/sci/ - Science & Math

No. Or maybe they do. I don't know. I let science take care of that shit.

event horizon of a blackhole

No, this is trivial to deduce from the fac that pi is not constructible.

I think so.
Atoms are perfect circles. (In 3 dimensions obviously; so like a perfect football)

perhaps

Space is not perfectly Euclidean anywhere, so no.

>>4600719
How can an atom possibly be a circle?

>>4600738
>implying you can prove that.

>>4600722
This would only be true in a universe where nothing except that one black hole existed.

Pi is irrational, so no. Perfect circles only exist theoretically.

It might be possible to have something orbit perfectly.

>>4600827
Orbits aren't circular, though.

How did they create the first ruler?

They had to have something straight to base it off of. But whatever they based it off of needed something straight to base THAT of off. And so forth, and so forth.

How did they create the first straight object?

>>4600839
Spoiler: rulers aren't perfectly straight.

>>4600839

>>4600827

I guess every possible orbit will have a perturbation due to all the objects in the surrounding universe. Even if after billions of years the eccentricity only changes by 0.0000000000000000000000001% it's still not a perfect circle!

>>4600839
If something in nature was perfectly straight in Africa it obviously didn't look at something that was straight before it that originated in Babylon.

>the first straight object?

a plumb line

>Do perfect circles exist outside of nature?

Seriously OP. How perfect is perfect? Technically a perfect circle can't exist anywhere because pi is infinite.

Yes. My friend had a dog what would walk in a perfect circle whilst pooping, and therefore, pooped perfect circles

>>4600966
>Technically a perfect circle can't exist anywhere because pi is infinite.

Um, no it isn't. It's bigger than 3.14 and smaller than 3.15. Seems pretty finite to me.

the visible universe is a perfect circle - well it is more like a perfect sphere :)

I wonder where spherical perfection can be found. Even the Earth isn't that spherical, due to rotation creating such a large equatorial bulge that Mt Everest isn't the farthest piece of Earth from the core; some mountain in Peru is.

Is a nonrotating neutron star quite spherical, or are there spherical oscillations (like in our sun) that keep it from attaining that 1-in-a-billion sphericality that we tards crave?

>>4601077
negative. the universe is immeasurable therefore cannot be proven to be a perfect circle

>Take a square
>lop of each of the corners so that you get an octagon
>repeat with resulting corners
>after infintely many repitions, you will get a shape with infinitely many sides, each side being infinitely small...IOW a circle
>BBBBBBUUUUUUUUUTTTTTT, something cannot be infinitely small in nature. Planck length is the smallest meaningful length.

Therefor, if you do this a certain number of times, eventually you will get a shape with a finite number of sides, each side being planck-length. It could be argued either way... is this shape a perfect circle, since planck length is the smallest meaningful distance? Or is it impossible to make a perfect circle because of planck length?

a circle is an abstract concept and is therefore not present in the physical universe, by definition. That picture is a visual representation of a circle.

ofcours they do.
The circumference of the gravitational field around a black hole
(or the event horizon)

Save the observable universe, neutron stars/pulsars come closest to beings the most perfect spheres in nature.

Made of matter?
Nope.

>>4601034
>not understanding that by "infinite" he meant "infinite number of digits in a decimal representation" or "transcendental"
stay high school, my friend

>>4600741

A circle (or sphere) is the most "natural" shape. It doesn't require any differentiation at all, every point is equidistant from the center.

>>4601258
But that would not be a circle, as pi would have to equal 4, not `~3.15.

>>4601796
Fuck, I suck at typing *`3.14

>>4601796
>as pi would have to equal 4

No, it would equal pi.

>>4600874

So atoms can't be perfect circles right? >>4600719

what about the eyeball?

The equator of a neutron or quark star seems like it would be pretty close to a perfect circle.

>>4600719
But atoms have no "real" boundaries due to wave-particle duality of electrons. Well, now I think about it, atoms have the most fucked shape in the universe.

Maths aren't real OP, geometric figures don't exist in real life.

>>4601831
yeah man

Short Answer: No

Long Answer: Stupid Question

>>4600743
>Implying you can prove otherwise

>no one has asked the OP to define nature
Fuck, /sci/

Are we discussing nature as if it were the foundation of physical reality or what we observe in this universe?

Why hasn't anyone brought this up?

Heres a better question:

Whats the closest thing to a perfect circle in nature.

I saw a video before that said that the proton is pretty damn spherical, many orders of magnitude more than the earth

found one
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Perfect_Circle
/thread

>>4602095
That made me madder than it should have.

Anyway, the eyeball is squishy and is probably an oblate spheroid, shifting as your body does ever so slightly, never maintaining a perfect sphere.

>>4602095
APC is fucking perfect in every fucking way