The fact that pi is an irrational number in this universe proves that this universe is actually on the surface of a...

The fact that pi is an irrational number in this universe proves that this universe is actually on the surface of a hypersphere, and our 3d geometry/space is technically non-Euclidian.

Attached: gravity.jpg (400x295, 166K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZuH78DpzwjQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Please elaborate brainlet

Elaborate brainlet please

And why is pi approximated by 22/7

>telling me to elaborate
>calling me a brainlet
Okay fine. Think about how 2-dimensional non-Euclidian geometry works. It's on the surface of a 3-dimensional sphere. So therefore, the measurements are different. For example, the angles of a triangle will not add up to 180 degrees anymore.
In a normal universe, pi would have to be a rational number, because there is no reason for it to be irrational. But if the universe is actually on (in) the hypersurface of a 4d hypersphere (or perhaps a hypercone, which is the conocal equivilent of a hypercube), then it would change the measurements and dimensions so pi would now be something other than a rational number like 3, such as what it actually is (3.14159...)

There’s no such thing as irrational numbers. We simply can’t figure out the fraction because it’s infinite. Its infinite because the universe has no beginning and is also infinite, because God is infinite. Only God has the processing power to perceive infinity.

And what is the reason of pi being approximated by 22/7

Take it to to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

The fact that pi is fucking good in this Universe proves that this Universe is actually about to take on the most insane form that it ever has taken, because the deep niggers got got and there will be fallout

kys the earth is flat faggot.

kinda curious do this

>because there is no reason for it to be irrational

There's also no reason for it to be rational. That was a fun argument, great job!

think about the number 10, it doesn't exist as anything but a repeating cycle

9.99999999999999999999999999999999

Why shouldn't it be rational?

FALSE. The universe is hyperbolic in nature, that's why vibrational energy causes expansion.

>In a normal universe, pi would have to be a rational number, because there is
>there is
>is

using "is" in this way is naughty user. use the REAL verb instead.

Yes and why the universe is in the hypersurface of hypersphere

Why should it? So far we have "because OP says so"

ive also considered this

why should it be?

>there is no reason for it to be irrational
There is no reason for it to be rational either.

I already got the answer.

>Think about how 2-dimensional non-Euclidian geometry works. It's on the surface of a 3-dimensional sphere.
Just because a space is non-euclidian, it doesn't mean that it's parabolic. Educate yourself on existing research if such things interest you. Wild conjecturing gets you nowhere.

what the fuck?

Holy shit this retarded rubbish read worse than /x/ RP, fucking burger throwing words it doesn't know the meaning of.
Kill yourselves

Kinda like, oh I don't know, pretty much every other geometrical number is rational. Like the degrees in the angles of a triangle, or in a square, or the ratios of the Pythagorean theorem or literally anything else
Nice to hear others think about this as well

>OH FUCK A CIRCLE CAN ROTATE 3.14 TIMES
who gives a fuck?

Yes obviously but I am talking specifically about 2D space on the surface of a 3D sphere

Disagree.

Firstly, there aren't four dimensions. And where are you getting this idea from that time is a dimension? was it pop culture? I have some thoughts in mind but I want to hear your reasoning.

I put to you that there are two dimensions of space only. I believe this because the surface area of an object is directly proportional to its entropy - holographic principle.

see and apply to it the other shit we measure.

What's the difference between shapes with angles and circles, user?

We're learning shapes!

Attached: Shape-360x180.jpg (360x180, 21K)

I didn't fucking say that time is a dimension
I am talking about 4dimensional space

space is inherently 4dimensional

Keep at it bros we're really gonna do it. We can break this nutshell.

>4 spatial dimensions

wew @ babby's first quaternions. you don't need more than 2 dimensions - a single hyperboloid surface.

...

...

We've done expirement using the strength of gravitational waves compared to light burstd that demonstrate we only have 3 spatial dimensions. Get your bullshit out of here

gb2 /sci/

OP is redpilled. This is how worm holes exist, and why the universe comes outward

Gravitational waves are also how God knows exactly what crimes a guilty motherfucker committed so that he doesn't miss when it comes time to judge him

Czeched my based hungry poster

Check the "Janus" model by Jean Pierre Petit

>fact
Okay Einstien

There is no reason for it to be rational either. There are more irrational numbers then rational ones, so it is statistically more likely for it to be one.

> pi would have to be a rational number
why the fuck would that be?

Also, your real angle measurements in shapes won’t be perfect numbers anyway. They will be close enough. And I doubt that you will be able to see much difference between an angles of 90°, 89.9999999999999999999978655464643235...° and 90.00000000000000000000098556774334677...°.

Also, check other constants constants. How many of those are rational, pal?

nerd

Bump too many slides threads

well they're rational in base 10, but maths doesn't give a fuck about bases, for example take logarithms they jump about the bases and make sense because the relationships don't change

>numbers exist outside of human imagination


HURDDRREDHRRREGNFDHFFFF

>non-Euclidian
>2-dimensional
>hypersphere
buzzword buzzword honk honk I don't hear anything brainlet speak some fucking english

Earth is bigger than we think , and we are living on a smal portion of it. Imagine the UN flag. Now apply it to a Saturn size planet.
There you go.

Uuuh... what? How is the base connected to them being rational?

Reminder that 80% of /sci/ has no problem with wtc 7s free-fall collapse caused by localised fire. They support the NIST report in general and on average. Most are smart but most are also blind.
/case.

OP I like your thinking, if there are dimensions above the third (except time) then a 4d universe would see us in a very similar way that we see 2D shapes and images. I've always liked this theory.

Modern mathematics makes a distinction between 0.999 recurring and 1. Because things can be infinitely small or infinitely large, especially with numbers there is no "Planck number."

Ok smartass, how do you describe a location on the surface of a dodecahedron without using Cartesian co ordinates.

because some values change from for example integers to infinite rationals by changing the base
Maybe I didn't make myself clear
I thought they added some tiny epsilon shit that supposedly fulfills that exact definition

Can I label the sides 1-12?
Lol jks.

You know what will blow your mind?
There are an infinite amount of numbers between 0.999 recurring and 1.

They do, yes. Like 1/3 or 1/4 if you go from base 10 to base 12. But. They won’t go from irrational to rational.

Yes

No you can’t. You have six axis to play with, amd could label each say a-/a+, b-b+... but what are you going to do about the pesky null value chords between pinpoints 1 thru 5 of each surface pentagon? I asked /sci/ and they told be to fuck off and fuck a midget.

yeah I know, the ol' little infinity, medium infinity big infinity etc.
yeah that's what I meant, I guess I got kinda confused between irrational and infinite rationals because I was thinking about his remark of the 90degrees of the square

If Iabelled the sides one to twleve I could specify the side and then just use 2d coordinates. It was a joke, I wasn't disagreeing with you.

>and our 3d geometry/space is technically non-Euclidian.
that's because space is 5 dimensional

dimension is just a fucking word we use to describe different planes and how shit moves within them, its semantics. but things do move.

numbers are social construct. Just because it is not "even" doesn't mean jack shit. The universe doesn't give a fuck about our symbols.

>numbers are social construct
Quality bait.
Pure mathematics is the handwriting of God.
1 stone is one stone whatever you chose to call 1.
10 stones are 10 stones no matter what you call 10.

this might help you out OP
youtube.com/watch?v=ZuH78DpzwjQ

That's just a mathematical shortcut that sacrifices some accuracy and precision in the name of being easier to solve equations with.

is this some kind of space auction?
are we just gonna keep on going for 7, 7 dimensions ha ha ha
the relationship holds but the "numbers" are purely human

Attached: 1544580587927.jpg (781x1024, 699K)

Can you move this to /sci/ i'm to dumb to understand

It's a ratio you dumbass. It wouldn't matter what we called it, it would never be rational.

Nigga this thread is too dumb for /sci/. You need to getchu ass to wiki and start edumacating urself

You don’t need to label each side tho amd you can’t use 2 d coords tho. .. think about it.
You can identify eac surface elegantly by labeling each axis a+/-, b +/-...f+/-.. but then younnned to determine how to pinpoint a location. You could use axis/global north/ angle of deflection then range, it you’ve then got five chords that return a null value. And then you have the problem of referring to the Cartesian x axis as global. Iv Beene obsessing over this for a few months. Think of a 3d toroid. Think about a toroid. You just use x=0, y=0 amd z=0 as centrepoint, xas global, and then you can go east west for deflection, amd then you get the centre of the toroid cross section. Doesn’t matter how you cut it, you get a neat 2 coord system for a torus surface point. E/w x degrees/ and clockwise anti clockwise for a location on the surface of the torus. I’m not even a math fsg but it’s doing my head in how to solve for a location on a dodecahedron that can’t result in a null area

>hypercone
What do you think of my master's thesis?

Attached: hypercone.webm (1280x720, 2.47M)

now draw a hypercohen satan

If what you are saying it's true you could calculate pi value in whatever frame you want and check if it's irrational.

That pi exists actually just proves that at least 2 dimensions exist just that

Cant you just label each axis A - F like you said, but instead of + or -, range it -1 through 1. The axis that pinpoints which face will give the coordinate 1 or -1 than, considering the face axis as the z, 2 of the other axis will represent the x and y, your coordinate might look like: ((A,-1),(C,.23),(E,-.33))

OP take a look at pic.

Attached: non-euclidean-geometry1_www-blendspace-com.jpg (400x235, 19K)

>Natural numbers are the handwiring of god. All the other numbers are just our abstractions.

Pi in base Pi is 1, there you go.

>handwriting of god
>somehow everything we don't understand equals to 7

Attached: 1502106713771.png (559x577, 822K)

Dude.. It's just circumference divided by diameter.
Try it with other polygons using perimeter/diameter
A square's "pi"? 2.83...
A hexagon's? 3
Octagon? 3.06...
Decagon? 3.09...
Dodecagon? 3.11...
Hexadecagon? 3.12...

The decimals keep increasing, but none of these are unending. This is because a polygon's side are finite.
A circle is like a polygon with infinite sides, that's why you can't represent it, because it is quite literally infinite.
Now fuck off and stop theorycrafting about shit you don't understand.

Attached: 1506786636491.png (625x423, 74K)

>arguing with a Hungarian about math

Not even once.

Attached: vonneumann.jpg (220x276, 14K)

I don't have those. My thesis allows model view and travel arbitrary non-euclidean spaces

Attached: textured.webm (1280x720, 2.73M)

was in response to

Attached: cubes.webm (1280x720, 2.49M)

Sheeiittt

Attached: 1513763696479.png (586x402, 227K)

Not really. You’d end up with labelling the surfaces a...l..
And even if you did, you’d need to figure out how to label a point on each pentagon. So each surface would have a centre point from which you need to be able describe a location inside the pentagon . Draw that in your head for a second. You’ve got a Central point from which you draw a circle amd nest a pentagon Inside that. So there are five areas inside the circle yet outside the pentagon that can’t return a value that actually represents a location on the surface of the dodecahedron on that plane. Might have to think about it in terms of slices of spheres that intersect. Like mashing bubbles together and mapping the intersect points. I’m just s dumb ass boat driver but this is driving me mad

yeah diameter of a square??
are you taking half the length of the height or the diagonal?? or something inbetween
looks cool but it was a joke you dumbledore
just go spherical coordinates or something simple like that

Diagonal.
Dismiss the square if you want, the rest apply just as well

pi isn't a universal constant, it's just the area under a fucking quadratic curve. its irrationality is a theorem and has nothing to do with real world measurements.

but it only works with the circle because it's smooth and the radius is a full constant
the rest will have wiggle room for the length

>looks cool but it was a joke you dumbledore
no kidding

Attached: negative_tetrahedral.webm (640x640, 2.78M)

Attached: swh.webm (640x360, 2.53M)

wut??
then photoshop a happy merchant into one of the videos and call it a day, plus you haven't seen the amount of noobs in here these days

It doesn't matter, just pick the longest diagonal to divide the perimeter. The more sides it has, the more it approaches pi.
The proportion is directly linked with the number of sides. Problem is pi tries to calculate a perfect circle, which is like having infinite sides.
Not complicated

>noobs

Leave and never come back.