It 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.
Bron,
Did you know that the Commission report treated the WTC Towers as hollow? No consideration of the 47 massive steel columns making the core.
BTW, are you aware that one of the major hot spots left remaining after 9/11, for the next several months, was WTC 7?
http://tinyurl.com/db65kj
Was that struck by a plane too?
Did you also know that one of the head engineers at NIST, John Gross, upon publication of their final report, plead ignorance as to the finding of molten steel at the site?
http://tinyurl.com/c5fnzy
Here’s the video of John Gross at NIST.
http://tinyurl.com/32fq3n
Funny, the chief architect of the Towers, Leslie Robertson, witnessed it; why didn’t NIST incorporate it into its calculus?
Bron, this isn’t “Oh, they didn’t land on the moon” type crap; this analysis is simply the result of being fed conclusory assertions with scant to no supporting premises and a complete disregard for contradicting evidence.
SIYOM,
Bob
Bron,
Did you know that the Commission report treated the WTC Towers as hollow? No consideration of the 47 massive steel columns making the core.
BTW, are you aware that one of the major hot spots left remaining after 9/11, for the next several months, was WTC 7?
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091601hotspots&scale=0#a091601hotspots
Was that struck by a plane too?
Did you also know that one of the head engineers at NIST, John Gross, upon publication of their final report, plead ignorance as to the finding of molten steel at the site?
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201moltenmetal&scale=0#a091201moltenmetal
Here’s the video of John Gross at NIST.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501
Funny, the chief architect of the Towers, Leslie Robertson, witnessed it; why didn’t NIST incorporate it into its calculus?
Bron, this isn’t “Oh, they didn’t land on the moon” type crap; this analysis is simply the result of being fed conclusory assertions with scant to no supporting premises and a complete disregard for contradicting evidence.
SIYOM,
Bob
Bobesq:
I am of the opinion that 2 planes brought them down and will have to see very hard evidence to the contrary to believe otherwise.
Progressive collapses happen in structures. each floor load is distributed to the supporting columns but each floor is only good for the design loads of that floor plus a safety factor of about 1.67 (based on design codes at the time) although I think the engineer put in some extra to account for a jet strike (not one going 500 mph). The floor to column connections are the important component and they would fail once they were overloaded from the floor(s) above and so on. Once the columns have lost their lateral restaint (from the floor connection) they loose capacity.
The fact that you had all those floors above the strike point only increases the kinetic energy and subsequently the applied force. When I saw the jet strike and fire I was amazed the buildings didnt come down sooner so the redundancy must have been very good. Once those fires were burning it was only a matter of time for the thermal stresses to overcome this redundancy leading to collapse.
Additionaly if you watch the video the collapse starts at or above the level of the jet strike whcih in my mind makes sense as this would be the most compromised area due to fire and sheared members.
Anyway something to think about.
Buddha Is Laughing: “I’d like to quote one of the greatest military minds of the 20th century. “I know nothing! NOTHING!”
But Schultz did know his Strudel.
CCD: “What comes after Biblical proportions?”
Not mass hysteria. Nope.
Just…
“Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
SIYOM,
Bob
Bron98:
“call me a skeptic but I just dont see how that would be possible. there would be too many people that would have to be involved”
You’re doing it again.
All I did was show you physical evidence that further clarifies the limitations making certain explanations plausible and others implausible.
If you found yourself questioning an explanation you once found plausible but now find to be implausible, then, logically speaking, you should be reevaluating the ground upon which you’ve been standing rather than taking pot shots as to what next overall theory you’ll be hanging your hat on. After all, that’s tantamount to picking a car based on its color.
First, per your conspiracy phobia, I’d suggest researching the basis of said inchoate crime and examples of how large ones were able to continue until prosecution.
Second, if you’re going to take a guessing/semi-inductive approach to physics, you might start by looking a bit closer at your subject matter. For example, before saying the planes ‘gut the supports,’ you may want to familiarize yourself with how buildings, e.g. buildings such as the Towers, are designed. Do you know why one floor could collapse entirely onto a floor below while leaving the floors above it completely untouched? Again, it explains why a collapse of the entire structure through the path of increasing resistance is preposterous.
Third, while I don’t consider myself an expert on thermite or thermate, you may want to read “December 2003-May 2004: Study Indicates Extreme Temperatures Involved in WTC Collapses”
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1203rjleeinvestigation#a1203rjleeinvestigati
I know, as a conservative, you’re looking for that warm fuzzy feeling of certainty; and anything to the contrary is difficult at best to analyze.
I simply look at it this way:
You are constrained to go where the evidence takes you; and if it happens that the evidence starts pointing in the direction of treason, then you take solace in the fact that the penalty for treason is death. After all, there’s a reason ‘treason to benefactor’ is the last circle of hell and that the penalty for treason has almost always been death throughout human history.
Nasty stuff; but it Kant be ignored.
Stay In Your Own Movie,
Bob
Bobesq:
I read your links, call me a skeptic but I just dont see how that would be possible. there would be too many people that would have to be involved and someone would have ratted the others out by now. I wont say its not plausible but the probability would have to be very low.
The towers would have fallen like a controlled demolition because the planes gutted the supports and then the fires weakened what was left. with the mass of the structure above the weakened zone you had a huge amount of potential energy released and down came the buildings.
I saw a thermite reaction in chemistry once aluminum and iron oxide and it liquified a steel crucible but once the chemical reaction occured it stopped. with all of the aluminum and steel debris there is a possibility of sustained reactions. lets do a controlled demolition with thermite and jet fuel and with thermite alone and see what happens.
What comes after Biblical proportions?
Bob,
I’d like to quote one of the greatest military minds of the 20th century. “I know nothing! NOTHING!”
CCD:
“When you researched this “sustained source of heat” where and what did you discover?”
Bron98:
“are you saying the Twin Towers were destroyed by W and the neocons? that is what I infered from the link you sent.”
I’m saying…
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
The burden is upon he who affirms, not upon him how denies.
And, according to Sir Ockham…
“Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora”
[“It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less”].
Thus, according to Ockham, we ought never to postulate the reality of any entity unless it is logically necessary to do so.
Bron,
While your musings are certainly imaginative, they all fail, as a matter of physical impossibility, in generating enough heat to raise the temperature of steel to the heat of fusion; and keep it there for nearly six months–unless you’re willing to dispense with the law of thermal equilibrium.
Think of it this way Bron:
“A man’s got to know his limitations.”
In this analysis, that would include physical limitations (e.g. physical constants).
CCD,
I can say that physical evidence of thermite and thermate were found at ground zero.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=steven_e._jones
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1203rjleeinvestigation#a1203rjleeinvestigati
The entire basis of the scientific method lay in the ‘refutability of a hypothesis.’ Any theory that cannot be repeated by experiment, and thus tested for refutability, is no theory at all. Accordingly, any individuals or members of government claiming “this is what happened, and that’s all” is disregarding the scientific method, and logic itself, by compelling you to beg the question entirely. And if you’re ignorant or simply a chicken shit that knows better, you’ll probably end up not asking questions.
Oh gee, guess I should stop now before Mespo chastises me for ‘revealing the true nature of the cave.’ Must be the Platonist in me.
Stay In Your Own Movie,
Bob
Bobesq:
are you saying the Twin Towers were destroyed by W and the neocons? that is what I infered from the link you sent.
I dont think I believe that although anything is possible. However there is probably a simpler explanation and that is that the debris acted as a giant blacksmith forge with the wind and its venturi effect through the streets of New York being the bellows and the shear mass of debris being the fuel.
The twisted girders are easily explainable in that when steel is heated thermal stresses are also applied to the steel members (that is why long bridges have expansion joints) and when they are fixed there is no place for expansion so they start warping. these stresses can be higher than the actual loads that are used in the design. I once saw a burned out building in college and the main support beam was about twice as long as it had been and draped like a ribbon between the 2 supports.
Also with the mass of debris acting as an insulator it is certainly plausable that temperature levels could have gotten quite hot.
Anyway just something to think about.
Bob, Esq.
When you researched this “sustained source of heat” where and what did you discover? In the words of Larson E. Whipsnade, “Give queenie give.”
LarryE:
“Q = mcΔT
describes the amount of heat energy (in joules) gained or lost when a given mass M (in grams) of a particular material with specific heat C experiences a given change in temperature ΔT (in degrees C. or K.).
So, Bob, why is it important for half of us to understand?”
What’s the heat of fusion for steel? And as an irrefutable matter of fact, what is required to melt or keep any solid in a liquid or solid/liquid mixed state?
A sustained source of heat???
Hmm…
September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201moltenmetal#a091201moltenmetal
And the source of this sustained source of heat is … ?
Truth is the agreement between knowledge and its object and it is not subject any sort of “we think you should just leave well enough alone” exception
LarryE:
“Q = mcΔT
describes the amount of heat energy (in joules) gained or lost when a given mass M (in grams) of a particular material with specific heat C experiences a given change in temperature ΔT (in degrees C. or K.).
So, Bob, why is it important for half of us to understand?”
What’s the heat of fusion for steel? And what is required to melt or keep any solid in a liquid or solid/liquid mixed state?
A sustained source of heat???
That is an undeniable universal fact of macro-state physics; is it not?
And yet….
September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201moltenmetal#a091201moltenmetal
Truth is the agreement between knowledge and its object and it is not subject any sort of “we think you should just leave well enough alone” exception
Stay In Your Own Movie,
Bob
Q = mcΔT
describes the amount of heat energy (in joules) gained or lost when a given mass M (in grams) of a particular material with specific heat C experiences a given change in temperature ΔT (in degrees C. or K.).
So, Bob, why is it important for half of us to understand? Or is it just the idea of it meaning being conversant in basic science?
On “nay” vote came from Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who said “I cannot support Pi Day as just one day. It should go on forever.”
At least he had a sense of humor about it.
FFLEO:
nicely done.
Bobesq:
Q= ? (?)
M = ? (mass?)
C = ? (speed of light?)
Delta T = ? (change in time?)
good call on the Mole day.
Patty,
Looks great; would look even better if I knew how to cook.
FFLEO,
I’d be happy if just half the population would take the time to comprehend Q=MCΔT
As to why? More on that later.
FFLEO,
Nice catch! Bravo!
I support a new holiday in honor of the imaginary number italic i, the square root of minus one.
As an imaginary holiday, it would take place on an imaginary date like the 31st of September, April, May or November.
Harvey would be there, with Alice and the Queen, and the entire cast of Watchmen.
Party on!
FFLEO,
Did you see the film, “Hero”? It shows a beautiful depiction of calligraphy that I think you would like. It’s an incredible film. It shows the visual representation of people becomming conscience of the truth. It was amazing to see thought put forth in a deep, striking stunning, visual manner.