Originally posted by DeepThoughtNever mind. pi is 3.14... (but still she moves) 😞
In any geometry the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is pi in the limit that the radius is zero. Non-Euclidean geometries are locally flat so you can recover the c = pi d rule as a limiting case. In non Euclidean geometries the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter is not a constant so trying to define pi as a si ...[text shortened]... e the limit that the diameter goes to zero when you get the same answer as in Euclidean space.
Just a stupid question here, but do photons travel AT the speed of light, or somewhere just under it? In other words, is the photon the light itself?
As for pi, it is a constant that was originally defined as a ratio of circumference to diameter of a perfect circle. In Euclidian geometry, all perfect circles are similar, and as such, the scale doesn't affect this ratio. From my understanding, it is considered a constant still, and always has the same value (which is irrational and cannot be expressed exactly in any other way than as this ratio).
I'm not sure of any differences which may exist in non-Euclidian circles, which may have a different ratio (one which isn't equal to pi).
Originally posted by geepamooglePhotons are "particles of light" so yes they do!
Just a stupid question here, but do photons travel AT the speed of light, or somewhere just under it? In other words, is the photon the light itself?
As for pi, it is a constant that was originally defined as a ratio of circumference to diameter of a perfect circle. In Euclidian geometry, all perfect circles are similar, and as such, the scale doesn ...[text shortened]... ist in non-Euclidian circles, which may have a different ratio (one which isn't equal to pi).
- Joined
- 12 Sep 06
- Moves
- 104645
Originally posted by treborbassettHi, I like your reasoning.
You're quite right: we are discussing the definition of words. In particular, we're discussing the definition of the word 'pi'. But I'm afraid your definition is quite simply wrong (in the sense that it disagrees with what mathematicians mean by 'pi'😉. It is not defined as the function that accepts a circle (and perhaps a geometry, both suitably def ...[text shortened]... a circle's circumference to its diameter in the geometry of our universe.
Is this Wikipedia, by any chance? Because it seems to be be what you might be aligning your views with, (Wik). Check it, though, you're dumb. You can't say a thing about a degree in Non-Euclidean Geometry. That's because you don't have one (or any).
- Joined
- 12 Sep 06
- Moves
- 104645
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou Are Stupid
In any geometry the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is pi in the limit that the radius is zero. Non-Euclidean geometries are locally flat so you can recover the c = pi d rule as a limiting case. In non Euclidean geometries the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter is not a constant so trying to define pi as a si ...[text shortened]... e the limit that the diameter goes to zero when you get the same answer as in Euclidean space.
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhy not just attach yourself to some gravitons and hang on for the ride....gravitons move faster than than light, or at least the information contained in gravitons do.
Many questions begins with "If I go in the speed of light..." then the rest of the question irrelevant.
If you expand the E=MC2 equation you'll end up with a division by zero when you have the speed of light. So the question could equally be written: "If I divide by zero..."
The conclusions of the phenomenons when you enter the speed of light could ...[text shortened]... stions because the speed of light is unreachable if you have the slightest of mass in you.
Don't ask me how to attach yourself to gravitons.
Originally posted by uzlessI don't know very much about gravitons.
Why not just attach yourself to some gravitons and hang on for the ride....gravitons move faster than than light, or at least the information contained in gravitons do.
Don't ask me how to attach yourself to gravitons.
Are they massless?
If so, how can they avoid going in the velocity of light?
If not, how can they go faster than light?
Is Einstein wrong or are they born in faster than light verocities?
Are even gravitons existence proved? or are they purely hypothetical?
As said - I don't know very much about gravitons.
Originally posted by FabianFnasgravitons have not been proven, yet...but as with alot of things in science, just because it hasn't been proven, does not mean it doesn't exist.
I don't know very much about gravitons.
Are they massless?
If so, how can they avoid going in the velocity of light?
If not, how can they go faster than light?
Is Einstein wrong or are they born in faster than light verocities?
Are even gravitons existence proved? or are they purely hypothetical?
As said - I don't know very much about gravitons.
gravitons are massless, photons are not.
Originally posted by uzlessIf the physisists says there is gravitons, then I too believe in gravitons.
gravitons have not been proven, yet...but as with alot of things in science, just because it hasn't been proven, does not mean it doesn't exist.
gravitons are massless, photons are not.
Are they massless, then the speed of light is the only speed that they can have. But if their mass has an imaginary component, *then* they have a speed faster than that of lights.
There is something fishy about photons - how can photons travel in light speed if they're not massless? Are there two definitions of mass when photons are involved?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasPhotons may have an apparent mass because of their speed, but they have zero "rest mass", which is what is generally meant when you're talking about massless particles.
There is something fishy about photons - how can photons travel in light speed if they're not massless? Are there two definitions of mass when photons are involved?
Then you've got tachyons. Travel faster than light. They may not exist, but haven't been completely ruled out. but if they do exist the speed of light is still a barrier - they can't be slowed to that speed!
Originally posted by mtthwNot only they cannot slow down to the speed of light, they prefer going at speeds as far from the speed of light as possible.
Then you've got tachyons. Travel faster than light. They may not exist, but haven't been completely ruled out. but if they do exist the speed of light is still a barrier - they can't be slowed to that speed!
How is it possible to detect a creature like this one? Will they ever be detected (if they exist) or will they ever be ghost particles whose only meaning, in their high velocity lives, is to satisfy the mathematical formulas that found them in the first place?
Do they have mass? Yes, they have. But their mass has an imaginary component to satisfy the einsteinian equation. Only masses with this imaginary unit can travel faster than light.
How did they reach this velocity in the first place? They were born in this velocity. They haven't crossed the barrier of light speed, ever.
Some theoreticians have came up the idea that universe has an parallel universe. One being under the speed of light, the other one being over the speed of light, the both sharing the light barrier as a separating surface. Which one is ours? It depends from what side you're looking from. Ours, or theirs. We define our universe as the normal one, and the other one as the abnormal one, where tachyons exist. Perhaps there are other supralight creatures, playing chess and wondering how the other universe will be like. Perhaps they see us as tachyons only, as solutions of weird equations...