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
What he has done is to start from scratch and corrected errors where he has found them.
originally posted by: roadgravel
Not sure how finding an error in a test proves the laws of maths or physics incorrect.
originally posted by: roadgravel
Not sure how finding an error in a test proves the laws of maths or physics incorrect. But...
This seems to "prove" that distance is affected by velocity. This could have a great significance to space travel.
But since what is being speculated is an increase it makes the distance longer. If it were the other direction it would mean by moving the distance would become shorter. Should went with PI = 2.
originally posted by: ConnectDots
His work has culminated in his making recommendations for revolutionary changes in the standard model. Not just for pi.
originally posted by: SPHARAOH
originally posted by: roadgravel
Not sure how finding an error in a test proves the laws of maths or physics incorrect. But...
This seems to "prove" that distance is affected by velocity. This could have a great significance to space travel.
But since what is being speculated is an increase it makes the distance longer. If it were the other direction it would mean by moving the distance would become shorter. Should went with PI = 2.
(The only thing this "proves" is that by applying force (doesn't really matter the type used) it changed the physical characteristics of an object IMHO and i don't think that's anything new)
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.
It is a mistake to start with this paper. Those who do start with this paper will very likely be led to believe I am simply doing the calculus wrong. To these people, I say that it is not I who am doing the calculus wrong. It is Newton and Leibniz and Cauchy and everyone since who has been doing the calculus wrong. I have earned the right to write this paper by first writing three important papers on the foundations of the calculus. The first shows that the derivative has been defined wrongly from the beginning, and that the derivative is a constant differential over a subinterval, not a diminishing differential as we approach zero. There is no necessary approach to zero in the calculus, and the interval of the derivative is a real interval. In any particular problem, you can find the time that passes during the derivative, so nothing in the calculus is instantaneous, either. This revolutionizes QED by forbidding the point particle and bypassing all need for renormalization. The second paper proves that Newton's first eight lemmae or assumptions in the Principia are all false. Newton monitors the wrong angle in his triangle as he goes to the limit, achieving faulty conclusions about his angles, and about the value of the tangent and arc at the limit. Finally, the third paper rigorously analyzes all the historical proofs of the orbital equation a=v2/r, including the proofs of Newton and Feynman, showing they all contain fundamental errors. The current equation is shown to be false, and the equation for the orbital velocity v=2πr/t is also shown to be false. Those who don't find enough rigor or math in this paper should read those three papers before they decide this is all too big a leap. I cannot rederive all my proofs in each paper, or restate all my arguments, so I am afraid more reading is due for those who really wish to be convinced. This paper cannot stand without the historical rewrite contained in those papers, and I would be the first to admit it.
milesmathis.com...
originally posted by: ConnectDots
. . . 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.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: TerryDon79
I won't hold my breathe because I know you can't.
I'd be willing to bet she doesn't actually know what pi is, in terms of a circle.