DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on January 04, 2008, 05:06:10 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080104/ap_on_go_ot/teaching_evolution;_ylt=AuSika7YDK8O4RtTiDhADI5xieAA
Where in our constitution is Science made sacred?
To teach an orthodox point of view to the unwilling should be deemed unconstitutional.
It is farcical to call education in Evolution "necessary" it is necessary for a job in paleontology ,nowhere else.
The Government should avoid making religious decisions for people , even if based on science.
-
<<Where in our constitution is Science made sacred?>>
There is nothing sacred about science. It is not made sacred in the Constitution. Nobody has ever made the claim that science is sacred, so the point of your question is lost upon me.
<<To teach an orthodox point of view to the unwilling should be deemed unconstitutional.>>
Who are the "unwilling?" Is somebody rounding up students at gun-point and forcing them into science classes? Near as I can tell, anybody who is a student in a science class is there because they want to learn about science. Evolution is a scientific theory. So it is taught in a science class. Creation science, intelligent design, or whatever new name its proponents want to give it is not a scientific theory. So it does not belong in a science class.
<<It is farcical to call education in Evolution "necessary" it is necessary for a job in paleontology ,nowhere else.>>
It is necessary in medicine, zoology, developmental anatomy, microbiology, ecology and probably a ton of other subjects. As abstract knowledge helping to broaden our understanding of natural phenomena, it is a key concept. A scientist who did not understand the theory of evolution would be a laughingstock to other scientists, whether or not it had any practical application in his or her field. Since knowledge is always expanding and in unforeseeable ways, through unforeseeable means, it would be crazy for any scientific worker NOT to understand thoroughly the workings of the theory, and have it as part of his or her mental landscape or mental toolbox as he or she works on the scientific problems of the day. Science does not grow through willful ignorance.
<<The Government should avoid making religious decisions for people , even if based on science.>>
The government allows for and encourages the opening of educational institutions for the study of all of the arts and sciences known to mankind. What it does not allow for and encourage is for ignorant religious fanatics to invade the science classes of the nation and force their ignorant, bigoted and, frankly, moronic views of the world on those who have studied and are teaching in the sciences. Scientists are free to teach science as they conceive science to be, and non-scientists are not free to tell the scientists what to teach as science. Nobody is forcing these morons to study science, and it will actually be better for scientific education if they don't.
-
It is farcical to call education in Evolution "necessary" it is necessary for a job in paleontology ,nowhere else.
Wow. Just....wow.
-
Exactly. Ignorance on this level is more than just ignorance. It is pathological.
But get ready for it, JS. America is falling into the hands of people just like this. And worse. When a country falls from grace, it falls from grace.
-
To teach an orthodox point of view to the unwilling should be deemed unconstitutional.
Then you should be more than willing to take religion out of the public schools, yes?
It is farcical to call education in Evolution "necessary" it is necessary for a job in paleontology ,nowhere else.
Remember that when you get your next flu shot. Or have to get an antibiotic you have never had before because the bug it is supposed to treat has mutated and become resistant to what you had before.
-
Evolution is neither orthodoxy nor unorthodoxy., it is science.It is neither a religion nor a substitute for any religion. It as close to the truth in the question "where do we come from" that science can discover. There is far, far FAR more proof for evolution than there ever will be for the Book of Genesis.
You have a right to remain ignorant, but you must allow your children to think for themselves
-
You have a right to remain ignorant, but you must allow your children to think for themselves
So the government alone has the right to tell children what and how to think?
And the government alone has the right to determine what the truth is?
As long as there is one student in a classwhose family is religiously offended by evoluton , it should not be taught , there is no governmental inerest or right to countermand the religious teaching of a parent.
-
So the government alone has the right to tell children what and how to think?
In the case of evolution, government has nothing to do with it. Science is science, and evolution is good science.
-
<<Where in our constitution is Science made sacred?>>
There is nothing sacred about science. It is not made sacred in the Constitution. Nobody has ever made the claim that science is sacred, so the point of your question is lost upon me.
The government is proibited from establishing a religion , it is also prohibited from disestablishing one.
<<To teach an orthodox point of view to the unwilling should be deemed unconstitutional.>>
Who are the "unwilling?" Is somebody rounding up students at gunpoint and forcing them into science classes?
Yes they do
Near as I can tell, anybody who is a student in a science class is there because they want to learn about science. Evolution is a scientific theory. So it is taught in a science class. Creation science, intelligent design, or whatever new name its proponents want to give it is not a scientific theory.
Whether it is science or not should not determine whether it s taught in public school or not note that we have already agreed that science holds no special position constitionally .
So it does not belong in a science class.
So this is a case of nothing being better than not enough?
<<It is farcical to call education in Evolution "necessary" it is necessary for a job in paleontology ,nowhere else.>>
It is necessary in medicine, zoology, developmental anatomy, microbiology, ecology and probably a ton of other subjects. As abstract knowledge helping to broaden our understanding of natural phenomena, it is a key concept. A scientist who did not understand the theory of evolution would be a laughingstock to other scientists, whether or not it had any practical application in his or her field. Since knowledge is always expanding and in unforeseeable ways, through unforeseeable means, it would be crazy for any scientific worker NOT to understand thoroughly the workings of the theory, and have it as part of his or her mental landscape or mental toolbox as he or she works on the scientific problems of the day.
By the time someone becomes a professional scientist , on would have had time to attend many colledge level courses , discuss the question with peersand instrutors , and conclude what the truth was for himself. This is true for all of the fields you mention here and any other that might tangentially need an Evolutionary understanding.So what makes it needfull top force this "truth" down the throats of the defenseless young and overrule their unwilling parents?Science does not grow through willful ignorance.
Were is it written that science must grow? Not in our constitution.
<<The Government should avoid making religious decisions for people , even if based on science.>>
The government allows for and encourages the opening of educational institutions for the study of all of the arts and sciences known to mankind.
OK at the colledge level , where all of the students are volunteers.
What it does not allow for and encourage is for ignorant religious fanatics to invade the science classes of the nation and force their ignorant, bigoted and, frankly, moronic views of the world on those who have studied and are teaching in the sciences. Scientists are free to teach science as they conceive science to be, and are not free to tell the scientists what to teach as science. Nobody is forcing these morons to study science, and it will actually be better for scientific education if they don't.
-
So the government alone has the right to tell children what and how to think?
In the case of evolution, government has nothing to do with it. Science is science, and evolution is good science.
So it is , but if it offends a religious sensability then the Government must eschew establishing it.
-
So it is , but if it offends a religious sensability then the Government must eschew establishing it.
Why? The government is not establishing religion, it is teaching science.
Goes back to the discussion about having a right to not be offended.
-
So the government alone has the right to tell children what and how to think?
In the case of evolution, government has nothing to do with it. Science is science, and evolution is good science.
Evolution is critical in the study of diseases.
I cannot get over why these kind of points still have to be made.
One theory I read about stated that the pharmetceutical companies often enlist the evangelicals to keep up the pressure so that they have time to get their patents in line; pharmeceuticals are already have secured unbelievable rights in what is referred to as "intellectual property."
Locally, teachers are called into the office for even mentioning the word evolution, always after the kid goes home and clues in the abysmally over-zealous.
I know that Jesus often employed radical tactics to make his points, but I wonder what he would make of these deplorable harrassment tactics used by the reiligous right today.
-
So it is , but if it offends a religious sensability then the Government must eschew establishing it.
Why? The government is not establishing religion, it is teaching science.
Goes back to the discussion about having a right to not be offended.
It certainly does!
-
Evolution is neither orthodoxy nor unorthodoxy., it is science.It is neither a religion nor a substitute for any religion. It as close to the truth in the question "where do we come from" that science can discover. There is far, far FAR more proof for evolution than there ever will be for the Book of Genesis.
You have a right to remain ignorant, but you must allow your children to think for themselves
If you, like most mammels, kuff your offspring to correct their often self-endangering behavior, you can go to jail, and even have your young taken away from you.
But if you keep them stone ignorant, nada.
-
So the government alone has the right to tell children what and how to think?
In the case of evolution, government has nothing to do with it. Science is science, and evolution is good science.
Evolution is critical in the study of diseases.
I cannot get over why these kind of points still have to be made.
One theory I read about stated that the pharmetceutical companies often enlist the evangelicals to keep up the pressure so that they have time to get their patents in line; pharmeceuticals are already have secured unbelievable rights in what is referred to as "intellectual property."
Locally, teachers are called into the office for even mentioning the word evolution, always after the kid goes home and clues in the abysmally over-zealous.
I know that Jesus often employed radical tactics to make his points, but I wonder what he would make of these deplorable harrassment tactics used by the reiligous right today.
I didn't tie yu p before you read this, neither did I threaten to lock you up if you didn't.
But Homeschooling is illeagal in some states and leagally difficult in others , and truancy laws are suffecient force t consider that the govrnment is determinein what the tuth is and forceing people to listen to the orthdox version at tender ages.
-
Evolution is neither orthodoxy nor unorthodoxy., it is science.It is neither a religion nor a substitute for any religion. It as close to the truth in the question "where do we come from" that science can discover. There is far, far FAR more proof for evolution than there ever will be for the Book of Genesis.
You have a right to remain ignorant, but you must allow your children to think for themselves
If you, like most mammels, kuff your offspring to correct their often self-endangering behavior, you can go to jail, and even have your young taken away from you.
But if you keep them stone ignorant, nada.
So shoud the government be more, or less, involved in childrearing?
-
Locally, teachers are called into the office for even mentioning the word evolution, always after the kid goes home and clues in the abysmally over-zealous.
You got a source for that statement?
-
I reckon next Plane will want schools to stop teaching math because they don't teach that the value of pi is exactly 3, as mentioned in 1 Kings 7:23. And you can completely forget history.
-
I reckon next Plane will want schools to stop teaching math because they don't teach that the value of pi is exactly 3, as mentioned in 1 Kings 7:23. And you can completely forget history.
These things are all just as clearly forbidden as prayer in class.
(Only atiests are so literal minded that they must have all the numbers add up precicely in a description that uses no more precice measure than the cubit.
-
That the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is the same for all circles, and that it is slightly more than 3, was known to ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian and Greek geometers. The earliest known approximations date from around 1900 BC; they are 25/8 (Babylonia) and 256/81 (Egypt), both within 1% of the true value. The Indian text Shatapatha Brahmana gives π as 339/108 ≈ 3.139. The Books of Kings (600 BC) appears to suggest π = 3, which is notably worse than other estimates available at the time, although the interpretation of the passage is disputed. -From Wikipedia
Cubit or no, they should have been able to better approximate the circumference, perhaps to 30 1/2 cubits, which would have been closer. Though why the Hebrews would be 1300 years behind everyone else in being able to approximate the value of pi escapes me.
Regardless, like evolution, the modern, accepted value of pi is not correct according to the Bible, so I figured you would not want it taught as well. I reckon that would put you out of a job.
Then there's all that history the Bible gets wrong. Can't teach that anymore either. And remember, the entire universe is only about 6012 years old, throwing into doubt all those astronomical calculations about the distance to other galaxies based on light years, since nothing could exist over 6012 light years away or we would never be able to see it.
-
That the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is the same for all circles, and that it is slightly more than 3, was known to ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian and Greek geometers. The earliest known approximations date from around 1900 BC; they are 25/8 (Babylonia) and 256/81 (Egypt), both within 1% of the true value. The Indian text Shatapatha Brahmana gives π as 339/108 ≈ 3.139. The Books of Kings (600 BC) appears to suggest π = 3, which is notably worse than other estimates available at the time, although the interpretation of the passage is disputed. -From Wikipedia
Cubit or no, they should have been able to better approximate the circumference, perhaps to 30 1/2 cubits, which would have been closer. Though why the Hebrews would be 1300 years behind everyone else in being able to approximate the value of pi escapes me.
Regardless, like evolution, the modern, accepted value of pi is not correct according to the Bible, so I figured you would not want it taught as well. I reckon that would put you out of a job.
Then there's all that history the Bible gets wrong. Can't teach that anymore either. And remember, the entire universe is only about 6012 years old, throwing into doubt all those astronomical calculations about the distance to other galaxies based on light years, since nothing could exist over 6012 light years away or we would never be able to see it.
I suppose that a cast bronze tub that size would have been one of the largest castings in the world at that time and would have require the planning of real experts at molding and casting
They must have used more precise measurement than this necessarily.
In any part of the bible that the cubit is used , a fraction of a cubit is never used.
But to describe the relationship of a diameter to a circumference in whole numbers one to three is correct and the .1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196 that disappears is proper rounding .
-
In any part of the bible that the cubit is used , a fraction of a cubit is never used.
The Bible never mentions a lot of things that we know exist. Or are we allowed only to believe in things that are mentioned in the Bible?
I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hebrew_weights_and_measures , which lists many of the ancient Hebrew units of measurement. Surely some conmbination of these could have been used to more closely approximate the circumference of the bowl. Say, thirty cubits and a span (you can look that one up, by the way - a span is equal to 3 palms, or 12 fingerbreadths). And span is mentioned in the Bible.
But if you want to insist the Hebrews were so uneducated as to state the value of pi as 3 when most of the civilizations around them had it computed to within 1% of the correct value over 1300 years before, well, then I guess maybe they were just that stupid.
-
http://3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592.com/
In any part of the bible that the cubit is used , a fraction of a cubit is never used.
The Bible never mentions a lot of things that we know exist. Or are we allowed only to believe in things that are mentioned in the Bible?
I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hebrew_weights_and_measures , which lists many of the ancient Hebrew units of measurement. Surely some combination of these could have been used to more closely approximate the circumference of the bowl. Say, thirty cubits and a span (you can look that one up, by the way - a span is equal to 3 palms, or 12 fingerbreadths). And span is mentioned in the Bible.
But if you want to insist the Hebrews were so uneducated as to state the value of pi as 3 when most of the civilizations around them had it computed to within 1% of the correct value over 1300 years before, well, then I guess maybe they were just that stupid.
And why would you want to use greater precision in the description ?
There is not give enough detail to make a copy of the tub , that much detail would be a book itself.
Rounding to whole numbers ,the figure is absolutely correct. If rouded to half cubits the error would be reduced a little , not much , what would be the point ?You cannot define Pi with no error.
But Bible critics tend to be very literal minded and interested in the unimportant.
The Temple and Palace built by Soloman are described in terms that make it clear that the were amazing for size and expense.
The tub in question must have had few equals in the world at the time , give or take a half cubit.
Could you describe a more contemporary engineering project such as the Apollo program?
Would you bog the reader down by never approximating anything?
If you ever used an approxamation , could I seize on it as proof that there was never an Apollo program?
-
I reckon next Plane will want schools to stop teaching math because they don't teach that the value of pi is exactly 3, as mentioned in 1 Kings 7:23. And you can completely forget history.
Here is a good one.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Pi_through_the_ages.html
There are no persons I know of who are offended by the approximation of Pi , other than the Bible critics you brought to my attention.
\but /
As a Hypothetical proposition , yes , if there were a church that was against the teaching of Pi's approximation being carried out into fractions , their members should not be forced ,by the government, to admit otherwise.
It is beside the point that Evolution is true , just as it is beside the point that no on has ever told you the value of Pi except as an approximation.
The difference in the approximation of 3 from the approximation of 3.14 is an error of 5.5% approximately.
-
If you wish to prevent your children from even hearing about science, then you should move to a state where you can homeschool them as you wish, and they can remain ignorant of all the same things you yourself enjoy being ignorant of.
I think Alaska is a good choice, but Idaho is also pretty good. Of course, Mississippi has the highest degree of ignorance attainable within the boundaries of the US.
You should strive to live as far from contact with other humans as you can. Both Idaho and Alaska have really remote places where you could build a log cabin and put meat on the family table with your very own firearms, preferably a shotgun and a rifle.
Then you could homeschool your children. Luckily for you, all children are born ignorant, and there is nothing that would force you to own a radio or TV. That way you could prevent them from accidentally watching PBS or some educational program that might deal with science, for you a heretical religion.
All are born ignorant, many remain ignorant throughout their lives, and your darling children...they could have ignorance thrust upon them.
-
If you wish to prevent your children from even hearing about science, then you should move to a state where you can homeschool them as you wish, and they can remain ignorant of all the same things you yourself enjoy being ignorant of.
I think Alaska is a good choice, but Idaho is also pretty good. Of course, Mississippi has the highest degree of ignorance attainable within the boundaries of the US.
You should strive to live as far from contact with other humans as you can. Both Idaho and Alaska have really remote places where you could build a log cabin and put meat on the family table with your very own firearms, preferably a shotgun and a rifle.
Then you could homeschool your children. Luckily for you, all children are born ignorant, and there is nothing that would force you to own a radio or TV. That way you could prevent them from accidentally watching PBS or some educational program that might deal with science, for you a heretical religion.
All are born ignorant, many remain ignorant throughout their lives, and your darling children...they could have ignorance thrust upon them.
Why should freedom be available only in the hinterlands?
While in Urban settings the Government is allowed to define truth for the people?
-
hy should freedom be available only in the hinterlands?
While in Urban settings the Government is allowed to define truth for the people?
==========================================================================
Lookit, science is closest approximation that the human race has come to fact and is necessary for any modern person to relate to the modern world in which they live.
I think it is appropriate that those who believe that women were created from a man's rib, that every animal on the planet could be gathered up in just one spot and crammed on a boat for 40 days, and that the universe was founded 6,000 years ago in six days should live without the benefits of science. They should not be given modern medicines, they need to wait for someone with divine gifts to come along and cure them with the laying on of miraculous hands.
When they decide to toast their breakfast muffins, they should not need the Power and Light companies, they should rely on the power, power, wonder-working power of the Precious Blood of the Holy Savior.
Hence. if thou wisheth to live in the Age of Holy Ignorance, then get thee unto the Hinterlands. Thou belongest not in the appliance aisle of thy local Wal*Mart.
-
The difference in the approximation of 3 from the approximation of 3.14 is an error of 5.5% approximately.
ROFL
-
The difference in the approximation of 3 from the approximation of 3.14 is an error of 5.5% approximately.
ROFL
I said APPROXAMATELY!
-
The writing of the Bible was done by priests. I imagine that a Hebrew builder would have known a more acxcurate value for pi, but the priests would have well been ignorant of that, as building things was not their schtick.
I don't think I'd hire a preacher to build my house. or even expect one to have an adequate knowledge to set up my DVD recorder or VHS recorder.
-
I don't think I'd hire a preacher to build my house. or even expect one to have an adequate knowledge to set up my DVD recorder or VHS recorder.
How about run the country?
-
I don't think I'd hire a preacher to build my house. or even expect one to have an adequate knowledge to set up my DVD recorder or VHS recorder.
How about run the country?
==========================
I doubt seriously that I would vote for Huckabee for president, as he has stated that he doesn't believe in evolution.
He has to be pretty dense to say that publicly, I think. Too dense to run my country.
-
The writing of the Bible was done by priests. I imagine that a Hebrew builder would have known a more acxcurate value for pi, but the priests would have well been ignorant of that, as building things was not their schtick.
I don't think I'd hire a preacher to build my house. or even expect one to have an adequate knowledge to set up my DVD recorder or VHS recorder.
Darn I just asked a preacher for an estimate for some renovations, he makes his living as a carpenter.
Saying Pi is 3 is not incorect , it is an approximation.
As a descrition of an engineering feat in a non engineering tome ,it is an adequate approximation.
The true value of Pi is not 3.14 either , this is an approximation tw0 orders of magnitue more precice , yet still only about 4% diffrent from three.
NO human being has ever known the true value of Pi and it is very likely unknowable to anyone less than God.
-
Saying Pi is 3 is not incorect , it is an approximation.
As a descrition of an engineering feat in a non engineering tome ,it is an adequate approximation.
The true value of Pi is not 3.14 either , this is an approximation tw0 orders of magnitue more precice , yet still only about 4% diffrent from three.
NO human being has ever known the true value of Pi and it is very likely unknowable to anyone less than God.
=================================================================================
It is simply a repeating decimal, the exact value of which can be easily derived by putting the circumference of a circle over the radius.
The fact that it is not possible to write it in a finite space does not mean that it cannot be used in calculations.
-
It is simply a repeating decimal, the exact value of which can be easily derived by putting the circumference of a circle over the radius.
Pi is an irrational number, not a repeating decimal.
In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number ? that is, it is a number which cannot be expressed as a fraction m/n, where m and n are integers, with n non-zero. Informally, this means numbers that cannot be represented as simple fractions. It can be deduced that they also cannot be represented as terminating or repeating decimals, but the idea is more profound than that. While it may seem strange at first hearing, almost all real numbers are irrational, in a sense which is defined more precisely below. Perhaps the most well known irrational numbers are π (pi) and \scriptstyle\sqrt{2} (square root of 2).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number)
-
I meant to say a "non-repeating decimal". But it can be expressed accurately as a ratio rather than as 3.1459,etc.
The film "Pi" was based on a theory by two groups, an assortment of Talmudic rabbi scholars, and an assortment of stock analysts, that pi was, in fact three plus a repeating decimal, and when the actual enormously long decimal fraction was known, then (a) the gyrations of the stock market would be made predictable, and (b) a message from God woulf be revealed.
This assertion in the plot is a bit preposterous, but it is still a very clever film. The protagonist is a Jewish mathematical genius who builds computers and writes programs to discover the value of Pi, and he runs up against these two warring factions. He also suffers from horrible migraine headaches.
It was made in balck and white, and of course, matematics was greatly emphasized, so it did not triumph at the ticket booths, but it was entertaining. I imagine Kimba would love it.
Probably available from Amazon on DVD for a pittance.
-
I meant to say a "non-repeating decimal". But it can be expressed accurately as a ratio rather than as 3.1459,etc.
Since pi is an irrational number, no it can't.
-
Well, yes, it can. You can express it as the circumference over the radius.
The result will likely be an irrational number, though.
Engineers come close enough to the actual number that there structures do not collapse, in any event.
-
Well, yes, it can. You can express it as the circumference over the radius.
The result will likely be an irrational number, though.
Any number that be represented as a ratio - one number over another - is a rational number. Pi is an irrational number, and therefore BY DEFINITION cannot be represented in that way.
An APPROXIMATION of pi can be represented in this way.
-
Well, yes, it can. You can express it as the circumference over the radius.
Actually it would be the circumference over the diameter.
However, since the circumference is derived by multiplying the diameter by pi - which is an irrational number - then the circumference would be an irrational number itself. Working with the formula
C
--- = pi ,
d
since C is an infinite fraction, and pi is an infinite fraction, you could not represent them as a ratio, only as an approximation.
-
However, since the circumference is derived by multiplying the diameter by pi - which is an irrational number - then the circumference would be an irrational number itself. Working with the formula
==============================================
Can't you determine the circumference of a circle by just measuring it? I am guessing that this is entirely possible.
-
Can't you determine the circumference of a circle by just measuring it? I am guessing that this is entirely possible.
Not accurately. The closer you come to the correct number, the better your approximation of pi.
-
Can't you determine the circumference of a circle by just measuring it? I am guessing that this is entirely possible.
Sure you could - well, at least as accurately as modern measuring instruments would let you. But let's say you are able to make the circumference exactly 3 (feet, yards, whatever). Then the diameter, necesssarily, is going to become an infinite fraction and an irrational number in order for pi to remain the same value. See the problem? One of the components of the ratio (fraction) is going to be an irrational number either way. It is still going to be a "number which cannot be expressed as a fraction m/n, where m and n are integers (whole numbers - h), with n non-zero".
-
Still, we build round and sperical things all the time, and even though all we may have is a rough approximation to pi, still, our round and spherical objects are structurally quite sound.
They used to drop molten lead from a tower to produce round spherical shot. I wonder if such objects formed by nature such as these shot pellets or soap bubbles could be more perfectly spherical.
-
Still, we build round and sperical things all the time, and even though all we may have is a rough approximation to pi, still, our round and spherical objects are structurally quite sound.
Pi can be irrational and round objects still can exist.
After all, engineers use "imaginary" numbers (multiples of the square root of -1) all the time, and those structures don't collapse, either.
Just because you cannot define it exactly does not mean that it can't be used.
They used to drop molten lead from a tower to produce round spherical shot. I wonder if such objects formed by nature such as these shot pellets or soap bubbles could be more perfectly spherical.
NASA has done experiments with production of more perfectly spherical ball bearings in space. The closer to perfectly round a ball bearing, the less friction it produces. Apparently free-fall environments produce a more perfectly round shape, as gravity distorts the shape.
-
Just because you cannot define it exactly does not mean that it can't be used.
===============================
Aha! this is precisely the point I was trying to make all along.
-
Just because you cannot define it exactly does not mean that it can't be used.
===============================
Aha! this is precisely the point I was trying to make all along.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Yes , one must simply decide how nearly the approxamation must be to be appropriate.
If I was to measure a tub useing cubits ,a measure that was approxamately 18" ,I might say that the ratio of its circumfrance to its diameter is approxamately three , since a cubit isn't a precice measure , the ratio need be no more precice than the yardstick.
This certainly doesn't give a precice measurement , but allows one to convey the awesomeness of a really big tub without getting into useless detail.
-
Aha! this is precisely the point I was trying to make all along.
That pi cannot be represented exactly, though still be useful? Funny, it seems to the opposite of what you were arguing.
You express accuracy in the result based on the number of significant digits in the operands. Pi, expressed to one significant digit, is "3". You seemed to be arguing that the Jews should have been able to find a closer approximation, even though the numbers they were using for the operands had only one significant digit.
-
You express accuracy in the result based on the number of significant digits in the operands. Pi, expressed to one significant digit, is "3". You seemed to be arguing that the Jews should have been able to find a closer approximation, even though the numbers they were using for the operands had only one significant digit.
=====================================
Yechhh! You are putting words in my mouth. I never said any such thing.
I find this topic boring and will allow you to have the last word, as I am no longer interested in this.
-
You seemed to be arguing that the Jews should have been able to find a closer approximation...
They didn't need to 'find' one, it had already been around for over 1300 years.