## Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Questions, speculations & updates on the techniques and nature of media fakery

### Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Seneca » October 10th, 2016, 2:23 pm wrote: In order words: Miles Mathis predicts an apparent speed-up of 21% precisely at the end of the curve and the beginning of the straight part. And this is what we are trying to prove or disprove here. He would call it "apparent" because the speed-up is only observed if you measure the distance using the "wrong pi" (3.14..) as we are doing in this experiment. It would not be observed from the viewpoint of the ball. I hope you can follow me. If we see that there is a speed-up, there is no way this can be caused by friction so it would prove M.M. is right. If we see no speed-up that would prove M.M. is wrong. I don't see how you could argue that there is a speed-up but you can't see it because of friction. Daddie_o, what do you think?

I think the set-up is sound. Ultimately whether it's viable depends on how much loss of speed there is due solely to friction over, say 25-50cm. If there was a massive (gradual) slowdown due to friction, then the speed at the end might be lower than in the curve. But from Steve's video, it appears there is very little loss due to friction. So in that case, it should work: it should take the ball more time to go from the mid-point of the bend to the end, covering 25cm of 'length', than it would take for it to go down the straight end that was also measured at 25cm long. It probably won't be 21% longer due to friction, but even 10% or 15% would be astonishing (though I predict it will be very close to the expected value).

You pointed out that there is a tradeoff with how long the segments are that you're measuring, and I agree. Last night I started imagining what it would take to do the experiment. I was thinking that you could actually mark off segments of the tube every, say, 5cm. So then you could compare speeds at various segment lengths with the same experiment, going all the way up to the entire length of the curve, which in my example was 50cm.

Just to be clear, though: there is no speed-up or speed-down. I guess you could say 'apparent' speed-up/down, but technically his argument is that the speed is constant but the distance traveled is longer in the curved tube (and it is made longer precisely by curving it). So if I'm driving my car at 100km/hr, you might measure my average speed by seeing how long it takes me to drive a certain distance, say San Francisco to Los Angeles. But if I drive at the same speed and you time how long it takes me to drive from San Francisco to San Diego, which is further away, you wouldn't conclude that I'm driving slower just because it takes more time. You would have to take into account that I've driven a longer distance. That's all we're doing here. I'm not sure anyone would describe the shorter amount of time it takes to drive to LA as 'speed up.' It's just a shorter drive.

I don't want to be a tight-ass, and I do get your drift. I think it's just important to be precise since there has been such confusion on this issue. I was also a bit confused and uncertain about this, too, but it has since become crystal clear to me as I've tried to explain it. I did get an answer from Miles about Simon's question, but I am now certain that the answer is B (and am also certain that is what Miles would answer).
Member

Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

### Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Seneca, I understand your view. I still think eliminating friction would be a good thing to do in any such setup. And I do think it would influence the experiment, to be exact, it would influence the measurement of time at the end of A section / beginning of B section. So at the start of section B, the ball would not have the initial speed anymore, thus section B would be traveled with x% more time because of it. And this would be in analogy equal to lag seen in Oostdijk's experiment, where it was refuted as some additional force at work while the ball is in the curve.

If I'd do it in your proposed setup anyway, I'd firstly measure just the amount of slow-down due to friction over the whole length of setup, firstly running the "calibrating" run and in there measuring solely initial speed and end speed of the ball, then simply calculating the slow down as a mean value. After the second run measuring A and B values, I'd adjust the results by the "calibrating" value of slow down -> with purpose to "equalize" the results of both measurements A and B, meaning they would be incorporating the values of initial speeds at the beginning of A or B section accordingly. In this way, with the "adjustment", you would seemingly have equal speeds at the beginning of each section, although you actually do not. Did I make this suggestion understandable to follow?

In my opinion, friction over small distance really doesn't significantly influence the velocity measured for this purpose. However, to be able to say with CERTAINTY , one has to do the homework. In all other variations of the experiment, there will be always room for speculations about it. And that is precisely what I would aim to avoid by improved setup, to remove all possible "weak" points when discussing the essence of such experiment. I still predict the same result of such experiment, answer in your case is B.
VexMan
Member

Posts: 67
Joined: September 8th, 2016, 8:34 pm

### Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

*

I'm afraid that this Pi=4 thread /discussion platform graciously offered by this forum to MM fans & followers is turning into the Mother of all circular debates.

As much as I'd like to keep this forum wide open to cutting edge critiques and debates about all sorts of fudging and fakery (in this case, of the scientific kind), this particular discussion has gradually degenerated into unpleasant levels of pettiness, vacuity and sheer scorn - prevailingly spewed by our resident MM supporters (namely daddie_o and Vexman). For them to indulge in unbridled troll-calling while dissing those who do not subscribe to MM's 'kinematic Pi=4' theory is quite uncalled for and, quite frankly, plain silly. To be sure, daddie_o calling our new member bongostaple "mongo" [as in mongoloid, surely?] wasn't lost on me... how very childish.

But particularly ironic is the fact that our resident MM fans are utterly unable to even start explaining MM's Pi=4 theory themselves - and only keep bitching about everyone's supposed 'laziness' and 'unwillingless' (without a shred of evidence for it) to read MM's Pi papers which, they assure us, are gems of clarity and common sense... I, for one, have read most of them (as well as a pretty sizeable amount of MM's output over the years) - so let us now read together a passage of his "What is π?" paper. Remember that MM's basic contention (as stated in bold type in his Summation), is that "there is no Pi in the sky" and that, therefore, ALL orbital velocity calculations of our celestial bodies must be off by about 21%...

MilesMathis wrote:
"Since the wrong equation has been used throughout history and is still being used, this must once again compromise our calculated values for orbital "velocity". For instance, if we calculate an orbital velocity for a satellite using the equation a = v2/r, we must either get the wrong number for a or for v. "

"The reason our current values mostly work in calculations is that they are at least consistent. We make the same mistake in all calculations (and always have)—this makes it possible to compare one calculation to another and find correct proportions. This allows us to put satellites in successful orbits despite using faulty math and equations.
Our engineers have gotten very good at making any necessary corrections to equations, since they are much practiced at it. If one equation doesn't work, they just use another, or tweek the old equation until it does work."
http://milesmathis.com/pi.html

Wow. What to say, folks? Well, let's see what we can learn from the above few lines :

First off, we see that Miles Mathis is - evidently - a space travel believer. (Reason enough not to take the man seriously. But 'that's just me', one might say.)

Secondly, the man who believes that satellites have been put in successful orbits ("despite using faulty math and equations") offers the following - uh - 'explanation' as to how this amazing feat of human-ingenuity-against-all-odds is pulled off :

"Our engineers have gotten very good at making any necessary corrections to equations, since they are much practiced at it. If one equation doesn't work, they just use another, or tweek the old equation until it does work."

Good lord. Pardon me, but isn't MM aware that NASA claims to land their sophisticated 'space probes' - with pinpoint accuracy - on the surface of orbiting comets and asteroids (e.g.the "ROSETTA' mission) whizzing around space at unimaginable / hypersonic speeds? And such feats would be achieved, according to MM's reckoning, in spite of the value of Pi (for objects in circular motion) being OFF by as much as 21% ???

Excuse me, folks - but Iet me just share with you this equation that I just pulled out of my thinking-hat: MMlogic=0

The man is a science clown - and most certainly unfit to join this forum. I'm now mighty glad he declined to do so - as I corteously invited him some time ago.

I will now lock this thread until further notice (i.e. pending extraordinary developments of the extraordinary Pi=4 theory) so as to allow all earnest readers and contributors a well-deserved 'mindfuck break' - and to defuse any escalation of the most uncalled-for name-&-troll-calling antics that have been going on here. I would suggest that Vexman take advantage of this break and treat himself to a roundtrip (only \$314 or so, I hear!) to Israel to meet his 'sparring partner' Daddie-o - and that they both set up a proper, 'foolproof' Pi=4 experiment to blow our minds. Not sure if the two of them would make for a very objective & credible scientific partnership (since they are both, apparently, already fully convinced of the experiment's Pi=4 outcome) - but this would at least give them the right to call us all 'lazy'.
simonshack

Posts: 6519
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

### Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

daddie_o wrote:If there was a massive (gradual) slowdown due to friction, then the speed at the end might be lower than in the curve.

I don't believe a physicist would necessarily agree unless you were being extremely specific about certain conditions.

In the case of the video, the change in friction is only encountered one time, during the length of time that the straight line becomes the π curve. After that, the friction remains roughly the same as the curve does. The state of the friction is largely proportional to the curve, thanks to the effort made to reduce friction otherwise. Maybe it would even be better if a lube was somehow involved. The combined forces acting on the ball will cause it to continue moving at its pace.

But regardless of that, you can't help that there's a curve involved and not a straight line. Imagine that ball pressing hard against the outside portion of the inner part of the tube as the ball continually changes direction due to its momentum. The ball isn't suddenly "deciding" to turn a bit more to make the curve. It's going to keep trying to go straight, but it's not going to get "frustrated" and start rapidly decelerating. Think about it.

Simon is right. Different vehicles with different locomotions will treat curves differently. Even variations of similar vehicles. So ultimately, while it's an interesting discussion, it's also kind of old and ... a bit circuitous. Not revolutionary, exactly.

Woops, I snuck in one last post as Simon was locking the thread. I should add that even if it didn't come from NASA-believer Mathis, it would be appropriate to lock the thread and avoid endless spiraling. Despite recent writings asking us to shun the hypotenuse and the constant that is so useful in geometry, I think we're still going to be using them. At least, I am. I like them and they're my friends in programming and calculations.
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4994
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

hoi.polloi wrote: I should add that even if it didn't come from NASA-believer Mathis, it would be appropriate to lock the thread and avoid endless spiraling. Despite recent writings asking us to shun the hypotenuse and the constant that is so useful in geometry, I think we're still going to be using them. At least, I am. I like them and they're my friends in programming and calculations.

Right on, Hoi. I'm glad that you're a friend of the empirically verifiable Pi value.

Here's a sound / no-nonsense article which exemplifies the sort of ridicule that MM's agenda is designed to throw at all of us conspiracy theorists free-thinkers :

http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2010/11/ ... roves-pi4/

I'm now a bit annoyed / embarrassed to have provided (for a short while) a discussion platform for the MM science clown - but I guess this all goes with the nature of our forum - which encourages a wide aperture of everyone's brains... that is, as long as those brains don't fall out of their skulls !
simonshack