Comment by panarky
1 year ago
Another bad way to check for non-coincidences is to use a value like g which changes depending on your location.
Pi is the same everywhere in the universe.
g on Earth: 9.8 m/s²
g on Earth's moon: 1.62 m/s²
g on Mars: 3.71 m/s²
g on Jupiter: 24.79 m/s²
g on Pluto: 0.62 m/s²
g on the Sun: 274 m/s²
(Jupiter's estimate for g is at the cloud tops, and the Sun's is for the photosphere, as neither body has a solid surface.)
My physics prof said g is actually a vector field. Because the acceleration has a direction and both magnitude and direction vary from point to point.
Absolutely true on astronomical scales.
An unnecessary complication if you're dropping a brick out of a window.
It's funny how much of physics we do assuming a flat earth.
If you did it "properly" you would calculate the orbit of the brick (assuming earth was a point mass), then find the intersection between that orbit and earth's surface. But for small speeds and distances you can just assume g points down as it would in a flat earth
1 reply →
Your physics Prof is correct of course, and so is GP. "Standard" values for g exist for these bodies, but it also varies everywhere.
This is correct, gravitational constants are a good approximation/simplification since the mass of solar bodies is usually orders of magnitude greater than the other bodies in the problem, and displacement over the course of the problem is usually orders of magnitude smaller than absolute distance between them.
In other words, we assume spherical cows until that approximation no longer works.
I volunteer for the Mars mission as a weight loss tool.
Surviving on Mars will probably involve some mass loss, too.
With the current technology, even getting on a rocket to Mars will involve some weight loss - the mass budget is tight, and each kilogram they can trim off the crew bodies is a kilogram that could be put towards fuel, life support, or scientific equipment.
Fun fact: pi is both the same, and not the same, in all of those places, too.
Because geometry.
If you consider pi to just be a convenient name for a fixed numerical constant based on a particular identity found in Euclidean space, then yes: by definition it's the same everywhere because pi is just an alias for a very specific number.
And that sentence already tells us it's not really a "universal" constant: it's a mathematical constant so it's only constant given some very particular preconditions. In this case, it's only our trusty 3.1415etc given the precondition that we're working in Euclidean space. If someone is doing math based on non-Euclidean spaces they're probably not working with the same pi. In fact, rather than merely being a different value, the pi they're working with might not even be constant, even if in formulae it cancels out as if it were.
As one of those "I got called by the principal because my kid talked back to the teacher, except my kid was right": draw a circle on a sphere. That circle has a curved diameter that is bigger than if you drew it on a flat sheet of paper. The ratio of the circle circumference to its diameter is less than 3.1415etc, so is that a different pi? You bet it is: that's the pi associated with that particular non-Euclidean, closed 2D plane.
So is pi the same everywhere in the universe? Ehhhhhhhh it depends entirely on who's using it =D
In non-euclidean spaces, your definition of pi wouldn't even be a value. It's not well defined because the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle is dependent on the size of the circle and the curvature inside the circle.
It's probably true that it's only well defined in euclidean space. Your relaxed definition, which I have never seen before, is not very useful.
I don't agree, I thought what he said was very interesting. It never occurred to me that pi might vary, and over a non-flat space I can see what they're saying. I think it's intrinsically interesting simply because it breaks one of my preconceptions, that pi is a constant. Talking about it being 'not very useful' just seems far too casually dismissive.
11 replies →
This whole conversation is painful to read:
1. Your parent was talking about projections from one space to another and getting it confused.
2. Pi is pi and their non-Euclidean pi is still pi (unless you want to argue that a circle drawn on the earth’s surface has a different value of pi).
The problem comes down to projections, then all bets are off.
4 replies →
Just sounds like you’ve confused yourself. It’s like spinning in circles and acting like no one else knows which way is up.
That isn’t a different pi. That’s a different ratio. Your hint is that there are ways to calculate pi besides the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter. This constant folks have named pi shows up in situations besides Euclidean space.
Good job, you completely missed the point where I explain that pi, the constant, is a constant. And that "pi, if considered a ratio" (you know, that thing we did to originally discover pi) is not the same as "pi, the constant".
Language skills matter in Math just as much as they do in regular discourse. Arguably moreso: how you define something determines what you can then do with it, and that applies to everything from whether "parallel lines can cross" (what?) to whether divergent series can be mapped to a single number (what??) to what value the circle circumference ratio is and whether you can call that pi (you can) and whether that makes sense (less so, but still yes in some cases).
2 replies →
Modern mathematics is more likely than not going to define pi as twice the unique zero of cos between 0 and 2, and cos can be defined via its power series or via the exp function (if you use complex numbers). None of this involves geometry whatsoever.
What do you mean? Cos is an inherently geometric function.
10 replies →