Phew=3.1716 (verified)

If the frame/square sides equals 8 meters (for 1 meter scale) and then you wanna make it the 8 m line to be a circumference, you can draw the corner diagonals with size of √2-1 or 0.41422. Drawing these lines means subtracting the 8 meters to be 8m - 4 x 0.41422 m = 6.3432 m. Phew will be half of 6.3432 >> 3.1716.

By experiment, existing pi is a little bit smaller, not to mention 3.125.

It is all started from "&". Its value equals 0.7929 m : 1 m.
And I found there is amazing order in calculation.

Here it is:

&=1-[½(√2-1)]=0.7929:1=79.29% >> = 0.7929 m of 1 m = ⅛C

C=&.¹F = &.8r
A=&.²F = &.4.r²
sA=&².²'F = &².6.d²= &².6(2r)²
sV=&².³F = A×&.d = &.d²×&.d = &.(2r)²×&.2r = &².(2r)³

In other words:

C=Πr           ][   Π (tahu)  = 6.3432 *
A=¶r²          ][   ¶  (phew) = 3.1716 **
sA=⊗¶r²      ][   ⊗ (ball) = 5.02984 ***
sV=&²(2r)³   ][  &² (dan square) = 0.6287 **** 

Note:

sA=spherical area
sV=spherical volume
F="frame", "cube" in which a circular/round object stays
¹F= 1st dimension frame, equals 8 m
²F=  2nd dimension frame, equals 4 m²
²'F= 2nd dimension spherical frame, equals 24 m²
³F= 3rd dimension spherical frame, equals 8 m³
(scale: r=1 m)

* constant circumference
** constant area
*** constant spherical area
**** constant spherical volume

***Debankers are welcome***

sA=⊗¶r²      ][   ⊗ (ball) = 4½ ***

Its 5.02984044 actually.

Four slimmer areas of 5.02984044 m^ each to build a perfect ball.

sA=3.1716m x 1.5859m : 4m^ x 3.1716 m^ x 4

What calculator says? 15.95264 m^ ? (I hope so, but beware of failed calculators)

Is your phew meant to be a replacement for pi?
If so, it is still wrong.

If the frame/square sides equals 8 meters (for 1 meter scale) and then you wanna make it the 8 m line to be a circumference, you can draw the corner diagonals with size of √2-1 or 0.41422.

How would this help you at all?
Drawing in those corner diagonals are not going to help you draw the circumference.

***Debankers are welcome***

What are we meant to be denbanking?  The value of "Phew"?  I suspect Phew can be whatever value you assign to it...so, good work?

Is your phew meant to be a replacement for pi?
If so, it is still wrong.

Quote from: Danang on November 15, 2017, 06:58:36 PM

If the frame/square sides equals 8 meters (for 1 meter scale) and then you wanna make it the 8 m line to be a circumference, you can draw the corner diagonals with size of √2-1 or 0.41422.

How would this help you at all?
Drawing in those corner diagonals are not going to help you draw the circumference.

"Nothing will dissapear"

4 times 0.41422 will be compensated with subtraction of 8 m.

Quote from: Danang on November 15, 2017, 07:22:30 PM

***Debankers are welcome***

What are we meant to be denbanking?  The value of "Phew"?  I suspect Phew can be whatever value you assign to it...so, good work?

3.1716 is the best answer for problems in experiment & analysis. Either on size of circumference or size of area.

By diagonal path, by projection at X and Y coordinates: 1 m equals ½√2 m accompanied with 0.2929 m. Then ½√2 m × ½√2 m + 0.2929 m × 1 m OR ½√2 m × 1 m + 0.2929 m × 0.2929 m, both are equals 0.7929 m².
0.7929 m : 1 m will apply for further calculations.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 16, 2017, 02:09:10 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 15, 2017, 07:22:30 PM

***Debankers are welcome***

What are we meant to be denbanking?  The value of "Phew"?  I suspect Phew can be whatever value you assign to it...so, good work?

3.1716 is the best answer for problems in experiment & analysis. Either on size of circumference or size of area.

By diagonal path, by projection at X and Y coordinates: 1 m equals ½√2 m accompanied with 0.2929 m. Then ½√2 m × ½√2 m + 0.2929 m × 1 m OR ½√2 m × 1 m + 0.2929 m × 0.2929 m, both are equals 0.7929 m².
0.7929 m : 1 m will apply for further calculations.

Why not just use 3.14159?  What's wrong with it?

Edit: I have a 6 inch circular sliderule.  I rolled it along a straight line one revolution, marked and measured the length, and divided that length by 6.  The ratio I got was 3.1416 so either you're wrong or reality is wrong...I think I'll go with reality but maybe that's just me.

"Nothing will dissapear"

4 times 0.41422 will be compensated with subtraction of 8 m.

Again, this makes no sense at all. Try drawing what you are trying to do.
See if your nonsense matches a circle at all.

3.1716 is the best answer for problems in experiment & analysis. Either on size of circumference or size of area.

No it isn't. The already widely accepted value of pi is vastly superior.

By diagonal path

A diagonal path is not part of a circle. As such, the rest of this is useless.

Mr. Danang,

What is the area of a square, in square inches, of a square 1" on each side?

Mr. Danang,

What is the area of a square, in square inches, of a square 1" on each side?

Is "1 inch square" right or wrong?

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 02:34:36 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 16, 2017, 02:09:10 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 15, 2017, 07:22:30 PM

***Debankers are welcome***

What are we meant to be denbanking?  The value of "Phew"?  I suspect Phew can be whatever value you assign to it...so, good work?

3.1716 is the best answer for problems in experiment & analysis. Either on size of circumference or size of area.

By diagonal path, by projection at X and Y coordinates: 1 m equals ½√2 m accompanied with 0.2929 m. Then ½√2 m × ½√2 m + 0.2929 m × 1 m OR ½√2 m × 1 m + 0.2929 m × 0.2929 m, both are equals 0.7929 m².
0.7929 m : 1 m will apply for further calculations.

Why not just use 3.14159?  What's wrong with it?

Edit: I have a 6 inch circular sliderule.  I rolled it along a straight line one revolution, marked and measured the length, and divided that length by 6.  The ratio I got was 3.1416 so either you're wrong or reality is wrong...I think I'll go with reality but maybe that's just me.

The crucial factor of experiment on circumference is, the object itself.
I think CD is good enough to try. It has a perfect circle. I never found a circular sliderule with perfect circle.

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 02:19:35 AM

"Nothing will dissapear"

4 times 0.41422 will be compensated with subtraction of 8 m.

Again, this makes no sense at all. Try drawing what you are trying to do.
See if your nonsense matches a circle at all.

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 02:34:36 AM

3.1716 is the best answer for problems in experiment & analysis. Either on size of circumference or size of area.

No it isn't. The already widely accepted value of pi is vastly superior.

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 02:34:36 AM

By diagonal path

A diagonal path is not part of a circle. As such, the rest of this is useless.

1. Perhaps the language should be change: "Press the 4 corners by 0.4142 m each, then the 8 m will be 6.3432 m.
2. Even you said your pi experiment came to around 3.13. Which one do you hold?
3. Diagonal can be a tool to figure out its projection in coordinates X & Y. In short, The structure 0.5 + 0.2929 equals ratio between circular object with its frame. AND 0.5 : 0.2929 equals ratio between the "square" area of circumference (or "triangle" area if viewed on a quarter frame) WITH its "umbrella" or "curve" area.
The comparison will be various depending on the scope of analysis: 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, or 1 frame. It can be 0.5:0.2929, 1:05858, 2:1.716 etc. The latter represent area of circumference with r=1 m >> A = 2 m^+1.1716 m^ = 3.1716 m^

I think.... there is a little thing to be corrected.... I knew it from beginning.... What's that? Let's see...

Or did you guys already find it? 

square peg, round hole?

square peg, round hole?

There should be "&" (dan) scale then .
1 & = 0.7929 m. C=8 dan, A=4 dan². It can also be translated into inch

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 16, 2017, 03:17:21 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 02:34:36 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 16, 2017, 02:09:10 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 15, 2017, 07:22:30 PM

***Debankers are welcome***

What are we meant to be denbanking?  The value of "Phew"?  I suspect Phew can be whatever value you assign to it...so, good work?

3.1716 is the best answer for problems in experiment & analysis. Either on size of circumference or size of area.

By diagonal path, by projection at X and Y coordinates: 1 m equals ½√2 m accompanied with 0.2929 m. Then ½√2 m × ½√2 m + 0.2929 m × 1 m OR ½√2 m × 1 m + 0.2929 m × 0.2929 m, both are equals 0.7929 m².
0.7929 m : 1 m will apply for further calculations.

Why not just use 3.14159?  What's wrong with it?

Edit: I have a 6 inch circular sliderule.  I rolled it along a straight line one revolution, marked and measured the length, and divided that length by 6.  The ratio I got was 3.1416 so either you're wrong or reality is wrong...I think I'll go with reality but maybe that's just me.

The crucial factor of experiment on circumference is, the object itself.
I think CD is good enough to try. It has a perfect circle. I never found a circular sliderule with perfect circle.

I don't know what kind of cheap-ass sliderule you looked at but ok...I also tried this with a CDs, a DVD, and three elements I removed from an old camera lens (they make great magnifiers).  Every time it comes out to ≈3.141.

BTW, I just took 17 measurements on my slide rule and they were all six inches.  However, when I get home tonight I'll make some measurements with a micrometer lenses and see what I get.  However it works out, it's still more accurate than what you're doing...whatever that is.

Mike

1. Perhaps the language should be change: "Press the 4 corners by 0.4142 m each, then the 8 m will be 6.3432 m.

No, 8 m will still be 8 m.

2. Even you said your pi experiment came to around 3.13. Which one do you hold?

I hold to the officially accepted one.
My experiment had known limitations based upon random number generation.

3. Diagonal can be a tool to figure out its projection in coordinates X & Y. In short, The structure 0.5 + 0.2929 equals ratio between circular object with its frame.

No it doesn't.
You need to do more than just assert crap. You need to prove it/show it.

The WHOLE WORLD has been using a SINGLE CONSTANT to manufacture circular objects for thousands of years without Pi being found wrong.  Literally billions upon billions of circular objects.  Circular lenses for cameras, microscopes, and telescopes.  Ball bearings in the trillions or more.  Tubes and pipes.  Cylindrical containers of all sizes, from medicine to V8 cans to oil drums to tanker trucks to rockets.  All of them designed and manufactured using calculations based on Pi, not “dans” and “phews”.  If Pi is wrong then we’ve been calculating the volume of all these things wrong the whole time.  And if your values were right (they’re not) then we’ve been getting and artificially low value.  Take but one example: oil drums.  Do you really think every oil drum ever sold has had a little more oil in it than it was calculated to have, but Big Oil has never noticed?!?!  You have to see how preposterous that is.

Step back from the...math?....for a second and ask yourself how the entire world could have missed this.  In fact, any time one “discovers” something the whole world has “missed” (my favorite example of this) one should take a really hard look at it to ask “is it ACTUALLY possible that everyone, everywhere, forever, has this wrong, or is it more likely that I, me, one person, made a mistake?”

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 07:07:12 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 16, 2017, 03:17:21 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 02:34:36 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 16, 2017, 02:09:10 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 15, 2017, 07:22:30 PM

***Debankers are welcome***

What are we meant to be denbanking?  The value of "Phew"?  I suspect Phew can be whatever value you assign to it...so, good work?

3.1716 is the best answer for problems in experiment & analysis. Either on size of circumference or size of area.

By diagonal path, by projection at X and Y coordinates: 1 m equals ½√2 m accompanied with 0.2929 m. Then ½√2 m × ½√2 m + 0.2929 m × 1 m OR ½√2 m × 1 m + 0.2929 m × 0.2929 m, both are equals 0.7929 m².
0.7929 m : 1 m will apply for further calculations.

Why not just use 3.14159?  What's wrong with it?

Edit: I have a 6 inch circular sliderule.  I rolled it along a straight line one revolution, marked and measured the length, and divided that length by 6.  The ratio I got was 3.1416 so either you're wrong or reality is wrong...I think I'll go with reality but maybe that's just me.

The crucial factor of experiment on circumference is, the object itself.
I think CD is good enough to try. It has a perfect circle. I never found a circular sliderule with perfect circle.

I don't know what kind of cheap-ass sliderule you looked at but ok...I also tried this with a CDs, a DVD, and three elements I removed from an old camera lens (they make great magnifiers).  Every time it comes out to ≈3.141.

BTW, I just took 17 measurements on my slide rule and they were all six inches.  However, when I get home tonight I'll make some measurements with a micrometer lenses and see what I get.  However it works out, it's still more accurate than what you're doing...whatever that is.

Mike

I let the audience decide whether pi = 3.1415 or 3.1716.

Anyway, the existing pi has no definite formula, only "approximation".

Is this way scientific or what??

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 07:36:37 PM

1. Perhaps the language should be change: "Press the 4 corners by 0.4142 m each, then the 8 m will be 6.3432 m.

No, 8 m will still be 8 m.

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 07:36:37 PM

2. Even you said your pi experiment came to around 3.13. Which one do you hold?

I hold to the officially accepted one.
My experiment had known limitations based upon random number generation.

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 07:36:37 PM

3. Diagonal can be a tool to figure out its projection in coordinates X & Y. In short, The structure 0.5 + 0.2929 equals ratio between circular object with its frame.

No it doesn't.
You need to do more than just assert crap. You need to prove it/show it.

Why did you believe other people opinion more than your own experiment?

Is it the way science work?

The WHOLE WORLD has been using a SINGLE CONSTANT to manufacture circular objects for thousands of years without Pi being found wrong.  Literally billions upon billions of circular objects.  Circular lenses for cameras, microscopes, and telescopes.  Ball bearings in the trillions or more.  Tubes and pipes.  Cylindrical containers of all sizes, from medicine to V8 cans to oil drums to tanker trucks to rockets.  All of them designed and manufactured using calculations based on Pi, not “dans” and “phews”.  If Pi is wrong then we’ve been calculating the volume of all these things wrong the whole time.  And if your values were right (they’re not) then we’ve been getting and artificially low value.  Take but one example: oil drums.  Do you really think every oil drum ever sold has had a little more oil in it than it was calculated to have, but Big Oil has never noticed?!?!  You have to see how preposterous that is.

Step back from the...math?....for a second and ask yourself how the entire world could have missed this.  In fact, any time one “discovers” something the whole world has “missed” (my favorite example of this) one should take a really hard look at it to ask “is it ACTUALLY possible that everyone, everywhere, forever, has this wrong, or is it more likely that I, me, one person, made a mistake?”

And some millenia ago THE WHOLE WORLD also used to believe pi=3.

Show me your math calculation, if any. I'll be listening.

To make a circle image, the best way is by doing manually by using a compass.

The area consicts of a). triangular part (0.7071m × 0.7071 m = ½ m² or 1m² devided by diagonal=½ m²) ; b. 1 m ×0.2929 m = 0.2929m².

Devide it into ⅛ scale (of area 2×2) it will become ½×0.2929.
Move a field of this ½×0.2929 part whose position is outside the ⅛ circumference. Move it to vacant area of the ⅛ circumference.

You can do the same way for area 0.7071 m × 1 m with 0.2929 m × 0.2929 m

That's all.

And some millenia ago THE WHOLE WORLD also used to believe pi=3.

Resorting to outright lies doesn't help your case.  The world never believed pi to be 3.  There have been aberrant groups who occasionally used the value of 3, but it never caught on.  You know why it never caught on?  Because the real world doesn't conform to pi=3

Show me your math calculation, if any. I'll be listening.

Pi has been shown to be an irrational number and shown to be a transcendental number, which means there is no direct calculation that will give you an exact value.  However, one can measure the diameter and the circumference of round objects in one's possession and quickly prove that your value is not correct.  I recommend you go do that.  Surely you have a bicycle wheel or a trash can lid or a soda can nearby?

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 17, 2017, 03:24:56 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 07:07:12 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 16, 2017, 03:17:21 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 02:34:36 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 16, 2017, 02:09:10 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 15, 2017, 07:22:30 PM

***Debankers are welcome***

What are we meant to be denbanking?  The value of "Phew"?  I suspect Phew can be whatever value you assign to it...so, good work?

3.1716 is the best answer for problems in experiment & analysis. Either on size of circumference or size of area.

By diagonal path, by projection at X and Y coordinates: 1 m equals ½√2 m accompanied with 0.2929 m. Then ½√2 m × ½√2 m + 0.2929 m × 1 m OR ½√2 m × 1 m + 0.2929 m × 0.2929 m, both are equals 0.7929 m².
0.7929 m : 1 m will apply for further calculations.

Why not just use 3.14159?  What's wrong with it?

Edit: I have a 6 inch circular sliderule.  I rolled it along a straight line one revolution, marked and measured the length, and divided that length by 6.  The ratio I got was 3.1416 so either you're wrong or reality is wrong...I think I'll go with reality but maybe that's just me.

The crucial factor of experiment on circumference is, the object itself.
I think CD is good enough to try. It has a perfect circle. I never found a circular sliderule with perfect circle.

I don't know what kind of cheap-ass sliderule you looked at but ok...I also tried this with a CDs, a DVD, and three elements I removed from an old camera lens (they make great magnifiers).  Every time it comes out to ≈3.141.

BTW, I just took 17 measurements on my slide rule and they were all six inches.  However, when I get home tonight I'll make some measurements with a micrometer lenses and see what I get.  However it works out, it's still more accurate than what you're doing...whatever that is.

Mike

I let the audience decide whether pi = 3.1415 or 3.1716.

Anyway, the existing pi has no definite formula, only "approximation".

Is this way scientific or what??

How accurate would you like the value, see http://www.piday.org/million/

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 17, 2017, 03:24:56 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 07:07:12 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 16, 2017, 03:17:21 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 02:34:36 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 16, 2017, 02:09:10 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 15, 2017, 07:22:30 PM

***Debankers are welcome***

What are we meant to be denbanking?  The value of "Phew"?  I suspect Phew can be whatever value you assign to it...so, good work?

3.1716 is the best answer for problems in experiment & analysis. Either on size of circumference or size of area.

By diagonal path, by projection at X and Y coordinates: 1 m equals ½√2 m accompanied with 0.2929 m. Then ½√2 m × ½√2 m + 0.2929 m × 1 m OR ½√2 m × 1 m + 0.2929 m × 0.2929 m, both are equals 0.7929 m².
0.7929 m : 1 m will apply for further calculations.

Why not just use 3.14159?  What's wrong with it?

Edit: I have a 6 inch circular sliderule.  I rolled it along a straight line one revolution, marked and measured the length, and divided that length by 6.  The ratio I got was 3.1416 so either you're wrong or reality is wrong...I think I'll go with reality but maybe that's just me.

The crucial factor of experiment on circumference is, the object itself.
I think CD is good enough to try. It has a perfect circle. I never found a circular sliderule with perfect circle.

I don't know what kind of cheap-ass sliderule you looked at but ok...I also tried this with a CDs, a DVD, and three elements I removed from an old camera lens (they make great magnifiers).  Every time it comes out to ≈3.141.

BTW, I just took 17 measurements on my slide rule and they were all six inches.  However, when I get home tonight I'll make some measurements with a micrometer lenses and see what I get.  However it works out, it's still more accurate than what you're doing...whatever that is.

Mike

I let the audience decide whether pi = 3.1415 or 3.1716.

Anyway, the existing pi has no definite formula, only "approximation".

Is this way scientific or what??

There is no decision to be made because we already know what pi is. 

You cannot back calculate pi from the formulas for circular/spherical things.  Those formulas were derived based on the currently accepted value of pi so if you're doing it correctly you should get 3.14159...

Mike

Anyway, the existing pi has no definite formula, only "approximation".

Is this way scientific or what??

Yes.
That is because pi is irrational. Any attempt at a simple formula like yours is only a weak approximation.

There are 2 methods which can be used, one is to simply measure it, which is what the early approximations were.
Another is to find 2 formulas which approximates it, one of which always produces a result which is over and one of which always produces a result which is under.
Then keep using them and any digits which agree are correct, until the first disagreement.

Why did you believe other people opinion more than your own experiment?

Is it the way science work?

Because they have more accurate means of determining it.
Yes, this is how science works.
Science doesn't work by just ignoring what other people have.

I have never done an experiment which contradicts the accepted value of pi.
The closest I have come is an experiment with large error.

What would be completely unscientific is rejecting all of that to replace it with some value which you cannot justify at all.

And some millenia ago THE WHOLE WORLD also used to believe pi=3.

Prove it.

Show me your math calculation, if any. I'll be listening.

Showing it isn't three was done some time ago.

The shortest distance between any 2 points is a straight line.
Thus a circular arc will be a longer distance.

Consider a regular hexagon with diagonal 2.
This can be inscribed inside a circle such that the corners touch the circle. Thus its radius will be 1, and its circumference will be 2*pi, which will be larger than the perimeter of the hexagon.

The hexagon is made up of 6 equilateral triangles with side length 1.
Each triangle has 1 side contribute to the perimeter of the hexagon.
Thus the perimeter of the hexagon will be 6*1=6.
Thus 2*pi>6.
Thus pi>3.

This can also be more general where the diagonal is 2*r, thus the side length of the triangle is r, thus the perimeter is 6*r, and the circumference of the circle is 2*pi*r.
Thus 2*pi*r>6*r. Thus pi>3.

Thus pi cannot be 3, it must be larger.

You can do this with other shapes and also include shapes the circle is inscribed in to get a better approximation.

To make a circle image, the best way is by doing manually by using a compass.
The area consicts of a). triangular part (0.7071m × 0.7071 m = ½ m² or 1m² devided by diagonal=½ m²) ; b. 1 m ×0.2929 m = 0.2929m².

What is b meant to be?
The simplest way is a triangle in the middle, and then 3 circular segments.
Unless you can calculate the area of that segment, you can just get an approximation.

Quote from: Danang on November 18, 2017, 10:26:25 AM

And some millenia ago THE WHOLE WORLD also used to believe pi=3.

Resorting to outright lies doesn't help your case.  The world never believed pi to be 3.  There have been aberrant groups who occasionally used the value of 3, but it never caught on.  You know why it never caught on?  Because the real world doesn't conform to pi=3

Quote from: Danang on November 18, 2017, 10:26:25 AM

Show me your math calculation, if any. I'll be listening.

Pi has been shown to be an irrational number and shown to be a transcendental number, which means there is no direct calculation that will give you an exact value.  However, one can measure the diameter and the circumference of round objects in one's possession and quickly prove that your value is not correct.  I recommend you go do that.  Surely you have a bicycle wheel or a trash can lid or a soda can nearby?

1. Ancient Babylonians used pi=3 for area. https://www.exploratorium.edu/pi/history-of-pi
2. Do you think (1⁄2√2)² + (1-1⁄2√2) = 0.79289321881+ bla bla bla (times 4) NOT transcendent?? By the way so many fractions are transcendent.
3. Of course all computers have a built-in pi=3.1415 AND my experiment is for time being enough with a Disc, which made/cut by compass principal.
By marking the disc with paint, and run it on a white towel it showed approximately C=38 cm. the real calculation by formula says: 38.058874503. It is clearly different from what currently two other versions: 3.1415 & 3.2 make C.
My conviction is based on two supporting thing: calculation & experiment. Without preceding calculation/formula, I might see 3.1716 as just a regular number while measuring pi, as other numbers that might be incorrect.
Again, I ask you Math, not Approximation.

Quote from: Danang on November 18, 2017, 10:18:44 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 17, 2017, 03:24:56 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 07:07:12 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 16, 2017, 03:17:21 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 16, 2017, 02:34:36 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 16, 2017, 02:09:10 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 15, 2017, 07:22:30 PM

***Debankers are welcome***

What are we meant to be denbanking?  The value of "Phew"?  I suspect Phew can be whatever value you assign to it...so, good work?

3.1716 is the best answer for problems in experiment & analysis. Either on size of circumference or size of area.

By diagonal path, by projection at X and Y coordinates: 1 m equals ½√2 m accompanied with 0.2929 m. Then ½√2 m × ½√2 m + 0.2929 m × 1 m OR ½√2 m × 1 m + 0.2929 m × 0.2929 m, both are equals 0.7929 m².
0.7929 m : 1 m will apply for further calculations.

Why not just use 3.14159?  What's wrong with it?

Edit: I have a 6 inch circular sliderule.  I rolled it along a straight line one revolution, marked and measured the length, and divided that length by 6.  The ratio I got was 3.1416 so either you're wrong or reality is wrong...I think I'll go with reality but maybe that's just me.

The crucial factor of experiment on circumference is, the object itself.
I think CD is good enough to try. It has a perfect circle. I never found a circular sliderule with perfect circle.

I don't know what kind of cheap-ass sliderule you looked at but ok...I also tried this with a CDs, a DVD, and three elements I removed from an old camera lens (they make great magnifiers).  Every time it comes out to ≈3.141.

BTW, I just took 17 measurements on my slide rule and they were all six inches.  However, when I get home tonight I'll make some measurements with a micrometer lenses and see what I get.  However it works out, it's still more accurate than what you're doing...whatever that is.

Mike

I let the audience decide whether pi = 3.1415 or 3.1716.

Anyway, the existing pi has no definite formula, only "approximation".

Is this way scientific or what??

How accurate would you like the value, see http://www.piday.org/million/

Have you proved their claim that the decimal are that big?
BUT, that is not the case.
EXPERIMENT is above such claimed pi. Moreover, if the experiment is supported by calculation, not "approximation".
Here is another calculation based on clue numbers on a circumference:
Imagine, within: 1/4 frame, (r=1) there are three growing lines, i.e. curve which is compared to another three growing lines, i.e. frame >> (1+1+1:√2):(1+1+√2) which resulting 0.7929

The manifestations of a mental illness, as unfortunate an affliction as it is, can be fascinating can't they.