🚀 go-pugleaf

Mehmet Avcioglu wrote:
> According to the above equation, If you wanted to reach the speed of
> light, your equation would turn out to be division by zero, and you
> would end up with infinity. Actually it is not infinity, it is
> undefined. Consider the posibility that you already passed the speed of
> light, your result is no longer undefined. I really think there is an
> exception to this equation.
> 

Yes, it's defined past the speed of light.  But it's negative.  Negative
mass???
 
> Didn't a French matematician in 19th century proved that PI was equal to
> 2. I mean, not really proved it, but came up with the answer "PI is
> approching to 2". A half-circle with a radius of one has the half
> circumference PI. If you put two smaller half-circles inside that
> half-circle with radiuses .5 you'll get half circumferences PI/2 for
> those 2 smaller ones. Then you replace the half-radius of these smaller
> half-circles with x and take the limit approaching 0. After some more
> math PI comes up equal to the diameter of the first half-circle which
> was 2. I think there is a glitch in there somewhere (probably related to
> the L'Hospital rule), but I couldn't explain it.

That's exactly why the French weren't known for there contributions to
science. And with every such proof, there is a reason why it does not
hold.  I could, for instance prove that 1 is equal to -1.  The proof is
short, and on the surface looks correct, but obviously it is not.  What
exactly were you trying to prove with that little Frenchman's proof,
anyways?  Pi is still pi, not 2.  Whichever way you look at it, it
cannot change.

> 
> I am not saying that PI is 2, but our knowledge of math, physics, our
> knowledge of the workings of the universe is not that solid.
>

And this because of some retarded individual's proof?  Sure we don't
know everything there is to know about the universe, but to blatantly
dismiss centuries of mathematical and scientific evolution on a mere
"what if" is stupid.