Circle the Square

[MrTim]

3.14159 still works fine for me... ;-)

[ME]

No one has the time for your spam.

Definitely spam. One single post would have been more than sufficient to get his "message" through. This amount is ridiculous.

Too many people have been spreading lies

Shame-blaming is a huge indicator that the rest that follows will be completely irrational.
Anyway, I can certainly try to entertain one or two posts to this subject.

It is impossible for a polygon to become a circle and that means <jumping to some conclusion>

Without that blue-part you actually make a good point. But the real conclusion from this is that a circle can't be divided into some fixed amount of sectors, but only some irrational amount.

That doesn't mean you can't use polygons. Archimedes did it too..
You can clamp a circle between two polygons. Now you can simply infer a maximum and minimum area for this circle.
In the video you mentioned that any error gets multiplied by the amount of polygons: that's true.
We can argue about the amount of error but as you mentioned in that video the error eventually becomes imperceptible. The area of a circle will simply be somewhere between that polygonal maximum area and minimum area: Or, you still need "that" amount of stones/sand/etc to fill the area. At some point, one grain of sand more or less makes not much of a difference as you then first need to define when something fall on the line and will/will not count.

We know from many simple shapes, like a square for instance, that the area squares with size.
There are smarter people who have spend more time on explaining why this is so, but I think we can shortcut a long story by agreeing that the area of any shape is proportional to r².
It only needs a shape-factor, let's call this factor "Pi" for a circle.
So the question is: what would the area approximation be when the amount of sectors is 59 or more?
What would this, let's say 60 sectors, mean for the maximum and minimum value of this, as I called it, "shape-factor"?
I'm really curious about Liddz's answer on these sector areas.

3.14159 still works fine for me... ;-)

It would probably take a while before you'd notice the difference with the suggested value.

[Art]

Mine Golly Liddz ! : )

It looks to me that the amount of study you have put into this is impressive .
Unfortunately I don't feel competent enough to give any useful comment on the correctness of your reasoning without what I would consider an inordinate amount of time to develop the mathematical competance required .
It would take me at a rough guess another lifetime to develop the appropriate skill after the project got to the top of my 'to do' list .
However , having said that I would like to offer some opinions .

(1) Proving that Pi is not transcendental would have to be of major importance and probably rank right up there with reproducing a Bessler PM Wheel .

At the very least , I can't decide whether you are serious or not about it , so it does force me to think . That has to be good Spam !

Therefore you don't need to be shy about using three or four pages of an off topic subject to attempt to do that IMO .
If you are interested I can point you to some threads in this forum (not even off topic) which are up in the hundreds of pages without offering anything that looks of value to solving the Bessler Conundrum .

It would be nice actually if they at least copied your method of linking to such places as Rivet suppliers and other locations of useful information .

(2) Quote -
" THE FOLLOWING VIDEOS HAVE BEEN SEEN MANY TIMES WHERE THE CURVATURE OF A CYLINDER WITH A DIAMETER OF 1 METER IS MEASURED AND THE PI CIRCUMFERENCE IS REVEALED TO BE 3.1446 AND NOT 3.1415 OR 3.1416 "

I think this is critical !

In todays "Scientific World" where it is blasphemy to question accepted orthodoxy , physical proof of your numbers is the only thing that will break through the status quo and force acceptance of new ideas .

With todays technology one would expect that it is indeed possible to draw , or fabricate (with distortionless materials) , a perfect circle that can be measured for Pi .

If the answer to the physical measurements are as your theory predicts then all that has to be done is satisfy the "Einsteinians " (this might take a few more pages ) that the result is not caused by the effects of space distortion due to the circles orientation in the gravity field during measurement .

(This forum is also interested in Gravity , so maybe this subject could be upgraded from off topic to Community Buzz. )

(3) It is my long held opinion that the simple circle and therefore the value of Pi is crucial to everything we know and think we know about everything .

It is THE secret of the Universe .

You use it very creatively !

Carry On ! : )