HAPPY Pi DAY!!!

140px-pi-symbolsvgIt was only recently that many of us put away our Square Root Day decorations. Yet, it is now time to celebrate Pi day in all of its irrational glory. The irrational number is rounded off to 3.14, making March 14th the special day for all math geeks — and circle circumference fanatics.

Many people loath Pi Day due to the pressure of finding that special gift to celebrate the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Most pies are ideal for the parties but stores have destroyed the holiday by making it too commercial. Kids just want to grab their circular gifts without any thought of the true meaning of Pi Day.

This year, Congress voted 391-10 vote to designate today as the official Pi Day for the first time in history. Obviously the anti-Pi lobby was able to snare ten members who continue their anti-circumferencial and anti-Euclidean politics. After all, Indiana once tried to declare Pi as 3.2 in 1897. This was done despite the fact that Pi is actually 3.14159.

The anti-Pi coalition includes Jason Chaffetz (R, Utah), Jeff Flake (R., Az.), Dean Heller (R. Montana), Timothy Johnson (R., Ill.); Jeff Miller (R., Fl.); Randy Neugebauer (R., TX). Ron Paul (R., TX), Ted Poe (R. TX), Bill Shuster (R., Pa.) and Mike Pence (R., Ind.). It is ironic that the opposition is entirely made up of Republicans despite the practical alliance with Clintonian Triangulation politics.

Ron Paul’s work for the anti-Pi forces may be an expression of a libertarian disgust with state-sponsored mathematics.

The stalwart Pi-man is Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash) proudly admits that he is “kind of geeked up about it and that he has “been fascinated by pi since I was a kid. It blows my mind. It’s lovely. The fact that it’s sort of this infinite number. I just think it’s this magical thing. … There’s a real beauty to mathematics.” What is really amazing is that Baird not only was able to get a date in High School but marry a real, non-inflatable woman.

Notably, March 14th is also Albert Einstein — making this day of unspeakable joy for the geek class.

Yet, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) insists that this was a bait-and switch: “I thought I was voting for p-i-e.”

Pi party animals can be a bit out of control today with Pi eating contests and Pi in the Face attacks. Many can be seen in alleys and science ghettos calculating Pi, which has been calculated to over 1 trillion digits past the decimal. Do not get sucked into such calculations, which have been known to turn math fanatics into virtual calculating vombies. “High on Pi” is a common police call.

“Pi eaters” are often found near libraries and science labs. They should not be approached while calculating.

For eligible men and women, be particularly careful about math geeks inviting you up to “see my Euclidean space.”

For the full story, click here.

73 thoughts on “HAPPY Pi DAY!!!

  1. Bobesq:

    Take a look at this video and look at the last few seconds. I think some of this controlled demo stuff has been mistaken for what a cutting torch did after the fact. the column in question was from the upper third of the building and so would have been on the top. pay attention to the first part of the video where he is showing the column sections from the different levels. if you could get a close up of that column you will probably see the telltale marks of a cutting torch, they look like half circles connected horizontally in a chain

    (
    (
    (
    (
    (
    (
    (
    (
    or just lay the above out horizontaly.

    the link is:

    Although it does look like i might be mistaken as to the loss of connection between trusses and outer and inner columns. One video suggests that they broke the columns although I dont know if I believe that on further consideration because the draping of the trusses from the heat should/could have reduced connection column stresses. But its hard to pinpoint the iniating failure mechanism precisely (other than a giant airplane).

    I am still extremely skeptical about controlled demolition as the final cause, but there do seem to be some unanswered questions that should be cleared up so we can put this behind us.

    One more thought – could the molten “steel” actually have been glass or some other debris?

    ASS, (A Skeptic Still)

    Bron98

  2. Shameless O’Toole, Bron, et. al.:

    Were you impressed by Colin Powell’s use of computer animation as a justification to invade Iraq? An unannotated computer animation is as useful in an argument as an episode of the Flintstones.

    Please recall that my first premise regarding the existence of evidence that is absolutely contradictory began with evidence existing outside the possibilities of thermodynamics; i.e. the existence of molten metal observed for more than six months and the existence of an incredible amount of residual heat.

    That is what you should be focused on because that little ditty knocks the ground(ing) out from under the official story; i.e. one cannot ignore the basic laws of physics for argument’s sake or the sake of any type of convenience.

    That aside, I see you’re interested in the cuts in the steel beams.

    Try this:

    http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html

    Download the pdf and go to page 32

    Or search for the following text:

    Above: two men install a conventional cutter charge to steel column, preparing for a controlled demolition of the building. Notice the narrow width/size of the explosive cutter charge. From History Channel: “Wrecking ball – Modern marvels” and thanks to Robert Moore and http://piratenews.org/911con.html. For comparison, observe one of the angle-cut columns seen at Ground Zero after 9/11/2001, below. (Notice especially the uneven cut at the back of the column and the clinging previously-molten metal on both the outside AND the inside of the column, suggesting this was NOT cut using an oxy-acetylene torch, but rather that a highly exothermic chemical reaction was involved in cutting through this steel column.)

    SIYOM,

    Bob

  3. Bobesq:

    I dont believe too much our government says unless verified by about 10 -12 credible sources. In fact I dont believe too much the media says either. With the internet it is just so easy to have a dozen people sighting a dozen others that were sighting a single observation/opinion and it takes a life of its own with no real factual basis or confirmation. So no I did not believe Gen. Powell.

    The animation, unless I missed something, was supporting your view that shape charges were placed. The animator thought as you think that the center core should have remained intact but did not due to the “cutting” of the lower core columns.

    I read the one link and he presents some interesting information. I guess where I am stuck on this is that what benefit does our government get from doing this, I am assuming you think that the Neocons are behind this, I cant think of any that would make sense to me. Oil – thats in plentiful supply; getting rid of Saddam – use yellow cake; getting rid of Osama – he tried in 1993, they could have ginned that up. What possible benefit does this bestow and upon whom? The United States has probably gotten into a Vietnam like situation in Afghanistan, we have spent billions of dollars on the war effort and lost thousands of lives. I suppose it benefits Haliburton and KBR and Blackwater but Haliburton and KBR could have made money from Saddam and Iran and China. It certainly dosent benefit Bush, I dont even think he was much of a president at this point.

    If you think it was some type of conspiracy who benefits? As far as the physical evidence goes it can probably be explained and a full investigation should be undertaken, this stuff needs to go away or if it was some grand conspiracy the members need to be exposed and hanged.

    SWLASS,

    Bron98

  4. Bron,

    Like I said before, you have to follow the evidence and not allow yourself to accept any conclusions that are clearly contradicted by the facts as presented.

    That said, you keep your eyes open to all possibilities; i.e. you start wide and then decide where to go deeper. But you do it based on the evidence; not on the basis of simple say-so’s.

    Personally, I’d focus more on the evidence that makes the ‘official’ story impossible before hypothesizing about suspects and motives. First you find the contradictory fictions used to bolster the ‘official’ story, THEN you narrow your search to see where that leads.

    You’re interested in motive; you bring up Neocons. Interesting range of suspects having a clearly set forth agenda pre- 9/11 talking about all the things they wanted and later became realities VIA 9/11; e.g. the Project For a New American Century, etc.

    But consider this:

    “The agendas of individual terrorist groups vary, but their
    tactical goal is always more or less the same: to sow fear and confusion by deliberately targeting civilians in order to intimidate a country into changing its policies and ways” (washingtonpost.com 5 Myths About Terrorism)

    Terrorism is all about leverage; not blowing stuff up for shits and giggles.

    So Bron, I ask you, who leveraged 9/11 “in order to intimidate a country into changing its policies and ways?”

    You roughly know the answer; you may not like it, and you may not feel inclined to turn over the logs to find all the critters, but you know.

    SIYOM,

    Bob

  5. Bobesq:

    I am a log turner and would not be afraid of truth. It would certainly be dissapointing (rather an understatement) but something like that would have to be taken care of very harshly.

    There are other possible culprits, the Chinese, the Russians, the Cubans, Iran, Pakistan, Libya. Personally if this was some sort of conspiracy I would put my money on the Chinese and the Iranians. The Neocons actually havent gotten too much out of 9/11 on a global scale plus Mr. Obama now has the power. Now if Mr. Obama dosent finish his first term you are probably on to something very sinister indeed.

    On the noises heard at the WTC prior to collapse, when something like a big piece of steel fractures a huge amount of energy is released and the sound produced is pretty horrendous, think of the crack of a breaking bat and multiply that a thousand fold. Also steel is made up of different elements in small amounts depending on the particular steel or mill. And who knows what can happen when you have all of those forces going on at one time. computer models are good to a point. there are quite a few questions but I think they can be answered. The 13 point guy to his credit did try to answer many of the questions I had once I started thinking about it. But I dont know if you are ever going to be able to replicate in a laboratory the type of conditions that occured and produce valid results.

    Most of the structural engineers I know and all of the articles I have read (granted limited to a couple of engineering mags) basically think the fire caused the problem by reducing the strength of the supporting members. As I mentioned above thermal stresses can be quite large. But all that I have read thanks to you, is food for thought and I will continue to educate myself. Hopefully I am right and you are wrong, I would not like to think that my countrymen are such that would do something like this.

    SWLASS,

    Bron98

  6. Bron,

    “There are other possible culprits, the Chinese, the Russians, the Cubans, Iran, Pakistan, Libya”

    Allow me to clarify: All I’m saying is that the more you analyze the evidence, the more your suspects will come into focus.

    “On the noises heard at the WTC prior to collapse, when something like a big piece of steel fractures a huge amount of energy is released and the sound produced is pretty horrendous, think of the crack of a breaking bat and multiply that a thousand fold.”

    I take it you’ve never read the testimony of firemen, policemen, eyewitnesses, etc., all explaining the pre-collapse explosions they heard; much less the testimony of the lobby being blown out before the collapse.

    Feel free to google it. That aside, in terms of audio verification, this is probably the best evidence, in the literal and legal sense of the term, I’ve seen of the North Tower collapse.

    http://tinyurl.com/deemxr

    “Also steel is made up of different elements in small amounts depending on the particular steel or mill. And who knows what can happen when you have all of those forces going on at one time.”

    Okay Bron, now you’re slipping into cartoon science; tossing reason to the wind and hoping beyond hope that some scientist somewhere will present you with an explanation that you can’t fully understand yet somehow relieves you of the intellectual curiosity to find the truth.

    “Most of the structural engineers I know and all of the articles I have read (granted limited to a couple of engineering mags) basically think the fire caused the problem by reducing the strength of the supporting members. As I mentioned above thermal stresses can be quite large.”

    And here’s why I began this discussion with Q=mc∆t

    Each and every theory of how the towers collapsed, that fails to take into account the presence of molten steel after the collapse, fails to explain the complete event and is thus invalid.

    Why. Because each and every theory that attempts to do so begs the question that the physical laws related to Q=mc∆t were simply in abeyance that Tuesday afternoon, and months thereafter, of September 11, 2001.

    SIYOM,

    Bob

Comments are closed.