It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: ConnectDots
Are you going to address the many issues with this or are you going to pretend they don't exist?
Just like your other threads, you try pushing something yet don't even understand what is being said.
So, show us how pi magically changes into 4. In your own words. I won't hold my breathe because I know you can't.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
I won't hold my breathe because I know you can't.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Riffrafter
I'm sorry, but I'm fed up with idiots on the internet trying to pass of some junk as science. All they do is make it seem "sciency" by using a whole mess of words, but when it comes down to it it means nothing.
I'm all for expanding on what we know, but to try and rewrite pi by ignoring what pi is like calling a square a triangle to be "edgy".
originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Bedlam
this is because of trump.
i heard a trump conversation where he said he was going to grab the pi.
clearly trump has no respect for pi.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: interupt42
...he was going to grab the pi.
Carpe crustulorem!
I'm sure that through experimentation, he can find a ratio between the paths the two balls take -- the straight one and the one that rides up on the walls of the curved tubed). HOWEVER, that ratio should be called something other than "Pi", since it is practically has no association to Pi.
Objects moving in circles have a speed which is equal to the distance traveled per time of travel. The distance around a circle is equivalent to a circumference and calculated as 2•pi•R where R is the radius. The time for one revolution around the circle is referred to as the period and denoted by the symbol T. Thus the average speed of an object in circular motion is given by the expression 2•pi•R / T.
originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
I'm sure that through experimentation, he can find a ratio between the paths the two balls take -- the straight one and the one that rides up on the walls of the curved tubed). HOWEVER, that ratio should be called something other than "Pi", since it is practically has no association to Pi.
Perhaps this will help.
"Objects moving in circles have a speed which is equal to the distance traveled per time of travel. The distance around a circle is equivalent to a circumference and calculated as 2•pi•R where R is the radius. The time for one revolution around the circle is referred to as the period and denoted by the symbol T. Thus the average speed of an object in circular motion is given by the expression 2•pi•R / T."
I agree that the logic is wrong. Pi itself is not the actual distance as proposed in the OP. It is 2πr, every kid knows that, lol.
Why? Well the ball is always applying a downward force on the tube, this point of contact will give it constant loss.
I predict the main response to the video will be that the ball in the curve is feeling more friction. However, it is clear at a glance this is not the case. To start with, the ball in the curve would have to be feeling over 20% more friction than the straight ball. Again, the difference between 3.14 and 4 is not marginal. It is huge. There is no way to account for a difference that large with a difference in friction. Plus, if friction were the cause, the ball in the curve should be slowing down as it progresses around the curve. Friction is of course cumulative, so we would expect a ball feeling an excess 21% of friction to be going slower in the fourth quadrant of the circle than in the first. But we see with our own eyes that isn't true. Steven marks all four quarter points in the circle, and the ball hits them all perfectly in sync with the straight ball. If the ball in the curve were feeling more friction, we would expect it to hit the ¾ mark and final mark noticeably late compared to the ¼ mark. It doesn't. This indicates very strongly that neither friction nor any other cumulative effect in the curve is causing the difference. The ball in the curve is NOT slowing relative to the straight ball. This should look as curious to you as pi being 4. Given current theory, it is just as mysterious.
milesmathis.com...
I was working on Newton's orbital equations , which I saw as having some disclarities. To say it another way, they didn't make sense to me. I thought his proofs contained some big holes, and the more recent updates of these proofs by famous guys like Richard Feynman seemed to me no better. In fact, I showed they were worse.
Since an orbit is just motion in a circle, I think you can see the link. So I started over from the beginning, rerunning Newton's equations with a few corrections. These corrections solved many Since an orbit is just motion in a circle, I think you can see the link. So I started over from the beginning, rerunning Newton's equations with a few corrections. These corrections solved many problems, but not all of them. It wasn't until a couple of years later that I thought to look at pi itself. . .
milesmathis.com...
milesmathis.com...
originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
I said I agree
The problem with your proposition is that if the curved tube is of the right proportions to just fit the ball and there is no space in between, there can be no fraction or loss of momentum under the right circumstances (if there is no z). So you would have to have more than one constant, depends on the variation of the tube compared to the ball. That`s why T, the revolution period, is the most practical solution. You just measure the time and that`s it.
The problem with the OP is that he just assumes that Pi is the distance even when you flat out the circle to fit the straight tube. Both are of the same length. It doesn`t have anything to do with friction. It`s the concept that is wrong in the first place.
π ≠ 2πr. It`s that simple to explain this case
So yeah, it does not have any association with Pi other than that the ball moves around a circle.