Just when I registered, the topic about "Pi=4" has been closed, so I post my reaction here.
I have been reading this topic with interest and registered to add some thoughts about this “Pi=4” claim, Miles Mathis and the imho mistakes (deliberate or not) presented here.
First about Miles Mathis; I have read all his (?) articles about the hoaxes of history and many of them are new and about historical events that were either completely or partially hoaxed/faked/staged. I think Mathis has done a great job on those topics.
His articles about art I find much less interesting, so I skipped them.
The articles about his acclaimed “breakthroughs in science” are much harder to read and also those I have skipped for the most part.
It has been suggested that Mathis is not 1 person, but a collection of people. The basis for this idea was the “enormous” amount of text produced in a short time. That point may or may not convince, but in essence it is irrelevant for the work produced under the name Miles Mathis; it’s the content that counts. When I use “he” or “Miles Mathis” I leave the question if he is 1 person or a collective open.
Also his style in the hoax papers seems rather consistent. There are a couple of characteristics that “define” Mathis; he writes fast; the articles read as a page-turner, he always uses Wikipedia as a “source” or entry point, being the most accessed source of information for readers worldwide and the Wikipedia articles give away already so much just by reading them, and he has a certain style that comes back later in the “pi=4” assessment.
In the publications of Mathis I have read he accepts most, if not all, of the historical events twisted and turned, faked, staged, hoaxed, etc. Mathis accepts the Nuke Hoax, although his analysis doesn’t go in-depth and as far as I know it is not linked to his science work.
What I haven’t read of him, and hints to the contrary I have, is his stance on the Space Hoaxes. As far as I know he does not
reject Space travel as a whole and has not published papers about it. If my idea is wrong; written in the science papers, please correct me with links to and direct quotes within his papers.
The “pi=4” claim is something Mathis presents as a breakthrough in science, but I want to point out some inconsistencies in that:
- pi is defined as ”describing the relation between the circumference of a circle and its diameter (or radius)”
- this relation is circumference = 2*pi*r
- additionally, pi also is related with the area of the circle as area = pi * r^2
The proponents of “pi=4” do not dispute this, yet point to a strange new situation:
- “pi=4 in kinematic situations
- Why would someone use the same symbol outside of its defined area and claim such a thing?
- What is a kinematic situation?
The first question is analogous to the calorie, defined as “the approximate amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere”
What Mathis essentially is doing, is saying “Hello world, the calorie is not X but Y here in the Himalayas”; he steps outside of the realm of the definition to show the definition is “wrong”. This point has been discussed in the start of this thread, but was stepped over fast.
What Mathis lacks, and Kham and Simon have done in this topic, is using simple diagrams to explain things for the layman. Mathis, and VexMan and daddie_o follow that method, uses words to describe physics and that choice makes it much harder to understand what he is talking about.
I see that as a deliberate action to confuse; with the alleged intelligence of Mathis it shouldn’t be any problem to give a “step-by-step, well-explained graphic tutorial for dummies” to follow his idea of “pi=4 in kinematic situations”, yet he doesn’t do that.
The first in this topic who has done that was Simon with the train and billiard ball examples and the question he asked “please explain this to me” hasn’t been answered by the two proponents of Mathis’ claim; VexMan and daddie_o. Instead, people are referred to pages-long articles where that question isn’t answered either and the absence of such a basic step-by-step tutorial suggests that Mathis (and his proponents) want to keep the confusion high.
There are four major problems with the claim:
1 - what is a kinematic situation?
2 - the inconsistent use of that kinematic situation
3 - the basis for Mathis’ idea
4 - the widespread use and application of pi in kinematic situations
1 - if we take the circle drawn by Simon:
The circle is in rest/equilibrium/static. But what if we move the circle slightly, let’s say 1 billiard ball length. Then we have a kinematic situation. After that movement, the circle is static again.
If the claim “pi=4 in kinematic situations” [but pi=3.1415... in static situations/pure geometry] holds water, that would mean that “pi” jumps from 3.1415... in static situation 1 to “4” in the kinematic movement and back to 3.1415... in static situation 2 again.
How that could be is not explained by Miles Mathis and less in simple, unequivocal terms that leave no room for a page-long discussion. That smells of misdirection and deliberate confusion.Ad hominem
attacks as “you are lazy”, “you don’t want to read what Mathis writes” and “you believe physics cannot be wrong/faked” do not convince as they also avoid the very basic explanations that any scientific model should be able to provide.
2 - Mathis claims that pi=4 is only
valid for kinematic situations, but at the same time tries to “prove” that using a static situation; the zig-zag pattern of the cube shown here:
If pi=4 is only correct in kinematics but not for static situations, one cannot use a static situation to prove that. This premise makes his claim dishonest; he is deliberately mixing situations.
3 - The whole basis of the idea that “pi=4 in kinematic situations” stems from an incredibly unconvincing source; Wernher von Braun (via another well-known liar; Richard C. Hoagland). What Mathis describes is that “rockets were pictured in the wrong place; 21% off” giving Mathis the insight to this idea and he presents us with long papers and lots of text why that would be.http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htmhttp://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... b72#p96490http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland
The problem is that Wernher von Braun is an unreliable source for anything. Being the main proponent of faked Space Travel, his comments cannot be taken seriously.
Adding the absence of undeniable statements by Mathis about Space Travel, it suggests that he misdirects his readers; he takes Von Braun as a reliable source, does not dispute the rockets in space idea and concludes Von Braun was right.
The statement by Von Braun vs physics has 4 possible logical outcomes (“physics” refers only to this pi=4 point in this case; there is a lot of fake physics around, but that is not what this particular point and topic is about):
A - Von Braun is right, pi physics is right -> the mainstream
B - Von Braun is right, pi physics is wrong -> the Mathis “pi=4” premise
C - Von Braun is wrong, pi physics is right
D - Von Braun is wrong, pi physics is wrong
I think most of the editors of Cluesforum, and I share that stance, would choose C; Von Braun is an unreliable lying Disney hoaxer and “pi physics”(only on this pi=4 or 3.1415... point) is not disputed.
Position D is also possible, but then Von Braun’s statement is useless as the basis of this whole physical kinematic pi=4 point; one should use another source for this idea and not Von Braun. As far as I know, Miles Mathis has failed to propose another source for his first hunch.
4 - This point has been highlighted by Seneca and was quickly wiped away, but it is a crucial point; if this pi=4 statement were true, and all calculations of circular motion are “21% off”, then that would have been discovered way before Mathis’ claim and by way more people than the small group who defend Mathis on this.
There are thousands of areas in engineering, science and technology where pi is used in kinematic and especially kinematic vs static situations. An error of 21% is so substantial that it would have been discovered by others, long before the first paper of Mathis in the late 2000s.
The problem is, if this 21% difference was unnoticed for centuries, then either every kinematic vs static situation would be consistently 21% off and thus go unnoticed, or, when more complex kinematic situations are combined with simple static situations or the other way around, the 21% margin would multiply or diminish; there would be differences larger or smaller than 21%.
Both situations would lead to people noticing it; a constant offset of 21% is clear for researchers who compare large data sets and differential offsets would show up too.
Yet, there are no others who have come up with this “error”, only Miles Mathis (and his followers) have.
Back to Mathis’ style in his hoax papers and the relation with this. When reading his hoax publications, a very characteristic rhetoric is used by Mathis; he first asks a -leading- question, and then immediately answers that. That is a very old trick to guide people towards a predefined conclusion. For the hoax papers, I don’t see a major problem with that, as the modus operandi of the hoaxsters indeed is very similar and that question is in many cases justified and the answer clear.
For this pi=4 topic it is not. It closes off all alternative viewpoints and that is seen both in Mathis’s reactions to critics as in the behavior of daddie_o and VexMan; “go along with this idea, else you are...<insert ad hominem>”
Two more points:
- the “experiment” by Oostdijk
- the confusing language “distance =/= length”
The experiment performed on video is not done in a proper, honest way. Different camera angles used, as described by bongostaple, smell of a deliberately confusing presentation. A good experiment doesn’t need this; it speaks for itself.
The confusing language “distance is not length” is also a deliberate misdirection imho. Distance is length when the path (kinematics) follows the line drawn (length). The only area where distance and length are not equal, is when one splits the distance into vectors (x, y in 2D).
But for the situation we are addressing here; the circle, distance = length. The distance traveled of a point on the edge of the circle cannot do anything else than to follow that circle.
When a point on the circle, or within the area of it, is chosen and then the whole circle is moved (kinematics) in a direction different from the circle (i.e.; draw a point on a frisbee and throw the frisbee; the distance that point travels is not equal to the length (circumference) of the frisbee), then one wouldn’t use the terms length and distance in that sense.
Also there I see a deliberate confusing mix-up between terms that cannot be mixed.
- the premise for this pi=4 idea is wrong, because it is sourced by a known liar
- the lack of a “graphical tutorial for dummies”, even after so many years, smells of misdirection and keeping people confused; the discussion and disagreements on this topic in this thread are evidence of that
- the vague “definitions” of “kinematic situation” and “distance =/= length” smell of misdirection too
- the personal attacks made by proponents of this idea do not convince of an honest, fair and reasonable civil stance
Personally I am still in doubt what to think of this all; is Mathis a very clever misdirecting controlled opposition figure/collective who write(s) great articles about all kinds of fakery in present and especially past but misdirects on “breakthroughs in science”?
Or is he/are they just confused himself/themselves about the science and truly believe in this pi=4 in kinematics idea just as much as in the hoax work?
Time will tell.
Note that I am not name-calling VexMan or daddie_o as “deliberate misdirection”. I think they believe in Mathis’ claim and try to spread this message to the best of their ability.
One phrase used by daddie_o however is strange and untrue:And since physics is applied math, if you aren't applying the math correctly you're going to get wrong answers.viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1925&p=2401786#p2401786
This is exactly the other way around; physics is the basis, math is “only” the language to describe it. Not “physics is applied math”, but “math is a language used to describe physics”.