48 million
Type your answer here...
That's a fascinating question. I have an answer, but it's one that I'm not100% sure of in my own mind, so I'm going to call itAnswer #1:I think the accuracy of the value you calculate doesn't depend so much on theconversion factor you use, but more on the accuracy of the data you start with.So it makes no difference what value you use for PI, unless you start out with anumber for the radius of the observable universe that you know to be accurateto within the proton radius. If your radius isn't that accurate, then there's nothingyour proportionality factor can do to it to fix the answer. Whatever radius you startwith, if you use one more significant figure of PI than the significant figures youhave in the radius, the accuracy of the radius is preserved in the circumferenceyou calculate.That's my suspicion.
Astronomy.
If an object had infinite length, it would also have infinite mass, so everything in the universe would be attracted to it, turning the entire universe into a super giant black hole. In other words, no.
The universe as we know it. True, but I think you mean a gas. you are the biggest retard ever.
The set of Pythagorean triple is three dimensional and infinitely large.
39
The age of the Universe is calculated based on several methods; one that is fairly easy to understand is the expansion of the Universe. If you extrapolate the expansive movement of the galaxies into the past, you get to a point where they were very close together. The time when this should have happened gives you a general idea of the age of the Universe - assuming that the speed of expansion didn't change. (This assumption isn't entirely accurate, though.)The age of the Universe is calculated based on several methods; one that is fairly easy to understand is the expansion of the Universe. If you extrapolate the expansive movement of the galaxies into the past, you get to a point where they were very close together. The time when this should have happened gives you a general idea of the age of the Universe - assuming that the speed of expansion didn't change. (This assumption isn't entirely accurate, though.)The age of the Universe is calculated based on several methods; one that is fairly easy to understand is the expansion of the Universe. If you extrapolate the expansive movement of the galaxies into the past, you get to a point where they were very close together. The time when this should have happened gives you a general idea of the age of the Universe - assuming that the speed of expansion didn't change. (This assumption isn't entirely accurate, though.)The age of the Universe is calculated based on several methods; one that is fairly easy to understand is the expansion of the Universe. If you extrapolate the expansive movement of the galaxies into the past, you get to a point where they were very close together. The time when this should have happened gives you a general idea of the age of the Universe - assuming that the speed of expansion didn't change. (This assumption isn't entirely accurate, though.)
No. It is a constant. The Greek letter pi is used to denote the following: A fundamental mathematical constant defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. It is a transcendental number with the decimal expansion 3.141 592 653 589 79...More than a trillion decimal places have now been calculated; just 39 places are sufficient to compute the circumference of the observable Universe accurate to within the radius of a hydrogen atom.(According to the Penguin Dictionary of Science)
Micah Carlson
No, pi is a mathematical constant, independent of the physical world. In the case of space curvature, the formula for the circumference of a circle might no longer be completely accurate, but that doesn't affect the value of pi.
My guess is fewer than 100. But physical measurements are nothing like as accurate, so maybe 6decimal places would suffice for most measurements.
What?!! Radius cannot be measured in Newtons!
All the available evidence strongly indicates that the Universe is, indeed, expanding.
That's a fascinating question. I have an answer, but it's one that I'm not100% sure of in my own mind, so I'm going to call itAnswer #1:I think the accuracy of the value you calculate doesn't depend so much on theconversion factor you use, but more on the accuracy of the data you start with.So it makes no difference what value you use for PI, unless you start out with anumber for the radius of the observable universe that you know to be accurateto within the proton radius. If your radius isn't that accurate, then there's nothingyour proportionality factor can do to it to fix the answer. Whatever radius you startwith, if you use one more significant figure of PI than the significant figures youhave in the radius, the accuracy of the radius is preserved in the circumferenceyou calculate.That's my suspicion.
Postulated that the Earth is curved and calculated the circumference of the Earth to within 1% of accuracy, simply by using shadows and geometry; then placed the sun at the center of the then known solar system - known as the heliocentric universe.
There are many things man can not prove. This is one of them.
To calculate the circumference of the known universe with the accuracy of one proton, you would need approximately 40 decimal places of pi. This level of precision is necessary due to the proton's extremely small size compared to the vast scale of the universe.