0

cwarn - you do not have theories, you do not even have hypotheses, you only have random 'thingies' that you try to string together. You do not even seem to understand the meaning of the few facts you repeat to support your 'thingies'.

Theory
Hypothesis

Read the dictionary properly (link). Definition 5 of a theory:

a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

That describes it perfectly so try using a dictionary yourself more often. This reminds me of the case of evolution where the scientists had to define what a theory is.

0

Another Explanation. sorry if re-post.

pi is not a rational number which you can represent as 22/7.We just use it
as an approximation.

and there is no pattern of pi 's n th fraction. Even supercomputers have
this limit.

In the software and computer perspective it generates errors. Think
about a software that calculates the star coordinates on the sky before
the 1 billion years. probably there is a error, due to this. When the big
things comes out the error get sensitive and visible. These kind of
software have a limit because of these types of constrains.

There is a way to generate the pi's n th fraction digit. It's too complicated. and it also not precise after n is larger than that
limit.

there is a way how to generate the root(2) volts using the theories of
physics. Like that pi too. that's an analog representation of pi that is
more precise.

and most of time when I doing programming with C I use ,

#ifundef PI
#define PI    3.14
#endif

so just use the approximation in computing. and you can hardcode it using the preprocessor , because it's a
universal constraint.

Edited by NicAx64: n/a

0

I think future FPU's will come up with the hardware that does analog
calculations on PI , root(2) like things.PI will be hardcoded into ISA
architecture of the FPU then. for more precise calculations.

and there will be future C++0x ... bla bla programming language models
to support those features like these.

until then always use,
#define PI 3.14.......

3

cwarn, you have this page on your own website:

http://syntax.cwarn23.net/PHP/Calculate_pi

On this page on your website, you state the following:

Pi is a never ending number unless you use an inaccurate formula.

So it seems that you too are convinced that Pi does not have a finite length. Yet you state this in post 12 of this thread.

http://www.daniweb.com/forums/post1075376.html#post1075376

I also have a theory and am still working on a formula to prove that pi is not infinite in length.

Votes + Comments
nicely done :)
1

cwarn23, the problem is you're limiting yourself to the digital world, there are no pixels or rectangles that make up our universe, That has about the same amount of logic as saying our universe has frames per second. This is maths not physics, numbers are continuous and don't have to be integers.

Edited by William Hemsworth: n/a

0

cwarn, you have this page on your own website:

http://syntax.cwarn23.net/PHP/Calculate_pi

On this page on your website, you state the following:

So it seems that you too are convinced that Pi does not have a finite length. Yet you state this in post 12 of this thread.

http://www.daniweb.com/forums/post1075376.html#post1075376

I am working on another theory where pi does exist but our dimension has infinit axis. My theory of pi not existing was slaughtered when discovering electrons are round. So things have changed in recent times due to this thread... But as for now I am working on the theory of what makes all the elements on the periodic table and its shape. That will explain how many axis are in our dimension and if that element is the shape of a cube for example then we would have 3 axis's. But it is probably best to leave it for the experts...

0

>>working on the theory of what makes all the elements on the periodic table and its shape

Here I will give you the answer. So you can use you time even more
wisely and amuse me.

Atoms. Electrons , protons , neutrons, Quarks. And their charge gives them their unique shapes.

2

Read the dictionary properly (link). Definition 5 of a theory:
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
That describes it perfectly so try using a dictionary yourself more often. This reminds me of the case of evolution where the scientists had to define what a theory is.

Let me explain something to you about dictionaries: Those definitions that are listed first are considered the best definition; you offer us definition #5 just barely above guess or conjecture.. I read the links I post and I understand them. I think guess describes you idea perfectly. In order for you to have a system or method, you must offer more that "I think this so it must be correct".

1

Let me explain something to you about dictionaries: Those definitions that are listed first are considered the best definition; you offer us definition #5 just barely above guess or conjecture.. I read the links I post and I understand them. I think guess describes you idea perfectly. In order for you to have a system or method, you must offer more that "I think this so it must be correct".

I never said that my theories where 100% accurate or that they are even true. Check the work theory in the dictionary or from the movie "Darwins theory - The beagle voyage". You will find in that non-fiction film a scientific case that challenged Darwins theory. In that case the scientists had to define the word "theory". That definition was "An alternative view to a subject just like how gravity is a theory...". And using that definition I am providing theories not facts! The definition of the word "fact" is very different to the word "theory" as theories are not always true and are just another way of looking at the subject.
So with that being said my statements are theories and I strongly support/believe them...

3

So with that being said my statements are theories and I strongly support/believe them...

Then there's a potential danger that you conclude wrong things from a wrong 'theory'.
If you plan to use your 'theory' in Mathematics, you should first be able to prove it mathematically, and since you can't, I don't see any practical use of your 'theory' (except for making yourself ridiculous to other people), you should just drop it.

0

Then there's a potential danger that you conclude wrong things from a wrong 'theory'.
If you plan to use your 'theory' in Mathematics, you should first be able to prove it mathematically, and since you can't, I don't see any practical use of your 'theory' (except for making yourself ridiculous to other people), you should just drop it.

That is like the theory of religion and the theory of our current year. I have guestemated our year to be something like 2045 instead of 2010. Also as for religion, it hasn't been proven and that theory still exists so why not mine?

1

You're just making a giant leap backwards: you even can't correctly compute the area of a circle while a primary school kid can.
That's quite pathetic, not?

Also as for religion, it hasn't been proven and that theory still exists so why not mine?

Now you're mixing up religion with science, everybody just knows that this is wrong.
So by analyzing your statement, you're actually just saying that your 'theory' is just the opposite of science, well done!

Edited by mvmalderen: n/a

0

Now you're mixing up religion with science, everybody just knows that this is wrong.
So by analyzing your statement, you're actually just saying that your 'theory' is just the opposite of science, well done!

So you claim "Darwins theory of Evolution - The origin of species" is a religion! This is quite an insult to the scientific community as it denies many parts of genetics which is based on evolution. Also you denied Lemarkism as a science and claim it is a religion too. (Simular to the evolution theory) So you have denied many sciences and said they are a religion...

I know my theory is just as controversial as evolution. Not many people will believe it at first but if the word gets around then in 80 years it will be common knowledge. So there is no real difference between science and religion. The difference, religion is science created before todays primary science stream was created. Religion or the religious science is not that accurate because it's so old.

0

Dude, the only thing you are doing is diluting and polluting your argument further (and believe me it wasn't much of anything to begin with). Science is a culture which seeks truth. Coming with membership in that culture is a great degree of responsibility to "play nice," contribute and demand coherent, objective experimental evidence for everything. This also means that if you don't understand something that doesn't mean it's not true.

If I didn't know any better I'd say you were trolling by making inflammatory statements but I'm not so sure. I think we would give you just as much (positive) attention if you were kicking around some ideas with merit.

Science for all the 99.99999999999999999999% of non-Einstein scientists is a lot of hard work for not a lot of reward. If you aspire for such greatness it's probably not going to just appear out of thin air.

1

So you claim "Darwins theory of Evolution - The origin of species" is a religion! This is quite an insult to the scientific community as it denies many parts of genetics which is based on evolution. Also you denied Lemarkism as a science and claim it is a religion too. (Simular to the evolution theory) So you have denied many sciences and said they are a religion...

No, that's what you make of it by applying your own crappy definition which says that anything which cannot be proven is a religion. What you are doing is trying to disapprove that PI is what it is, in a non-mathematical way.
PI is mathematics, and if you have something to say about it, you should follow the laws of mathematics, that involves that you should be able to prove the statements you make.
Concrete for you this means that: you should provide mathematical evidences against every existing mathematical evidence for PI, otherwise your 'theory' has no value.

Edited by mvmalderen: n/a

0

No that's what you make of it by applying your own crappy definition which says that anything which cannot be proven is a religion. What you are doing is trying to disapprove that PI is what it is, in a non-mathematical way.

I think you read it wrong... I said religion is old science. In other words science from before around 100AD. Also if you don't get this I believe pi DOES exist and will continue to exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why do you not get this. Also the rest we are arguing about are more like personal opinions (My sqrt(pi) cents).

0

I believe pi DOES exist and will continue to exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, to answer in a way similar to yours: I believe that you believe that pi DOES exist and will continue to exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P
Happy now?

2

I never said that my theories where 100% accurate or that they are even true. Check the work theory in the dictionary or from the movie "Darwins theory - The beagle voyage". You will find in that non-fiction film a scientific case that challenged Darwins theory. In that case the scientists had to define the word "theory". That definition was "An alternative view to a subject just like how gravity is a theory...". And using that definition I am providing theories not facts! The definition of the word "fact" is very different to the word "theory" as theories are not always true and are just another way of looking at the subject.
So with that being said my statements are theories and I strongly support/believe them...

OMG! You are quoting some creationist movie about Darwin's life to support your lack of thought? How did you bring theory of gravity into your lack of thought? Every damn time someone digs up a fossil, the theory of evolution is put to the test and it passes every time.

Edited by GrimJack: n/a

0

Every damn time someone digs up a fossil, the theory of evolution is put to the test and it passes every time.

Yes that is correct. For example if we found a fossil the shape of a cube and none like it then people would start to think of an explanation or an alternative theory. It is only when it's called darwins law that it is fact. However since it's called darwins theory that gives room for alteration of the theory.

How did you bring theory of gravity into your lack of thought?

Well that string was a direct quote from a movie supporting darwins theory and is as follows:

An alternative view to a subject just like how gravity is a theory...

In fact that statement was the only thing which convinced the courts to allow darwins theory to be tought in American schools otherwise darwins theory would be classified as a religion. As you can see I have done more biology than science although they are sorta similar.

0

It is only when it's called darwins law

So if it's called Darwin's Law and then (simply as a pedagogical exercise) a scientist comes along and disproves it. Does that mean that it's immune to being disproved? No. Definitely not, it's not in the interest of truth or science to do so.
What you call something hardly matters in this context because these terms themselves (law, fact, theory, hypothesis) are all defined operationally.
All but the most trivial of scientific notions break down under some condition or another. What happens to the "Laws" of motion under near-light speed conditions? They break down and can be disproven. Does that now make them more open to excessive scrutiny? No-- because the theory says if I throw a ball straight up into the air (with some assumptions on what makes a ball and how perpendicular is straight and factoring in wind resistance) I have a pretty darned good idea of how long it's going to take to come down. The theory "works" but it's not universal. That doesn't mean it is not patent.
Evolution, mathematics, physics, chemistry all have very well established scientific communities. They themselves would acknowledge that they are not 100% correct (otherwise we could all take a long coffee break and go home for good). But, as the ideas, theories, etc. are evaluated, tested, and retested with the greatest degree of objectivity possible (I know there are exceptions to this) they get better and more accurate, phenomena are generalized and connected. Theories and (rarely) laws are determined from interpretation of the data and not wholly on the whimsy of idly speculative minds.

Edited by jonsca: n/a

4

Yes that is correct. For example if we found a fossil the shape of a cube and none like it then people would start to think of an explanation or an alternative theory.

a fossil in the shape of a cube?? Er, wtf, um how can you base your argument on something that has not happened?

It is only when it's called darwins law that it is fact. However since it's called darwins theory that gives room for alteration of the theory.

Darwin's Theory (as you call it) has been altered quite a bit since the book was written. This is how science works. You think of something; work up a hypothesis; decide how to test it and when it passes your tests you make it a theory. As a theory, you continue to test - when something does not fit the theory as stated you modify the theory to take the new data into account. This is how science works. When Einstein worked out the details of relativity, he did not disprove Newton - he incorporated Newton's theories into his own. Newton's theories still stand. Same with the theory of Evolution it is tested and modified as new data come in. With the work of Gregor Mendel, much of Darwin's work was modified/amplified to include genetics. If you deny evolution, you deny genetics, germ theory, antibiotics, and much of discoveries of modern medicine.

Well that string was a direct quote from a movie supporting darwins theory and is as follows:
An alternative view to a subject just like how gravity is a theory...
In fact that statement was the only thing which convinced the courts to allow darwins theory to be tought in American schools otherwise darwins theory would be classified as a religion. As you can see I have done more biology than science although they are sorta similar.

No Darwin's theory would not be considered a religion; evolution is a testable, provable theory and, as such. is the purview of science. If it were a belief, then it would be a religion.

So, let us go over a couple of things that necessary but not sufficient for something to 'science':
It has to be falsifiable (any of your ideas have to be testable, (eg your idea that it is 2040) so you think up an experiment that will test the truth of the statement "we live in the year 2040"; the experiment should be such that when you get the result of the test, you know your idea is true or false).
It has to be reproducible - this means that any properly trained individual using the same methods will reproduce the same results.

If you believe your idea is valid, state it in a manner that can be tested. Test your idea to see if it survives; if it does then offer it to someone else to test.

0

Oh, Gosh, this thread makes me thinking about an other one, it could of course be that I'm wrong, but I see an analogy :P

I see the analogy too.
Maybe someone needs to start a thread titled:
How do we know the value of e ?

-2

No Darwin's theory would not be considered a religion; evolution is a testable, provable theory and, as such. is the purview of science. If it were a belief, then it would be a religion.

You need a Biology history lesson. I shall provide it. You may not realise this but the United States courts have determined that creationism/intelligent design is a religion. This is true because in the center of the theory is a god. However with Darwins theory it was so simular to creationism that the courts had to debate weather evolution was a religion. In the end it was determined while evolution remains a theory (Not fact) it is not a religion. However the trial lasted for a few days along with protests from the schools as the result was for evolution to be taught in all American schools. Many teachers didn't like that and refused to present the one minute speech so substitutes had to read the one minute speech as many people denied evolution as a theory although the courts didn't. Many say the reason is that evolution contradicts with their religion and there for evolution must be a religion but in my opinion that is not true. However it was determined that creationism is a religion because it is like something copied from the bible and transfered to science.
Just what the courts said in the mid 1900's.

0

Even if you are trying to defend the Creationist side (which I'm not really sure that you are) you are not doing it very cogently (whether it can be done cogently is another story). I think if you told me that the room was on fire I'd consider staying put.

You've inspired me to start toting my theory of the really tiny, really smart person that lives inside my computer processor. If only he/she had a more open mind about the logic I set out to implement.

1

How did we go from pi to evolution to religion ?

Just leave him and his theories alone; There is no point.

Votes + Comments
Exactly :)
-1

How did we go from pi to evolution to religion ?

I don't know why we are talking about that and I would much prefer to talk about pi. I think it is part of the 3 point rule how any two subjects can relate within 3 points. But as for pi, I am making a pi calculator for it in c++. Gee it is fun making a pi calculator.

Votes + Comments
You don't know? I'll tell you: you were the cause!
1

<Oups....posted by mistake,

So you're saying Darwin invented Pi, because if you take the manuscript of The Davinci Code and placed it right next to a firstedition of On the Origin of Species, under a blacklight; it clearly states, "π ≈ 3.14"

please delete>

And now you're saying, that after snicking into the Vatican with Tom Hanks: you read the Bible under the Popes pillow, and a memo on the first page mentioned cwarn23 as the reincarnation of Darwin?

Gasp!

Votes + Comments
I knew someone would make a DaVinci tie in -- LMAO
This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.