Pi

[Guadalupe]

After years of research and looking for a better understanding of a Circumference of a Circle and finding a constant Pi, I came across two great discoveries I call, “Law of Percentage & Law of Pi”.

 

Note: The Law of Percentage and the Law of Pi listed below show an alternative in finding the circumference of a perfect circle. These two new laws I’ve created show an alternative Pi that is constant and finite.

 

 

Law of Percentage states: A constant 33.333333333333333333333333333333 % of a diameter plus three times the same diameter equals to the Circumference of a perfect Circle.

 

Law of Pi states: The Circumference of a perfect Circle divided by its diameter is equal to a constant 3.3333333333333333333333333333333 which makes it the new Pi.

 

Based on these two laws, I have come to these conclusions by way of the following calculations or equations listed below:

 

:D 33.333333333333333333333333333333 % of d + 3d = C

 

:eek2: C ÷ d = Pi or 3.3333333333333333333333333333333 and can be checked by using 3.3333333333333333333333333333333d = C

 

 

 

 

It’s with great hope that my laws are of some use in the world of education.

 

 

:confused:

 

Law of Pi and Law of Percentage Copyright 2006 Guadalupe Guerra, Jr. All Rights Reserved.

[Tormod]

This goes for both your signature and your laws:

 

You write that these are "the first laws to be documented...".

 

I have yet so see any documentations. All I have seen are hypothesis which are rather poorly explained. No predictions are made, no sample test scenarios given, and no explanation as to how the laws were derived.

 

It seems to me that you are starting in the wrong end of this: The scientific method works by stating a hypothesis, building a theory, stating predictions, then construct and perform experiments. When the experiments verify your predictions, you have a strong theory.

 

A theory becomes a law when it becomes and axiom, that is, when it is considered so fundamental that a scientific house of cards can be built upon it (implying that the law may be wrong and thus the entire science that comes from it must be rewritten).

 

You have started with the law and ignored (at least not documented) the rest. So it is impossible for me to take this seriously. Sorry.

[C1ay]

Thread closed!

 

You already started one thread with this worthless claim so we don't need another. I'm also moving both of them to strange claims...