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: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: ErosA433
Why? Well the ball is always applying a downward force on the tube, this point of contact will give it constant loss.
So you are saying that the ball on the straight tube does not apply downward force? Did you even watch the video? The reasoning in this case is just plain simple. Besides, in a perfect circle-ball fit tube, there won`t be any more friction than on a straight tube if both are traveling on a two dimesional space(x,y), are of the same size and weight and have the same velocity.
I can`t help you if you can`t see it.
I don't have the tube to unwind, but I do have the photograph I posted and I measured the right half of the circle using a bent flexible plastic ruler to follow the contour of the circle, then I let the ruler snap back to its straight shape and measured the corresponding straight section, which confirmed I'm not suffering from any illusion and that you are wrong. The straight tube is definitely longer. Try using a measurement method similar to mine yourself, bend a sheet of paper around the curve if you don't have a flexible plastic ruler and mark the length of the right half of the circle, then compare that piece of paper to the straight section of tubing. The top of the circle does not match up with the second marking on the straight tubing when compared in this way.
originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: Arbitrageur
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.
I don't know which is worse, your logic or your math but they are both dismal.
originally posted by: Agnost
a reply to: ConnectDots
Hi Connect,
Actually pi can't be determined.
If you take one of the most intriguing and beautiful formulas, Euler’s Identity,
e^(pi*i) = -1
Those who have found my paper on π to be shocking will find this one even more shocking. Here I will show that NASA’s own rockets have provided simple proof of my assertion concerning π, and have been providing it since 1958, the year of the first successful orbit. . . .
milesmathis.com...
originally posted by: ConnectDots
Another relevant Mathis paper is "Proof from NASA that π is 4":
Those who have found my paper on π to be shocking will find this one even more shocking. Here I will show that NASA’s own rockets have provided simple proof of my assertion concerning π, and have been providing it since 1958, the year of the first successful orbit. . . .
milesmathis.com...
originally posted by: ConnectDots
Another relevant Mathis paper is "Proof from NASA that π is 4":
Those who have found my paper on π to be shocking will find this one even more shocking. Here I will show that NASA’s own rockets have provided simple proof of my assertion concerning π, and have been providing it since 1958, the year of the first successful orbit. . . .
milesmathis.com...
originally posted by: TerryDon79
The moron hasn't proven a thing and, yet again, you fall for the same BS as always. I kind of feel sorry for you...
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: TerryDon79
The moron hasn't proven a thing and, yet again, you fall for the same BS as always. I kind of feel sorry for you...
It's what you get when your science education stops at grade school, and you weren't really paying attention then, either.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
As for the OP? They just fall for everything "edgy" because YouTube and a website tells them to. It's kind of sad.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: TerryDon79
As for the OP? They just fall for everything "edgy" because YouTube and a website tells them to. It's kind of sad.
I think some of that can be phrased as "I don't understand it, therefore it has to be dodgy, and thus I shall prove that by presenting these posts that prove the boffins are all wrong. Thus I will not feel like a fool"
. . . No doubt many will answer me, “The surveyor's wheel doesn't fail, since what a surveyor is interested in is a simple length, not some mystical kinematic distance like you are inventing here.” But that is false as well. Let us say a surveyor is measuring a running track for the Olympics. Well, he has to measure both the straight legs of the track and the curves. And what he wants to know is how far the runners have run, right? Well, running is kinematic. It is like a little orbit. It requires real bodies to move through the curves. It is not just curves sitting on the ground, it is curves being run in real time. Therefore, to calculate the correct distances through the curves, the surveyor must integrate all the motions involved. Treating the curves as equivalent to the straights will fail to do that. And yes, I am telling you the inside lane of the standard track is longer than 400 meters. Or, the runners are running considerably farther than 400 meters. This should be easy to prove by timing groups of top athletes through straights and curves. I predict it will be found that the athletes appear to move through the curves much slower than can be accounted for by stress on the inside leg, etc. But if you use pi=4 to measure the length of the curve, this discrepancy will vanish.
In fact, I find that some tests have been run, confirming this. At this link to Brigham Young University [p. 25], we find that “Depending upon the track, athletes may spend up to 60% of the race on the turn (P. R. Greene & Monheit, 1990).” Holy Cow! 60%? And no one ever thought that was strange? Using pi=4, we would predict 56% of the time to be spent in the curves [4/7.14]. The other 4% would then be given to tighter curves requiring more leg adjustments. Using running dynamics, you would never predict a slowdown that great [60/40] in the turns. That's a slowdown of 33%. But if we give most of that slowdown to a mismeasurement of the curve using pi [a “slowdown” of 21%], it makes more sense.]
milesmathis.com...
. . . He should be remembered by the takers of the PSAT, 1980, for questioning one of the answers on the math portion. The PSAT admitted its error and was forced to change all scores nationally. Miles' score: 68/78:214.
mileswmathis.com...