On 2023-09-22 11:34 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the
> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
> of stars & planets.

Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of
mathematical converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could
be... Archie Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's
the mathematical constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value
(e.g. the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle)
depending on the curvature of space.

Joel

In article <5902752a-4c6c-4300-a5cf-f0c9cc481999@sympatico.ca>,
Joel Polowin <jpolowin@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On 2023-09-22 11:34 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the
>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
>> of stars & planets.
>
>Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of
>mathematical converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could
>be... Archie Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's
>the mathematical constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value
>(e.g. the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle)
>depending on the curvature of space.
>
>Joel

Well, the context is that Professor Liad calls out the value as a
adjustment factor during the inter-universal transversal, and it apparently
means nothhing to anyone else in the crew (who are all mathy spacers
themselves).
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 22/10/2023 15.42, Joel Polowin wrote:
> On 2023-09-22 11:34 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked.  For instance, the
>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
>> of stars & planets.
>
> Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding.  Of course, that's the mathematical constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of space.

Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio
of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but
depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively
curved space, I think).

--
Michael F. Stemper
Economists have correctly predicted seven of the last three recessions.

-------- Original Message --------
> In article <5902752a-4c6c-4300-a5cf-f0c9cc481999@sympatico.ca>,
> Joel Polowin <jpolowin@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-22 11:34 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>> That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the
>>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
>>> of stars & planets.
>>
>> Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of
>> mathematical converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could
>> be... Archie Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's
>> the mathematical constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value
>> (e.g. the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle)
>> depending on the curvature of space.
>>
>> Joel
>
> Well, the context is that Professor Liad calls out the value as a
> adjustment factor during the inter-universal transversal, and it apparently
> means nothhing to anyone else in the crew (who are all mathy spacers
> themselves).
>
I feel pretty confident that PI does not change with the curvature of
space-time.

--
..

Michael wrote:
> Joel Polowin wrote:
>> Ted wrote:
>>> That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked.  For instance, the
>>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
>>> of stars & planets.
>>
>> Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical
>> converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie
>> Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding.  Of course, that's the mathematical
>> constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between
>> the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of
>> space.
>
> Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio
> of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but
> depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively
> curved space, I think).

Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi
pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought.
OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point?

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

On 10/31/2023 9:39 AM, Don wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>> Joel Polowin wrote:
>>> Ted wrote:
>>>> That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked.  For instance, the
>>>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
>>>> of stars & planets.
>>>
>>> Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical
>>> converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie
>>> Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding.  Of course, that's the mathematical
>>> constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between
>>> the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of
>>> space.
>>
>> Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio
>> of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but
>> depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively
>> curved space, I think).
>
> Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi
> pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
> The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
> observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought.
> OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
> Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point?
>
Purely thought experiment until such time as we can observe
non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

-------- Original Message --------
> On 10/31/2023 9:39 AM, Don wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> Joel Polowin wrote:
>>>> Ted wrote:
>>>>> That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked.  For instance, the
>>>>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
>>>>> of stars & planets.
>>>>
>>>> Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of
>>>> mathematical
>>>> converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be...
>>>> Archie
>>>> Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding.  Of course, that's the
>>>> mathematical
>>>> constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio
>>>> between
>>>> the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the
>>>> curvature of
>>>> space.
>>>
>>> Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio
>>> of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but
>>> depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively
>>> curved space, I think).
>>
>> Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi
>> pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
>>      The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
>> observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought.
>>      OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
>> Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point?
>>
> Purely thought experiment until such time as we can observe
> non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.
>

If it's not flat, it's not a "circle" (each point is equidistant from
center)

--
.

rick wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>> Michael wrote:
>>>> Joel Polowin wrote:
>>>>> Ted wrote:
>>>>>> That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked.  For instance, the
>>>>>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
>>>>>> of stars & planets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of
>>>>> mathematical
>>>>> converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be...
>>>>> Archie
>>>>> Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding.  Of course, that's the
>>>>> mathematical
>>>>> constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio
>>>>> between
>>>>> the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the
>>>>> curvature of
>>>>> space.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio
>>>> of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but
>>>> depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively
>>>> curved space, I think).
>>>
>>> Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi
>>> pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
>>>      The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
>>> observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought.
>>>      OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
>>> Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point?
>>>
>> Purely thought experiment until such time as we can observe
>> non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.
>
> If it's not flat, it's not a "circle" (each point is equidistant from
> center)

Yes. The limitation of man's mind makes men imagine a black hole as
a deep depression in flat, 2-D space. But, the thought experiment is
cognitive dissonant because 3-D space is directly observable. This
is one manifestation of the dilemma of Modern Physics.

It is the mathematical orthodoxy of the universe that
enables theorists like Einstein to predict and discover
natural laws simply by the solution of equations. But
the paradox of physics today is that with every
improvement in its mathematical apparatus the gulf
between man the observer and the objective world of
scientific description becomes more profound. ...

The Universe and Dr. Einstein forces, its origins, and
its rationality and harmony, tend to avoid using the
word God. Yet Einstein, who has been called an atheist,
has no such inhibitions. "My religion," he says,
"consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable
superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight
details we are able to perceive with our frail and
feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the
presence of a superior reasoning power, which is
revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

_The Universe and Dr Einstein_ (Barnett)

Perhaps a black sphere more closely resembles the reality of
3-D space as observed. Yet, who on Earth can imagine an
infinitely deep black sphere?

God is an intelligible sphere whose center is
everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.

<https://muse.jhu.edu/article/227790>

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

In rec.arts.sf.written Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
> Yes. The limitation of man's mind makes men imagine a black hole as
> a deep depression in flat, 2-D space. But, the thought experiment is
> cognitive dissonant because 3-D space is directly observable. This
> is one manifestation of the dilemma of Modern Physics.

If you ever read Peter Woit's _Not Even Wrong_

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

there are several recent posts on his work on a twistor model with
"standard Euclidean spacetime" that is "complexified" (has real and
imaginary components of time) and might be usable to unify
GR and QFT/standard model. I don't understand any of it ;), but I
do understand that Minkowski space-time is, in some ways,
an arbitrary choice.

ObSF John G. Cramer's _Twistor_

Cheers, David Duffy.