Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~

  • 50 Replies
  • 7706 Views
*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« on: February 27, 2018, 08:02:35 PM »
What? Say again yer radiant? What about starting the match with 3 times length of 12 cm Disc's circumferences?
In this case I believe you must corrupt the radiant size to fit the calculation. :P
But remember, this is a real experiment. Not BS calculation.  :o

Hmm... I don't think pi heads dare to accept this challenge. :')
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2018, 08:09:25 PM »
 *Disc with 12 cm Diameter.
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2018, 08:45:44 PM »
Ok, I accept the match, can you explain the rules?

what am I supposed to do?

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2018, 09:56:02 PM »
Ok, I accept the match, can you explain the rules?

what am I supposed to do?

Measure 3 C and what's the result? Does it match with 2 pi * 6 * 3 ?
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2018, 10:07:08 PM »
Pi calculation: 2*3.1416*6*3 = 113.0976 cm.
Phew calculation: 2*3.1716*6*3 = 114.1776 cm

Try this at home repeatedly.

~ Pi is not big enough ~
« Last Edit: February 27, 2018, 10:10:03 PM by Danang »
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2018, 11:25:00 PM »
Pi calculation: 2*3.1416*6*3 = 113.0976 cm.
Phew calculation: 2*3.1716*6*3 = 114.1776 cm

Try this at home repeatedly.

~ Pi is not big enough ~
pi is correct.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2018, 11:37:05 PM »
You are quite a bit late.
This debate was settled long ago.
Your PHEW BS does not match reality.

What? Say again yer radiant? What about starting the match with 3 times length of 12 cm Disc's circumferences?
What?
What is 12 cm? What is 3 times that?
Why are we measuring 3C?
How are we measuring it?
Are you considering what effect it will have on the radius to do something simple like loop a tape or piece of string around it, or the effect of running it off at an angle?

In this case I believe you must corrupt the radiant size to fit the calculation. :P
Do you mean radius? If so, no, we don't need to corrupt anything.

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2018, 01:35:46 AM »
What? Say again yer radiant? What about starting the match with 3 times length of 12 cm Disc's circumferences?
In this case I believe you must corrupt the radiant size to fit the calculation. :P
But remember, this is a real experiment. Not BS calculation.  :o

Hmm... I don't think pi heads dare to accept this challenge. :')

Perhaps you should answer previous questions before moving on to another thread. Otherwise it just looks like you got scared and ran away.

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2018, 02:55:29 AM »
What? Say again yer radiant? What about starting the match with 3 times length of 12 cm Disc's circumferences?
In this case I believe you must corrupt the radiant size to fit the calculation. :P
But remember, this is a real experiment. Not BS calculation.  :o

Hmm... I don't think pi heads dare to accept this challenge. :')

Perhaps you should answer previous questions before moving on to another thread. Otherwise it just looks like you got scared and ran away.

LOL you pointless. Don't you know the audience knew that I already knew ??
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2018, 02:56:47 AM »
Pi calculation: 2*3.1416*6*3 = 113.0976 cm.
Phew calculation: 2*3.1716*6*3 = 114.1776 cm

Try this at home repeatedly.

~ Pi is not big enough ~
pi is correct.

Self claim detected.
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2018, 03:29:41 AM »
The more multiplication of C measurement the more obvious, that pi cannot handle the real size of circumference.
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2018, 03:32:08 AM »
What? Say again yer radiant? What about starting the match with 3 times length of 12 cm Disc's circumferences?
In this case I believe you must corrupt the radiant size to fit the calculation. :P
But remember, this is a real experiment. Not BS calculation.  :o

Hmm... I don't think pi heads dare to accept this challenge. :')

Perhaps you should answer previous questions before moving on to another thread. Otherwise it just looks like you got scared and ran away.

LOL you pointless. Don't you know the audience knew that I already knew ??

You are attempting to redefine mathematics. So yes, I think that nobody knows what you are talking about. Including you.

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2018, 04:03:29 AM »
The more multiplication of C measurement the more obvious, that pi cannot handle the real size of circumference.
These so-called experiments of yours, while being wrong, are also your way of ignoring that fact that phew doesn’t work in a single real-world application.  There is not a single application of pi that phew works for any you know it. 

Here’s one for you to try.  Use phew to calculate the volume of a sphere.  Pick a sphere you have in your house and put it a container filled with water.  Mark the volume of the water with and without the sphere.  The difference will be the volume of the sphere.  Now see if phew gets you right answer.  Here’s a clue.  It won’t.

Time and time again you silly little phew is shown to not work in the real-world.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 3.64¢.

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2018, 05:20:09 AM »
Pi calculation: 2*3.1416*6*3 = 113.0976 cm.
Phew calculation: 2*3.1716*6*3 = 114.1776 cm

Try this at home repeatedly.

~ Pi is not big enough ~
Pi works fine every time.  Maybe you should learn how to use a ruler?

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2018, 05:44:35 AM »
The more multiplication of C measurement the more obvious, that pi cannot handle the real size of circumference.
These so-called experiments of yours, while being wrong, are also your way of ignoring that fact that phew doesn’t work in a single real-world application.  There is not a single application of pi that phew works for any you know it. 

Here’s one for you to try.  Use phew to calculate the volume of a sphere.  Pick a sphere you have in your house and put it a container filled with water.  Mark the volume of the water with and without the sphere.  The difference will be the volume of the sphere.  Now see if phew gets you right answer.  Here’s a clue.  It won’t.

Time and time again you silly little phew is shown to not work in the real-world.

Mike

Danang, any reason you couldn't perform such a simple experiment? If you are right, then you can have hard data to back it up.

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2018, 10:23:51 AM »
Pi calculation: 2*3.1416*6*3 = 113.0976 cm.
Phew calculation: 2*3.1716*6*3 = 114.1776 cm

Try this at home repeatedly.

~ Pi is not big enough ~

Thanks danang. Please don't think i forgot about this, i am planning to do it right. Just give me a couple of days to manufacture a diam. 12 cm aluminium disc.

But i would like to add a few steps on the match.

First Mesurare with 3C, then 6C and 9C.

Second as i will post a video doing such experiment. I would like you do the same.
Third. I will upload a pdf file explaining the details of such experiments and the results.
Four. We have to define the degree of precision of such experiment since is almost a fact that we will get approximations due to measurement limitations and errors
Fifth. We have to agree that one of us may be wrong and the other right.

With regards Martin

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2018, 11:30:09 AM »
This is a simple experiment that many pupils in my classes have performed, it is clear that the more accurate, the more pi tends towards 3.14159....

Also it is clear that for an n-sided regular polygon, the area is given by n/2*a*a*sin(360/n) where a is the length of an isosceles triangle formed by splitting the shape into congruent triangles about the centre.

Furthermore it is irrefutable that as n tends to infinity n/2*sin(360/n) tends to 3.14159...

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2018, 01:06:38 PM »
The more multiplication of C measurement the more obvious, that pi cannot handle the real size of circumference.
No, it becomes more obvious that pi can handle the real size of circumference while your one gets further and further off.

But all of this is quite beside the point.
The simple fact is any physical measurement is prone to error.
As such a pure math approach is best.
Afterall, pi is a constant based upon pure math.
You have been shown countless times that pi is correct and phew is not.

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2018, 01:34:29 PM »
I don't really understand what using an integer scaler does for you. This whole "experiment" doesn't make any sense.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 3.64¢.

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2018, 03:04:44 PM »
It reduce measurement error due to resolution. For instance if your minimal resolution is 1 mm, your error due to that single measurement is +-0.5mm but if you increase the number of circunferentes in one measurement you will still have +-0.5mm of error due to resolution but you can divide the final measurement by N and get a lower error. Sorry if a didn't express myself but English is not my first language.

I hope the following table helps.

Be

1C + E = 10mm +- 1mm
2c + e = 20mm +- 1mm-> c = 10+-0.5mm
3c +e = 30mm +-1mm  ->c = 10+-0.33mm




*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2018, 05:36:39 PM »
It reduce measurement error due to resolution. For instance if your minimal resolution is 1 mm, your error due to that single measurement is +-0.5mm but if you increase the number of circunferentes in one measurement you will still have +-0.5mm of error due to resolution but you can divide the final measurement by N and get a lower error. Sorry if a didn't express myself but English is not my first language.

I hope the following table helps.

Be

1C + E = 10mm +- 1mm
2c + e = 20mm +- 1mm-> c = 10+-0.5mm
3c +e = 30mm +-1mm  ->c = 10+-0.33mm
Instead you have other measurement errors.
For example, you still have the measurement error from the radius.
You can gain additional measurement errors based upon how you do the 3 times radius.
If you just wind something around it you modify the radius as you do so.
If you wrap it in a helix, you distort the path from the true circle and get a different result.
If you roll it along a surface you have the error associated with it slipping.
You also run into issues of making sure nothing stretches or compresses.

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2018, 06:18:58 PM »
While I do agree with you, what I am trying to probe here is that phew is wrong. . I know there are other variables that have to be consider.
 That's why a ask for a couple of days to make a good experiment.


Don't misunderstand me, You are right we won't get the exact value of Pi but hopefully, Danang will realise Phew is wrong

By the way, i think a single measurement is not enough to reduce errors but we can use R&R to find the tool confidence to find the actual radius, multiple measurements to reduce human error.

Increase radius to reduce radius tolerance significance.
And others.

I am open to suggestions to increase the accuracy of the experiment and to reduce error due to external factors.


Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2018, 06:28:27 AM »
It reduce measurement error due to resolution. For instance if your minimal resolution is 1 mm, your error due to that single measurement is +-0.5mm but if you increase the number of circunferentes in one measurement you will still have +-0.5mm of error due to resolution but you can divide the final measurement by N and get a lower error. Sorry if a didn't express myself but English is not my first language.

I hope the following table helps.

Be

1C + E = 10mm +- 1mm
2c + e = 20mm +- 1mm-> c = 10+-0.5mm
3c +e = 30mm +-1mm  ->c = 10+-0.33mm

But C itself has error, so this table wouldn't work. I think your point is that the scale error remains the same and the percentage error decreases, but for the real measurement you can't just divide the error by the multiple of C.

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2018, 11:40:10 AM »
It reduce measurement error due to resolution. For instance if your minimal resolution is 1 mm, your error due to that single measurement is +-0.5mm but if you increase the number of circunferentes in one measurement you will still have +-0.5mm of error due to resolution but you can divide the final measurement by N and get a lower error. Sorry if a didn't express myself but English is not my first language.

I hope the following table helps.

Be

1C + E = 10mm +- 1mm
2c + e = 20mm +- 1mm-> c = 10+-0.5mm
3c +e = 30mm +-1mm  ->c = 10+-0.33mm

But C itself has error, so this table wouldn't work. I think your point is that the scale error remains the same and the percentage error decreases, but for the real measurement you can't just divide the error by the multiple of C.

Well it actually works for real world, but i may explained wrong.  You wouldn't find the exact value of c since as you said the measurement comes with an error. but you will get a better approximation of c.       

m1 =  10.1       so c = 10.1
m2 = 20.1       so c  = 10.05
m3 = 30.1       so c = 10.03333

But  the real value of c is 10.

Of course only applies if the measurement instrument is calibrated for the measured distance, and only works for resolution error.

my previous table is the same as said       c must be between 9   and 11 ; 9.5 - 10.5 ; 9.6666 - 10.333.

-What it actually does is to reduce the significance of the error in the measurement.

This is different than mesurare one c, then  start over and measure other c, then star over and measure other c, then add all three measurements together and then divide by three.

((c + e1)+(c + e2) +(c+e3))/3

Hope this was helpful.




Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2018, 04:26:56 PM »
It reduce measurement error due to resolution. For instance if your minimal resolution is 1 mm, your error due to that single measurement is +-0.5mm but if you increase the number of circunferentes in one measurement you will still have +-0.5mm of error due to resolution but you can divide the final measurement by N and get a lower error. Sorry if a didn't express myself but English is not my first language.

I hope the following table helps.

Be

1C + E = 10mm +- 1mm
2c + e = 20mm +- 1mm-> c = 10+-0.5mm
3c +e = 30mm +-1mm  ->c = 10+-0.33mm

But C itself has error, so this table wouldn't work. I think your point is that the scale error remains the same and the percentage error decreases, but for the real measurement you can't just divide the error by the multiple of C.

Well it actually works for real world, but i may explained wrong.  You wouldn't find the exact value of c since as you said the measurement comes with an error. but you will get a better approximation of c.       

m1 =  10.1       so c = 10.1
m2 = 20.1       so c  = 10.05
m3 = 30.1       so c = 10.03333

But  the real value of c is 10.

Of course only applies if the measurement instrument is calibrated for the measured distance, and only works for resolution error.

my previous table is the same as said       c must be between 9   and 11 ; 9.5 - 10.5 ; 9.6666 - 10.333.

-What it actually does is to reduce the significance of the error in the measurement.

This is different than mesurare one c, then  start over and measure other c, then star over and measure other c, then add all three measurements together and then divide by three.

((c + e1)+(c + e2) +(c+e3))/3

Hope this was helpful.
Except that's not what he's doing here.  He's simply saying to measure the circumference of a 12 disc, multiply it by three, then plugging a radius of 6 cm into two equations multiplying each of them by three and then compare them to the measurement.  We're comparing a single measurement to calculated numbers all three multiplied by a scalar.  That's not even close to what you're describing.  We're comparing apples to pomegranates.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 3.64¢.

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2018, 10:17:32 AM »
It looks like Danang has abandoned this thread.  I guess he can't back up any of his statements.
Since it costs 1.82¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 3.64¢.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2018, 01:49:58 PM »
What? Say again yer radiant? What about starting the match with 3 times length of 12 cm Disc's circumferences?
In this case I believe you must corrupt the radiant size to fit the calculation. :P
But remember, this is a real experiment. Not BS calculation.  :o

Hmm... I don't think pi heads dare to accept this challenge. :')

Here is complete geometry about your "challenge". :-)

I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2018, 09:45:31 AM »
What? Say again yer radiant? What about starting the match with 3 times length of 12 cm Disc's circumferences?
In this case I believe you must corrupt the radiant size to fit the calculation. :P
But remember, this is a real experiment. Not BS calculation.  :o

Hmm... I don't think pi heads dare to accept this challenge. :')
Here is complete geometry about your "challenge". :-)



He's already rejected this analytical solution...a couple of times.  It's as accurate as you can get with a spreadsheet but he want's everyone to do "real-world" measurements. 

Of course, he's ignoring the fact that direct measurement is the least accurate method there is.  It’s also why “phew” doesn’t work for a single real-world application.

Not to mention he abandons these threads every time he’s proven wrong and starts a new “experiment”.

The only logical answer I can come up with is that’s he’s nothing but a common troll.  I could be wrong but why else would he keep using the same value of “phew” even though it’s proven wrong time and time again?

Mike
Since it costs 1.82¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 3.64¢.

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2018, 08:51:18 PM »
Equation for angle <=45°:

X°=(X+((X²+0.7071²)²*0.2929²)):0.7929*45°.

(Equation for angle >=45 to 90°:

Let me search my file about this)

Prove it with circumference drawing.

Firstly make sure the measurement tools are valid.
Even trigonometry has no relevance to reality.
Solution: try PHEW :')
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2018, 10:41:05 PM »
Equation for angle <=45°:

X°=(X+((X²+0.7071²)²*0.2929²)):0.7929*45°.
What is this meant to be?
Put in x=0 and you get 0.000601078.
This doesn't match anything.

Firstly make sure the measurement tools are valid.
How about you try and make sure your formula is valid before starting on measuring tools?

Even trigonometry has no relevance to reality.
No, as has been explained many times, trig is relevant to reality. The formulas and constants we have are based upon reality.
You are wrong.

Solution: try PHEW :')
No, actual solution: Discard PHEW for the BS it is and stick to reality.