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: 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!
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.
originally posted by: ConnectDots
Regarding friction:
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.
originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
Both tubes are 40 dm long, one straight, one forming a circle.
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.
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.
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.
. . . 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...
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.
- 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
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.
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...