Pi Equals Four When Motion Is Involved

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots

"Not full post by: ConnectDots. Edited due to length"

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?
(Is it because i am not a monkey? Humans although good cannot compete against monkeys when it comes to jungles)


Have you ever wondered why the math department has overtaken the physics department?
(Math is easier than physics? More job openings?)


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, (Fishy farts!) why the moon and sun have the same optical size (One is bigger and further away one is smaller and closer?). or why the planets are tilted? (Like everything Miles Mathis has discovered?) Or cannot even mechanically explain a simple property like "mass"? (My old time mechanical scale says the mass of the apple i am about to enjoy is heavy)
But were you afraid to ask for fear of being branded "mathematically illiterate"?
(Nope!!!!)

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



To wrap it up: IMHO the most lucid (Somebody pleeeeeease tell this man the definition of lucid. But i will give him credit for curiosity and trying). scientific mind I've ever seen, now in paperback. A modern day polymath on its way to history as a new Leonardo. (DiCaprio?)



Of course, trolls on Amazon accuse Steven of being Miles. That is predictable. (Next from Miles how to win at the Roulette wheel in any casino!!! Using a secret formula found in a floating cave. Obviously it was wrong but Miles worked feverishly and found the true equation)

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

(Yup)
This isn't the full post from ConnectsDots removed some of it to save readers time.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

Here's Pi when motion is involved:

...aaaaaannnnd it's still not 4.

I was going to edit my post above to add a few more comments, but I'll do it here instead...

To add:
I can't conceive of a way that Pi cannot be 3.14159 (approx.) and STILL be defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

If someone said that the circumference/perimeter of a shape is 4 times the diameter of/distance across that shape, then the shape is no longer a circle, and the ratio between the diameter and circumference can no longer be called Pi. Call it "Steve" or "Bob" if you want, but you can't call it Pi.

That's like saying that a duck that lives on the African Savannah is defined as a multi-ton grey duck with a long trunk instead of a bill and walks on four big wrinkly legs rather than two webbed feet, has huge grey ears, and doesn't fly...and then try argue that (going by that definition) African ducks don't look like ducks, but instead look like elephants. If you define a duck that way, then you are no longer talking about a duck, but rather something else entirely.

Mr. Mathis in the experiment the OP linked is no longer talking about Pi, but something else entirely. The only thing Pi-related in the experiment is that a very rough circle was almost formed by curving a tube in a loop. Beyond that, the experiment has virtually nothing to do with Pi.

And it being in motion won't change it, either. A wheel with a diameter of 1 unit will - even in motion - still have a circumference that equals "Pi units".

a reply to: Box of Rain

You're absolutely right.

The only thing I can think of Miles using is called taxicab geometry because it changes a circle into a square.

A square would use the ratio of 4. 4 multiplied by diameter equals the circumference of a square.

I understand what is happening.

When a circle is being drawn, the pencil is moving following the PI=4 law. When done, it's back to PI=3.14 because the pencil is not moving.

The good new here is that this is not a thread about the election 2016. Although it is about PI being rigged, so it's close.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: ConnectDots

Motion relative to the Earth i assume?

Because we all know the Earth IS in motion, at roughly 65,000 mph...which would mean Pi is always 4, since we and the planet we reside upon, is always in motion...not to mention the motion of the Solar system around the Galactic centre, or the Galaxy moving through the Universe....

Hey ##### no wonder i have had trouble finding you online i didn't know you changed MisterX to MysterX a heads up would be nice next time. Say hi to Marge and the kids for me.

a reply to: Bedlam


But he would be right if it was sprayed with Unicorn urine...did I say that right Bedlam?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hi Arbitrageur,

You missed the smiley at the end of my post

Of course my reasoning is flawed, because pi = 2 * ln(i)/i is a complex solution of the equation y = 2 * ln(x)/x that I subsequently analyse in the more limited real number field. How could I expect to find a real x that would give me pi? Moebius rightly pointed that out when he said that 2 * ln(i)/i == pi.

With my post I merely wanted to demonstrate that it’s not so difficult to use fallacies to come up with the wrong conclusion, like the people mentioned the OP do.

On a sidenote: keep up the good work denying ignorance!

Cheers!

originally posted by: ConnectDots

As previously stated, he started by reading Newton's Principia and other original writings and analyzing them himself step by step and writing papers as he went along.

Great! Now, why don't you explain to us what pi is, in your own words, without referring to this guy?

Can you?

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Bedlam


But he would be right if it was sprayed with Unicorn urine...did I say that right Bedlam?

And if he had any possibility of being right. Pi ... it's got a definition. You don't get to change it for fun.

a reply to: Bedlam

16th letter of the Greek alphabet? 16 being 4 squared? So pi squared is it's actual position in the alphabet... Hmm...

originally posted by: Agnost
a reply to: Bedlam

16th letter of the Greek alphabet? 16 being 4 squared? So pi squared is it's actual position in the alphabet... Hmm...

And this has exactly what to do with its use in math?

Can YOU state what pi represents in that case, in your own words?

a reply to: Bedlam

Tom, don't get me wrong. Pi IS3.14etc as a mathematical constant. Who cares about it being the 16th letter in the Greek alphabet.

Have a nice evening

Hi Connect/Mary,

if you look at the video that is referenced in the paper (pi = what), you will see that for a circle with diameter 4 (every side of the 'unit' squares being 1) he concludes that pi is 4 (the straight lines).

Now what would happen if you take a circle with another diameter? Let's say 1: then pi = 1? And for diameter 6, pi = 6?

best regards

a reply to: Agnost

I don't follow your reasoning.

You have posted the video referenced here:

November 8, 2016:

I have had one of my online buddies create a gif for me that matches part of the video they are suppressing. I have never imported a gif into a paper before, so hopefully this will work, including the motion. . . . If that doesn't move for you, you can go to his video at Vimeo.

milesmathis.com...

The suppressed video is not on YouTube at present, apparently. It's on Daily Motion, however, but one has to endure an ad, first.

The video in question is from 1986, a Mechanical Universe segment on PBS, episode 9, a lecture at Caltech. The animation being referenced by Mathis begins at 11:15.

Another Mathis paper that should be of interest is "The Manhattan Metric":

First posted December 11, 2012

I recently posted an update to my controversial π=4 paper, showing that my analysis is basically equivalent to the Manhattan metric of Hilbert. Somehow it took me four years to figure that out. Actually, I didn't know until a few days ago that π=4 in the Manhattan metric. I knew the Manhattan metric only as a grid metric, and had never seen it applied to a circle. I had to be sent to the Wikipedia page on the Manhattan metric, where it says that π=4. Only then was I able to make the connection. . . .

milesmathis.com...

a reply to: ConnectDots

You really don't like reading replies do you?

Guess what I've been saying from page1? That moron Miles is using a square. Guess what manhattan metric is also called? That's right, taxicab metric.

Guess what manhattan/taxicab metric does to a circle to get "pi=4"? They TURN IT INTO A SQAURE!

Guess what pi isn't used for? Measuring squares!

Thank you for finally debunking yourself and Miles though.

a reply to: Bedlam

Would you like a foot rub before ConnectDots comments force you to get a mandatory holding and psych evaluation?

originally posted by: Agnost
Hi Connect/Mary,

if you look at the video that is referenced in the paper (pi = what), you will see that for a circle with diameter 4 (every side of the 'unit' squares being 1) he concludes that pi is 4 (the straight lines).

Now what would happen if you take a circle with another diameter? Let's say 1: then pi = 1? And for diameter 6, pi = 6?

best regards

Oh my. That video is ridiculous.

All it's telling me is that a circle with a diameter of four has a diameter of four.
I mean, duh.

How does Pi fit in with that "demonstration"? Just because the video maker put the word "Pi" in the title does not mean that Pi is being measured by that demonstration. The only thing being measured is the diameter. So, yeah -- a circle with a diameter of four has a diameter of four. As you mentioned in your post, what if the diameter was six? Then this demonstration would have told us that the measurement shown in the demonstration = six.

Why in the world would someone think that this video is somehow showing a measurement of Pi? I''m baffled by the ignorance of knowledge of some people, and frustrated by the gullibility of others who can't see that ignorance.

a reply to: ConnectDots
FFS Pi is a ratio it has naff all to do with motion. It is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.

Here we go again, somebody posts a you tube video and all of sudden he is the new messiah.......

Rule 1 : In the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is king.

Mathis has also posted a short version of his finding. Within the link, there is a link to a rebuttal to a critique of it. Also within the paper he has to make reference to another paper which preceded it, "A Disproof of Newton’s Fundamental Lemmae."

Here is the diagram at the beginning of the paper, and just the concluding paragraph:

. . . This means that the historical and current interpretation cannot be correct. The hypotenuses do not converge to the curve or the arc. No, as I show above, it is the tangent that converges upon the arc, but the convergence happens only when the tangent equals the radius. This convergence can happen only at 1/8th of the circle, and it happens just as I show in these papers. It happens because the arc is never a continuous curve, even at the limit. The arc is defined as a curve composed of linear or straight vectors, therefore it can never be continuous, if we mean by continuous that the time or length traveled goes to zero. Logically, the time or length cannot go to zero, since there is no time or length at zero. All numbers in math and physics imply a differential, and since this is so, the curve cannot be thought of as continuous in this way. The curve must be thought of as composed of linear vectors, even at the limit. And since this must be true, it must also be true that the path I have drawn above must converge upon the arc, for precisely the reasons I have stated. The path does converge upon the arc, in the sense that the path gets nearer the arc. No one can deny that, at least. But since the arc is not continuous even at the limit, the path truly does converge upon the arc, as we draw more steps. Since the distance doesn't change no matter how many steps we draw, the tangent must converge upon the arc. Or, at 1/8 of the circle, the tangent simply IS the arc.

milesmathis.com...

This work requires an open mind to revolutionary ideas, and the time to read.

Has ConnectDots passed the Turing test yet?