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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Pi Equals Four When Motion Is Involved

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
There is a person by the name of Miles Mathis who does independent research in physics as an avocation and posts papers on his website. He is self-taught by going to original texts such as Newton's Principia, extensive reading, and his own analysis. He is brilliant.

One of his readers, a Dutch engineer, has posted a YouTube video of an experiment based on one of Mathis's papers. Mathis, in turn, has written a paper to go with the video.

Here is the video:


Published on Sep 21, 2016

PI is not what you are used to for things in motion.

Experiment that shows that, while Pi as a distance is 3.14, Pi as a distance/time is 4.

Based on the paper "The extinction of Pi" by Miles Mathis.



www.youtube.com...


Here is a link to the paper, which is a nine page PDF: A Simple Experiment Proves π = 4.

Enjoy!



This is one of the most idiotic things I've have yet to witness on ATS.
And yes I did watch the moronic video, and read the equally moronic "paper", that proves nothing, there is not one lick of mathematics in it except for pythagorean theory, and then the graphic of cyclic motion that "proves Pi=4" is just plain F'ning stupid. Of course the point moves 4 units in the x and y directions, the circle has a radius of two units, two units on either side of center makes 4 units. AAAAHHH, and all its doing is describing sinusoidal motion( sorry to use big words).

This level of idiocy makes me want to scream.

The so called expeiment is also a waste of time, this Mathis pinhead has ignores basic mechanics at every turn, so to speak.

VINYL FREAKING TUBING, really??? not even going to get into that. Has he not heard of friction?

Obviously not, nor how the radius of curvature of a track like that effects the motion of a member in it..

So, if Pi is related to the peripheral velocity of a circle then' why dont my wheels get bigger when i drive my car??

Answer me that.

Pi, as has been beaten to death already in this thread is just the ratio of a unit radius to the circumference of the circle generated by the unit radius. WHich also describes the basic unit of angular measure, in trig or analytic geometry, the Radian, of which there are 2Pi radians in a full circle.
Pi CANNOT CHANGE
IT IS A FUNCTION OF THE UNIVERSE,
and it doesnt matter which universe.

sorry for yelling





posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Regarding friction:
OK to reiterate, the main problem is that Pi is defined as a unitless ratio that has nothing to do with velocity. When we start measuring comparing velocities in an experiment it's dictionary abuse to call it a test of Pi.

However I feel the lies in that quote and other magician's tricks need to be exposed.

That's not an accurate description of the experimental setup that was actually used, though it might be true of the experimental setup that was photographed and not shown for the actual experiment, because it would prove that false.

The initial setup shows a flat circle which would demonstrate slowing of the ball by friction. However, the liars want to claim that friction isn't slowing it down, so they change the setup and use some magician's tricks to create the "illusion" that it isn't slowing down. I point out three of these illusion tricks:

1. 4 balls added to setup:
For the first half of the circle it's slowing down due to friction and also it's working against gravity since the end is propped up with what looks like 4 balls. So for the second half of the circle, it's rolling downhill and will have a tendency to accelerate, or offset the friction which would slow it down if the circle was level. Just as the initial velocity of the balls was created by the balls rolling downhill, but it's a less steep incline so the effect will be less dramatic but enough to explain why the frictional effects are different than if those 4 balls weren't there. Why do you think those 4 balls are there? The only reason I can see is to invalidate that explanation. If the circle was actually level he might have a point, but it's not level.

2. Exit of circle tube stacked underneath the entrance to the circle tube.
As with the addition of the balls, this ensures the ball will roll downhill at the end to offset the effect of friction.

3. Ridiculously off-center crosshairs.
It should be obvious to anybody that the center of the crosshairs is way too high. The crosshairs were moved up to try to support the lie that friction isn't slowing down the ball, but it is going faster during the first quarter of the circle so they had to move the crosshairs up to make that claim about the first quarter appear to be true. It's not the first quarter being shown, it's more than a quarter, to hide the fact that the ball is traveling faster during the first quarter. Then it slows down as it rolls uphill in the second quarter, then rolls downhill for the last half.




originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
Both tubes are 40 dm long, one straight, one forming a circle.
No, the straight tube is longer, and he places a marking on the straight tube where the length would be equal to the shorter circle tube.


edit on 20161111 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Ok, Mary. Time for a gedanken experiment.

Now, briefly set this crank's crap aside. We're going to foundations, and it's going to be simple.

First, you understand that pi is the relationship between the diameter of a circle and its circumference, right? Such that the circumference of a circle is pi times d. That's the very definition of pi. The diameter is the distance across the center of the circle, from one side to the other. The circumference is the distance around the outside of the circle.

Now, in your mind, consider a circular wheel with a diameter of 1 foot. That's 6 inches from the center to the rim. If you take a tape measure, and wrap it around the outside, you're going to find that the circumference you measure is 3.14 feet. Every time. Any wheel with a diameter of 1 foot will have a circumference of 3.14 feet.

Now, again in your mind, glue that tape measure to the outside of the wheel, and cut it so that it's perfectly wrapped around the wheel, once, and the ends are butted together. This gives you a sort of permanent measure of 3.14 feet.

And now, the punch line. Roll the wheel across the floor. Does the wheel get bigger on the outside so that the ends of the tape measure now have nearly a foot gap between the ends? Nope. It doesn't change size. But that's what the guy is saying happens. Does it seem so likely now?

The ratio of the circumference to the diameter just doesn't change at all. It doesn't matter if the wheel is in your hand, lying on the floor, flying like a frisbee or rolling down the hill like the big fat pancake.
edit on 11-11-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam


The ratio of the circumference to the diameter just doesn't change at all. It doesn't matter if the wheel is in your hand, lying on the floor, flying like a frisbee or rolling down the hill like the big fat pancake.


But....but....but.....some guy on the Internet said it AND made a YouTube video. YOUTUBE!
edit on 11112016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Maybe an even simpler way is to bring to the attention of the OP is one of these:






edit on 11/11/16 by Chadwickus because: Picture waaay too big



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Oh my god, I knew it, Pi is a lie, cake R square, Pi R round. Lol

Sorry I just had to, science is hard for some people. I also had to check to see if this was in the jokes forum….

If Pi = 4, everything I have done for work over the past 28+ years is wrong. I designed and drafted blueprints for pressure vessels. Vessels that were rolled from flat plates of steel which were calculated for outside or inside diameters using the mean diameter (I.D./O.D. +/- 1 plate thickness) and Pi.

The experiment has so many things wrong with it, even 24 cans of beer still can’t make it prove anything.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



No, the straight tube is longer, and he places a marking on the straight tube where the length would be equal to the shorter circle tube.


No it`s not, unwind the curved tube and you`ll get the same distance. Every quarter is marked. Seems like you have fallen for the optical illusion yourself. And if you think that the circled tube should end where he marked Pi on the straight tube, then you are just as nuts as the guy trying to reinvent the math. Try the experiment yourself and you`ll see that I`m right. Math doesn`t lie.

There is also no uphill and downhill travel. The experiment was performed on a flat table which means 2 dimensional space. It`s also not stacked, pause on 2:21, enlarge and you`ll see.

You are chasing ghosts here. The explanation is far more simple than what you are proposing. But I guess there is no point arguing with the 'know all' people.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots
Hey I believe it. But!

Yes! And, but! Pi can and also = Delicious, in and if you change of a few things in the equations.

It just depends on what, and how, or even why, your measuring or calculating things.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
Ok, Mary. Time for a gedanken experiment.

Now, briefly set this crank's crap aside. We're going to foundations, and it's going to be simple.

First, you understand that pi is the relationship between the diameter of a circle and its circumference, right? Such that the circumference of a circle is pi times d. That's the very definition of pi. The diameter is the distance across the center of the circle, from one side to the other. The circumference is the distance around the outside of the circle.

Now, in your mind, consider a circular wheel with a diameter of 1 foot. That's 6 inches from the center to the rim. If you take a tape measure, and wrap it around the outside, you're going to find that the circumference you measure is 3.14 feet. Every time. Any wheel with a diameter of 1 foot will have a circumference of 3.14 feet.

Now, again in your mind, glue that tape measure to the outside of the wheel, and cut it so that it's perfectly wrapped around the wheel, once, and the ends are butted together. This gives you a sort of permanent measure of 3.14 feet.

And now, the punch line. Roll the wheel across the floor. Does the wheel get bigger on the outside so that the ends of the tape measure now have nearly a foot gap between the ends? Nope. It doesn't change size. But that's what the guy is saying happens. Does it seem so likely now?

The ratio of the circumference to the diameter just doesn't change at all. It doesn't matter if the wheel is in your hand, lying on the floor, flying like a frisbee or rolling down the hill like the big fat pancake.


You know I love you....just a little bit.

Thanks for posting what I was too pissed off to post.

smh...

I fear for this world. I really do.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 05:20 AM
link   
More food for thought, from another of his numerous papers, "A Disproof of Newton’s Fundamental Lemmae":


. . . The circle and the curve are both studies of motion. In this particular analysis, we are studying sub-intervals of motion. That subinterval, whether it is applied to space or time, cannot go to zero. Real space is non-zero space, and real time is non-zero time. We cannot study motion, velocity, force, action, or any other variable that is defined by x and t except by studying non-zero intervals. The ultimate interval is a non-zero interval, the infinitesimal is not zero, and the limit is not at zero. The limit for any calculable variable is always greater than zero. By calculable I mean a true variable. For instance, the angle ABD is not a true variable in the problem above. It is a given. We don’t calculate it, since it is axiomatically 90o. It will be 90o in all similar problems, with any circles we could be given seeking a velocity at the tangent. The vector AD, however, will vary with different sized circles, since the curvature of different circles is different. In this way, only the angle ABD can be understood to go all the way to a zero-like limit. The other variables do not. Since they yield different solutions for different similar problems (bigger or smaller circles) they cannot be assumed to be at a zero-like limit. If they had gone all the way to some limit, they could not vary. A function at a limit should be like a constant, since the limit should prevent any further variance. Therefore, if a variable or function continues to vary under a variety of similar circumstances, you can be sure that it is not at its own limit or at zero. It is only dependent on a variable that is. . . .

milesmathis.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

Still ignoring the FACT that your Internet moron is wrong, I see.

Care to address ANY of the points that make a laughing stock out of his "maths", or are you pretending they don't exist?



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Abcd=time:dimension:time

That or I'm slightly waisted coming up with crackpot theories.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

It's better to think of OP's threads as being more of a personal blog than an actual place for discussion. There will be no discussion, only diligent spamming of whatever nonsense has caught her fancy this time.
edit on 12-11-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
One of his readers, a Dutch engineer, has posted a YouTube video of an experiment based on one of Mathis's papers.

The Dutch engineer is Steven Oostdijk.

Mathis has written three books, which sell on Amazon. Here is Steven's review for The Un-Unified Field: And Other Problems:


- Have you ever wondered why contemporary physics seems to be such an impenetrable abstract jungle?
- Have you ever wondered why the math department has overtaken the physics department?
- Have you ever wondered how physicists have the audicity to claim they are able to calculate the conditions of the universe 14 Billion years ago, while at the same time they cannot even explain why we have two tides a day, why the moon and sun have the same optical size or why the planets are tilted? Or cannot even mechanically explain a simple property like "mass"?
- But were you afraid to ask for fear of being branded "mathematically illiterate"?

Help is on its way...Miles Mathis has published his first book and hopefully many will follow. It will take more than one book to clean up centuries of mathematics and physics theory mess-ups swept under the carpet. This one however provides a fine start.

Miles Mathis does a wonderful job of explaining how well known physical enigmas can be strictly mechanically explained as a result of a combined gravity-E/M field. A field that was already discovered by Newton and Coulomb but was misinterpreted by them as separate gravity and electrostatic fields. First Mathis shows how they are actually two combined fields joined through matter. Then he goes on to explain how the field can replace current mathematical smokescreens and many unexplained riddles by straightforward mechanical explanations. He even goes on to put a mechanical footing under the most mathematically obscured physics theories like Einsteins Field Equations, Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics.

To wrap it up: IMHO the most lucid scientific mind I've ever seen, now in paperback. A modern day polymath on its way to history as a new Leonardo.

Amazon.com


Of course, trolls on Amazon accuse Steven of being Miles. That is predictable.

I must say, I'm entertained by people's responses.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I just love the fact that they don't even know what they're posting. It's blindingly obvious as they can never discuss a thing. Unless it's someone who agrees with them, then they'll talk about it.

I'm starting to wonder if the OP thinks this is some sort of echo chamber where you can post the most rediculous rubbish from the Internet and people will just lap it up.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

Oh look! Still ignoring the MASSIVE flaw and still posting it like it's some sort of fact.

Last time I checked a circle was still a circle. That means pi at 3.14 is still accurate because my car still drives properly and that has 4 circles near each corner and circles inside it.

Oh, my hamster uses circles too. Last time I measured that the ratio was 3.14.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots


Here's a video showing a practical demonstration of Pi in motion (demonstrated by a rolling circle)...

...and it STILL equals roughly 3.14(etc.), not 4.



OP -- You can do this yourself at home. Measure out a number line ruler with each unit being the diameter of a wheel. Set that wheel in motion across the number line and you will see that one revolution (the circumference) will be roughly 3.14 units.

So the ratio between the diameter and the circumference would be 3.14 -- and THAT'S the definition of Pi.


edit on 2016-11-12 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
So the ratio between the diameter and the circumference would be 3.14 -- and THAT'S the definition of Pi.

Mathis makes it very clear that he is not talking about geometry:


First posted September 9, 2008

Abstract: I show that in all kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static or geometric situations. I am analyzing the equivalent of an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. I will also remind you this is not just a theory: it has been indicated by many mainstream experiments, including rocketry tests and quantum experiments (see links below).

milesmathis.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

In other words, he's completely changed the definition of pi and what it's used for lol.

BTW, orbits aren't a perfect circle so pi comes up with anomalies if you use it. i.e. the ratio would be larger or smaller than 3.14. That's why pi is only accurate with a circle.

Another thing. I WAS RIGHT! See back a few of my posts (the ones you COMPLETELY IGNORED) and I said he was using it for ovals or ellipses. pi isn't used for ovals or ellipses.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

After taking the time to read what you linked to. It turns out it's just taxicab geometry, not pi.

The "circles" in taxicab geometry are actually squares. Hence why taxicab geometry is.....

*drumroll*

4

And pi, isn't.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join