@dangrondang wrote:
The circles we calculated the orbits to be proved each to be slightly short of a true, pure circle, thus returning the satellites to the ground. Pi more precisely can be evaluated to 3.1446055, and not the perpetuation of imperfection, and the maintenance of ignorance still taught today.
Sorry to be blunt, but what you are stating is awfully incorrect and the way you proclaim to know this "hidden truth" is really awufully ignorant. So you are stating that there is a mistake on the 3rd decimal digit of pi... It so happens that this decimal place was precisely calculated centuries ago, and the result still (obviously) stands today. There are tons of different approaches on how to get correct digits of pi, such as by using certain convergence series as mentioned by @seb-harmonik.ar. One can manually calculate the 3rd digit of pi using these type of series, and this result has been known for more than a millennium (in the year 480, the value known was 3.1415926, which is way more precise than what you state. By the early 18th century, we knew 100 digits of pi, none of which have been "corrected" later on. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computation_of_π). There is no way that in the 1960's pi had to be defined as 3.1446... instead of 3.1415..., that is just pure ignorance and witchery.
But reading about your number on the internet, I found that this 3.1446055 appears in several articles about satellites, pyramids and all that "dark hidden world that nobody tells you about open your eyes sheep people controlled by the illuminati" kind of talk, but not a single time in a serious mathematical or physics website/journal/wiki. Sorry but the world is not a dark place controlled by people with magic powers trying to keep you in the shadows... simply do not use random blogs as source of information.
The assumption of equal temperament proves a repetitious vexation, denotes ignorance, apathy, laziness, and/or unfamiliarity with the math of music. Worse, this assumption proves far too common among engineers / mathematicians / scientists / software programmers. Which then deprives us musicians of useable tools, and the stupidity of the need for MIDI tuning standard / scala / etc, is the vacuum such engenders.
As for the "stupidity" of using a tempered system, that is just as stupid as using a non-tempered one: it is simply a convention, upon which we built centuries of music. Western music has been based on it for long time (although contemporary composers, myself included, often choose to use micro-intervals), and the decision to create MIDI around this is as logical as it gets when you think what they were aiming at. Or should we have went through all sorts of trouble to incorporate all crazy stuff in the MIDI protocol (which is an Western creation), such as the possibility of having Indian micro-tonal scales? But wait, then what about gamelan scales? No wait, what about <insert ethnomusic genre here> scales?
From a practical point of view, you can still use MIDI cents, and you can also directly use frequencies if you want to precisely define the pitch of a sound. You can compose music in 12-tones, 27-tones or 193-tones if you wish to. The tools are here, and Pd allows you to do whatever you want with them (I myself have composed works using Pd and MIDI that deals with microtones and microtonal glissandi in real-time).
I hope you won't get personally offended with my message, but I can't really read this type of statement, which tries to propagate pseudo-scientific kind of stuff, without writing a strong reply.
Best,
Gilberto
