt the trisecting of an angle Of course, I found a way in pretty short order, which soon proved to be an approximation that worked only for acute angles What an idiot
Listen JW; you need to start taking math classes, at least until you see why it is a fool's waste of time to meddle with this sort of thing. While you're at it, two general physics classes would show the waste of time it is meddle w/ Rene
I can understand how Rene and JW and his entourage might believe this is a good proof. They're semi-educated amateurs with an egotistical agenda.
But I don't understand how a real mathematician could be unaware that it was PROVEN impossible by the L-W Theorem in 1882. (I looked it up.) Gaddy must have been a "mathematician" like Rene was an "physicist."
I'm no math expert, but I know this is bunk. You *real* math experts must find it VERY annoying.
'I'm no math expert, but I now this is bunk. You*real* mat experts must find it VERY annoying.'
Yup. If one could square the circle with a straight edge and compass only, then it implies there is a polynomial with rational coefficients for which p is a solution(s). The L-W theorem shows that this is not possible for transcendental numbers. Pi is transcendental.
Who remembers how to construct a pentagon? It looked good but was only an approximation. There was no geometrically logical process. Same here. This proof would have to show an unbroken chain of logic which PROVES that the area of the square = the area of the circle. It's just lines and circles which, after enough playing around, get two nearly equal areas.
I can't believe a real mathematician actually proposed this value without demonstrating the necessary rigor. What an ego!
Hmm, well if Pi has been wrong, then we can go ahead and assume the ALL trigonometry and rocket science is wrong. Funny how people will actually believe this person when he preaches that we never landed on the moon.
Excellent work, Jarrah! And some of the comments show the intellect of the average American these days! No thought, and no challenge.... Damn, no wonder America is falling to pieces.
NTS. Some of the comments sow the intellect of the average American. Please tell us all why the area of the circle equals that of the square. Have you not heard of a transcendental number? Typical JW groupie. Agree no matter how stupid and absurd your statement is. I'm waiting for Jarrah to explain this too.
You *would* think that was excellent work. It wasn't his work, anyway.
There is no progression of logical demonstration showing equal areas. Didn't ANY of you HBs take geometry? People have come up with all sorts of elaborate constructions for trisecting an angle, too, but they are just approximations. They look good but they are wrong.
This must be based on an unbroken chain of proofs, using axioms and theorems. This process fails to do that.
so Pi is ment to have a different value than what it is currently if thats the case then how did the pyramids get built then just look up the pyramids of giza and the math at the base of the pyramids.
"They then found the square roots of 2 and 3, which is 1.4142 and 1.7320 respectively. They added the two together and got a sum of 3.1462. That became the value of the Hamitic Ethiopian/Egyptian Pi. There is only a difference of .0046, which is effectively no difference at all in large measurements like the height of the Great Pyramid, or the circumference of the circle outside its square base, or the one inside its square base."
See guillaumedock's reply. Rene (and Gaddy) did not understand what was meant by a transcendental number.
SMO and Apollotls are correct. How can Gaddy reason that the two areas are equal?
However, in fairness JW, this is an interesting video. Very interesting. It's one of those mathematical oddities. For example, where 1+ 1 can be shown to be equal to 0 by algebra. Until you realise the proof relies on you diving by 0.
I thought you were going to perform your own research into pi though.
Very interesting stuff Jarrah, not your usual fare, and I'm surprised this is a subject you are interested in. I'll definitely look in to this because the whole concept of sqauring the circle has always been one of my favourite in geometry. Given the possible answer, I wonder how it would be confirmed, I mean how exactly would you know the two areas are equal?
Looking outside the square for one moment, this is renes mastermind of trickery, the real meaning of the square and the circle is his very own philosophy of thinking, a circle may not be a circle, it could be a square, a subliminal message to creationists, hence jws piano music, it's suppose to a form of art nothing less, depicting renes own inner demons.
PETE4REALITY 5 months ago
doesnt quantum mechanics imply that there is a "smallest space"?
if so, then you take a circle the size of the universe, and go to x decimal places, where it corresponds with the accuracy of this quantum space.
any more decimal places is irrelevant, since nothing will ever need to be more accurate?
wubs23 5 months ago
not the same...
If you want an easy square, draw a circle with radius = V(1/pi)
Fallschirmjaeger963 8 months ago
I personally believe gaddy because a circle has a different circumference in different forms and dimensions. Imagine a seventh dimensional curve. Alot different than from on paper.
donesean 11 months ago
I personally believe gaddy because a circle has a different circumference in different forms and dimensions.
donesean 11 months ago
w w w .flickr.com /photos /sacred_geometry /5497024890/
The idea is supposed to be with just a straight edge and compass. Fix this link and you'll see hows its really constructed.
8osiris 11 months ago
Seriously I am really confused about what you think you have shown here. You certainly have not "squared the circle in a finite number of steps". What is the claim behind this other than the demonstrably incorrect implication that the areas equal?
goobergel 1 year ago
@goobergel
Its a scam made by someone who doesn't understand Geometry and intended to be shown to those who do not understand Geometry. In fact, that lame Ralph Rene website is selling this bogus paper for $14.. go figure..
optikon2222 1 year ago
Um...that is all fine and good...and your math is correct....However, the Areas are NOT the same. This is a completely invalid and incorrect assertion.
goobergel 1 year ago
It's an approximation, only differing from pi by about 0.15%.
denelson83 1 year ago
@denelson83 0.15% is a lot.
Quilbo 10 months ago
Very nice but they STILL aren't equal ! (close but no cigar.)
mrwed96msn 1 year ago
bravo! bravo!!!!
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 year ago
*facepalm* Are you really this retarded? The areas are obviously NOT equal dipshit. It's quite obvious. Take a freaking geometry course. A HIGH SCHOOL geometry course would suffice. Hell, a middle school teacher could tell you that this method is a bunch of bullshit.
airman122469 1 year ago
Cibort 1 year ago
there is a much easir way
circle559 1 year ago
A very beautiful and elegant way of squaring the circle, well done. What a lot of people posting fail to realise is that this is not how Pi is calculated but a way of approximating using drawing tools. Of course it will always be an approximation as circles, straight lines and squares do not exist! they are purely representations of mathematical principles. Pi is nowdays commonly worked out using huge numbers of segments set together, to create rectangles! Hope this helps any confusion.
OMGYFRetards 1 year ago
Well I've decided to work on finding the actual circumference of a circle from within the circle, and a friend after I had told them about my desire, told me about this video, it holds merit but wouldn't it be possible to find the trigonometric circumference from within the circle alone, this video might lead to an easier dissertation.
donesean 1 year ago
@donesean Read my comment further below about pi being proven to be a transcendental number. Transcendental numbers can not be constructed using geometry and trigonometry.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
Comment removed
donesean 1 year ago
Hey, I've got a proof that pi equals 1. Draw a circle with radius 1. Then construct a square using that radius as one side. Voila! The square and circle have the same area, yet the square's area is obviously 1, so pi must be 1 as well! That's basically what Gaddy did: he constructed a square with approximately (but not exactly) the same area as the circle, then used the false claim of equal area to establish his new value for pi.
Barpoint212 2 years ago
@Barpoint212 A circle with Radius 1 has an Area of Pi! not 1! but well done for trying.
OMGYFRetards 1 year ago
So because the rocks from 10m below the surface of the moon differ from those collected on the surface by the Astronauts, it some how proves a hoax??
I think you would find a similar discrpancy in rocks types here on Earth, if you compared surface rocks with rocks collected 10 m below the surface. Does that mean we are all living on a hoax earth?
MrBillyBalfour 2 years ago
If the rocks 10m below the surface matched the rocks and dust found on the surface, then that would be a huge anomaly and would go a long ways towards proving a hoax, since the rocks and dust on the surface has undergone 4 billion years of bombardment by micro meteorites. Those micro meteorites cause contamination of the surface materials due to the inherently different makeup of the micrometeorites.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
You misread what I said.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Because all points which can be constructed using a compass and straightedge (not just some points, but ALL points) are constructable numbers. This makes it impossible to square the circle since it already has been proven that pi is a transcendental number, meaning that pi is NOT constructable. This makes all attempts to derive pi by squaring the circle doomed to failure.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Yeh but still, this is not the original derivation. That is all I am saying. Its not how they discovered PI.
Focoist911 2 years ago
I am not following you man. PI was never weird or strange to me when I knew her. Nor its derivation. This is not how it was derived. I saw it once but can't remember at the moment; it is to do with the circe and sine and cosine and it was far far far far more simple than this. This is ridiculous. I think someone is having a joke.
Focoist911 2 years ago
You are right. The video is not how pi is derived since pi can not be precisely derived through any type of constructional means. Check Wikipedia's entry for pi. They show a couple of mathematical ways to derive the value of pi.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Alright thanks. next time I remember how much I need PI will go look it up on Wiki.
But dont you think its incorrect to say that PI can not be derived?
Focoist911 2 years ago
It is incorrect to say that pi can be derived by purely constructive methods, whereas pi can indeed be derived by purely mathematical methods.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
goneToMars, you need to bugger off to hell. you have no clue, like typically all yanks, what you're driveling about.
pi CAN be derived and WAS purely from construction means. do you have any idea what pi is? do tell. you moron.
tubelogin1 2 years ago
Squaring the circle: This was a problem proposed by the ancient geometers. It was proven by Ferdinand von Lindemann in 1882 that π is transcendental, and consequently this figure cannot be constructed in a finite number of steps with an idealized compass and straightedge. A mathematical proof is just that -- a proof. Mathematical proofs stand by themselves and need no further explanation.
Anyone who "thinks" that they have derived pi by construction means is in error.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
never mind that tot. i asked you if you know what Pi is. not the number but what pi means. do you know?
you said pi cannot be constructed, which of course is wrong. but one thing at a time, what's pi mean?
tubelogin1 2 years ago
What does pi mean? Pi is simply the ratio of the circumference of a circle versus its diameter. Pi doesn't mean anything more than that.
If you can prove that pi can be constructed, then you will prove thousands of mathematicians wrong, and prove wrong the inherent proof that pi can not be constructed by physical means. Remember, any physical means of constructing pi must be accurate to at least one trillion digits since the value of pi has been calculated to over one trillion digits.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
well done, Plaid, looking it up on wiki. so your statement that Pi cannot be figured by construction is total pile of rubbish then, isn't it?
All you have to do is make a circle in sand, take a showlace, use it for radius and then lay on the circumference and just simply count how many times you do it. it's #1 lesson in geometry. your claims about the impossibility of construction are loonybin -- as your moon stuff. Wonder why you disseminate so much garbage?
tubelogin1 2 years ago
@GoneToPlaid Ok You take a room and you take a step towards the wall you half that step every step further what's the difference if it is a square room or a circle I think your all confused about this video, my math skills aren't that good but I still believe gaddi was right
donesean 1 year ago
@donesean Believe what you want. :-)
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
In 1768 Johann Lambert proved that pi is an irrational number which can't be written as the ratio of any two integers. In 1882 Ferdinand von Lindemann proved that pi also is also a transcendental number, meaning that there is no polynomial function which has rational coefficients of which pi is a root. The fact that pi is a transcendental number also means that it is impossible to construct pi, and this also means that it is impossible to square the circle to derive pi. Why? ...
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Whats wrong with an irrational number? I had an irrational mother and will probably have an irrational wife if I am lucky.
Focoist911 2 years ago
"I had an irrational mother and will probably have an irrational wife if I am lucky. "
That has to be one of the best one-liners that I have read in a long time. :-)
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
I dont think that is how pi was derived. Squaring the circle would have both shared the common centre of the circle. This is just a silly variation of it, because I dont see how you can varify from that model if the square has same area as the circle. Correct me if I am wrong.
Look at this derivation here
watch?v=LEVrmPOXxaE&feature=related
Focoist911 2 years ago
Exactly. It is impossible to verify in this construction that the square has the same area as the circle. In short, this construction is merely just fun with lines, arcs and circles.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Chopin, Prelude in E minor. Nice one to learn for beginners and sounds great.
Focoist911 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That was very enjoyable Jarrah. I have always considered pi to be very slightly inaccurate yet very close to preciseness. I also feel that Avogadro's number is close to precise yet still slightly inaccurate; along with Y to the zero being equal to 1. Y times itself zero times would equal itself or zero; would it not; anybody out there?
EGMAG 2 years ago
Has anyone noticed the lack of the usual suspects here. Three theories:
(a) They are scared about dipping their toe in the water.
(b) This is above and beyond them.
(c) This is not Apollo, so they cannot feed their hate frenzy while sat in front of their PC naked, masturbating over pictures of Bart Sibrel while playing death metal in the background.
Just a thought :)
FractalDimensions 2 years ago
Well Fractal, I was anxious to know about the latest 'Pi-developments' and was searching YT for videos like this one. Yes, I noticed the lack also. And really laughed about your ABC....
Rob260259 2 years ago 6
Comment removed
FractalDimensions 2 years ago
This reminds me of the time, as I was just entering college, when I was dumb enough to attempt the trisecting of an angle Of course, I found a way in pretty short order, which soon proved to be an approximation that worked only for acute angles What an idiot
Listen JW; you need to start taking math classes, at least until you see why it is a fool's waste of time to meddle with this sort of thing. While you're at it, two general physics classes would show the waste of time it is meddle w/ Rene
occhamite 2 years ago 2
Erm, trisecting an angle. I'm off to go an experiment doing that and show it can be done. LOL.
FractalDimensions 2 years ago
I can understand how Rene and JW and his entourage might believe this is a good proof. They're semi-educated amateurs with an egotistical agenda.
But I don't understand how a real mathematician could be unaware that it was PROVEN impossible by the L-W Theorem in 1882. (I looked it up.) Gaddy must have been a "mathematician" like Rene was an "physicist."
I'm no math expert, but I know this is bunk. You *real* math experts must find it VERY annoying.
cornodib 2 years ago 6
'I'm no math expert, but I now this is bunk. You*real* mat experts must find it VERY annoying.'
Yup. If one could square the circle with a straight edge and compass only, then it implies there is a polynomial with rational coefficients for which p is a solution(s). The L-W theorem shows that this is not possible for transcendental numbers. Pi is transcendental.
FractalDimensions 2 years ago
Who remembers how to construct a pentagon? It looked good but was only an approximation. There was no geometrically logical process. Same here. This proof would have to show an unbroken chain of logic which PROVES that the area of the square = the area of the circle. It's just lines and circles which, after enough playing around, get two nearly equal areas.
I can't believe a real mathematician actually proposed this value without demonstrating the necessary rigor. What an ego!
Like Rene.
cornodib 2 years ago 2
I did a little playing wit some field theory today and found the equation:
x^4−10x^2+1 has the root √2 +√3. Oh dear, that means it is algebraic.
FractalDimensions 2 years ago
Eh, JW. When are we going to see you experiments on pi then?
FractalDimensions 2 years ago
Great choice of music!
violentquaker 2 years ago 2
quote from website: "Plato (427-348 B.C.) supposedly obtained for his day a fairly accurate value for pi: √2 + √3 = 3.146"
adiohead 2 years ago
Hmm, well if Pi has been wrong, then we can go ahead and assume the ALL trigonometry and rocket science is wrong. Funny how people will actually believe this person when he preaches that we never landed on the moon.
cml950x 2 years ago
Jarrah, this is really quite bad. The equation to calculation is A = π * r² where r is the radius. Since r = 1, the area would be A = π², not π.
tehbertl 2 years ago
Teh-
no, the area would be (pi) r=1, r^2 =1, so (pi)*1=(pi)
More interesting, though, is why the square is thought to have the same area as the circle.
Even JW admits he doesn't know the logic behind it. The truth is, there is no logic behind it-as I said earlier its just a pretty picture.
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
Sorry, I completely messed up my calculations there. Thanks for the correction. That's what you get from trying to do simple maths at 3AM. :P
tehbertl 2 years ago
"The equation to calculation is A = π * r² where r is the radius. Since r = 1, the area would be A = π², not π. "
where did you learn trigonometry dude!!!
liquidus2172 2 years ago
Please read the comment I posted half a day ago, two hours that one.
tehbertl 2 years ago
NTS, perhaps you could explain how the video proves that the areas should be the same,then......
Come on, give us a giggle.
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
Excellent work, Jarrah! And some of the comments show the intellect of the average American these days! No thought, and no challenge.... Damn, no wonder America is falling to pieces.
northerntruthseeker 2 years ago
NTS. Some of the comments sow the intellect of the average American. Please tell us all why the area of the circle equals that of the square. Have you not heard of a transcendental number? Typical JW groupie. Agree no matter how stupid and absurd your statement is. I'm waiting for Jarrah to explain this too.
FractalDimensions 2 years ago
You *would* think that was excellent work. It wasn't his work, anyway.
There is no progression of logical demonstration showing equal areas. Didn't ANY of you HBs take geometry? People have come up with all sorts of elaborate constructions for trisecting an angle, too, but they are just approximations. They look good but they are wrong.
This must be based on an unbroken chain of proofs, using axioms and theorems. This process fails to do that.
Squaring the circle has been PROVEN impossible.
cornodib 2 years ago 4
If anyone can be bothered(I certainly can't) what is the result if the radius of the circle is (root 2)?
I can see no reason to expect the 2 areas to be equal.
and hey,
1^2=1,
0^2=0
Does that mean I;ve proved 1=0?
Excellent. Now as (infinity)^2 also equals (infinity), I've proved 0=1=(infinity)
Where do I collect my prize?
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago 2
so Pi is ment to have a different value than what it is currently if thats the case then how did the pyramids get built then just look up the pyramids of giza and the math at the base of the pyramids.
DARKUTEC 2 years ago 6
"They then found the square roots of 2 and 3, which is 1.4142 and 1.7320 respectively. They added the two together and got a sum of 3.1462. That became the value of the Hamitic Ethiopian/Egyptian Pi. There is only a difference of .0046, which is effectively no difference at all in large measurements like the height of the Great Pyramid, or the circumference of the circle outside its square base, or the one inside its square base."
adiohead 2 years ago
Where DID you find that quote??
"effectively no difference at all in large measurements" flies against reason-the greater the measurement, the further it will be off.
In fact, if geostationary satellites used Gaddy's pi, their orbits would be completely useless inside a month
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago 2
"Where DID you find that quote??"
1. copy the text
2. paste into google
3. hit search
you will find the page :)
adiohead 2 years ago
Found it.
Hardly a scientific text eh?
Clearly not written by a mathematician, or anyone with any mathematical knowledge whatsoever.
Do you agree that Gaddy's pi (aka Egyptian pi) is worthless in modern usage?
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
egyptian pi is gaddy's
adiohead 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nice video btw and enough to illict a decent response from some of your detractors here I see for a change.
I notice some maniac red neck just cannot help himself and has to sign off S/V if it wasn't obvious enough!!!!!!!
greenmagoos 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jarrah did Ralph ever say anything about high ranking freemasons on the phone when you were discussing Apollo.
I'd never picked up on his interest in geometry before.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
See guillaumedock's reply. Rene (and Gaddy) did not understand what was meant by a transcendental number.
SMO and Apollotls are correct. How can Gaddy reason that the two areas are equal?
However, in fairness JW, this is an interesting video. Very interesting. It's one of those mathematical oddities. For example, where 1+ 1 can be shown to be equal to 0 by algebra. Until you realise the proof relies on you diving by 0.
I thought you were going to perform your own research into pi though.
FractalDimensions 2 years ago 4
The more I think about this, the more I think it is a pretty picture, and nothing else.
I assume that JW can't tell me how long each side of the square is in decimal, so that I can draw it myself?
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago 2
Very interesting stuff Jarrah, not your usual fare, and I'm surprised this is a subject you are interested in. I'll definitely look in to this because the whole concept of sqauring the circle has always been one of my favourite in geometry. Given the possible answer, I wonder how it would be confirmed, I mean how exactly would you know the two areas are equal?
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago 10
Ralph René apparently doesn't know what a transcendental number is, but that doesn't imply that men walked on the moon.
Pi is close, but not equal to √2+√3.
guillaumedock 2 years ago 13
I don't understand.
You draw a circle somewhere, and then construct a square somewhere else.
By what reasoning is the area of the square equal to that of the circle?
apollotls 2 years ago 22
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'll keep tis vid.. Thanks Jarrah :D
hopefully it will taught me something more than Phi value
Sheilfalkyr 2 years ago