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

Postby daddie_o on October 9th, 2016, 8:24 am

bongostaple » October 8th, 2016, 9:59 pm wrote:what I described as slowing the ball down wasn't just friction, it was (whatever it is or isn't) caused by the tube forcing the ball around a curve, therefore transferring energy.


And I showed you earlier why that argument doesn't hold water: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1925&start=60#p2401703

In fact, in that response to you I also demonstrated how little you understand about physics by quoting from an 'intro to physics' website's lesson 1 on characteristics of circular motion. But apparently I overestimated your reading comprehension skills, since not only did that introductory physics lesson not penetrate your skull, you apparently don't even realize that your argument was refuted. Which I guess explains why you are recycling it.
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby bongostaple on October 9th, 2016, 11:24 am

Daddie_o, my 'problem' that you describe as 'how little you understand', and later on a lack of 'reading comprehension skills', is simply that I do not agree with you. I am OK with having a different opinion to yours on the content of this thread, and I can accept your opinion without having to tell you that you understand little, or that your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I am also OK with your denigrating remarks that add nothing to the discussion, but if you are going to support your disagreement with the ‘beginners’ notion that Pi=3.141etc by leaning on some other ‘beginners’ material, how on earth am I meant to know which elementary material you find acceptable and which you don’t? It’s just a difference of opinion. Whatever.
bongostaple
Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: October 4th, 2016, 12:53 pm

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby Seneca on October 9th, 2016, 11:41 am

daddie_o » 08 Oct 2016, 16:05 wrote:
Seneca » October 8th, 2016, 2:26 pm wrote:A simple experiment would be the following. It is similar but simpler than the one posted on youtube. You only need one tube and one ball. Instead of a circle(spiral) you make only half a circle followed by a straight part. Like the letter U. At the end of the turn you measure a short length (=l) and mark both the end and the beginning. So you can time how much time the ball needs to cover the distance= time A. You do the same thing at the start of the straight part after the turn. Using exactly the same length. Here you can measure time B.


Seneca, I think it took me longer to understand your proposed experimental setup than it would take me to actual set it up... but I like it!

Let me make sure I understand: take a straight hose and mark it into 4 equal lengths, with each length equal to (l) (we could arbitrarily say the hose is 100cm long so 25cm for each length segment). Let's assume the same tube and ball as we saw in Steve's video. Lay the hose on a table. Keep the first 25cm straight. Then, at the 25cm mark, bend the hose in a uniform curve so that it forms a 1/2 circle with the 50cm mark at the midpoint and the 75cm mark at the end of the curve. The remaining 25cm of the hose should be straight, with everything fastened firmly onto the table. (We would need to add a vertical slope at the beginning to get the ball rolling).

You're saying we should then compare the time it takes the ball to travel from the 50-75cm marks in the curve [time A] to the time it takes it to travel from the 75-100cm marks in the straight [time B].

You say time B (through the straight end) should be slightly longer due to cumulative friction. Miles says time A (through the curve) should be longer due to more "distance." In fact he says it should be about 21% longer than time B (minus additional friction from last 25cm). I agree with you: that is what his prediction would be. That is also what the current experiment was meant to demonstrate.

I unfortunately don't have the time or wherewithal to do this experiment, but I definitely think it's an ingenious setup. And anyway, since I'm convinced he's right, I also don't have the motivation to do the experiment. For somebody who is not convinced he's wrong, this would seem to be the experiment to do to prove it.

As for the use of the word 'exactly:' Yes I did use the word exactly when describing when the two balls hit their 1/4 and 3/4 marks in the experiment, and of course I agree it's not really exactly. But it's close enough that there is no appreciable lag or difference to my eye. Certainly not anything approaching a 21% mismatch, which is what we would expect to see by the 3/4 mark if the 21% miss was due to the cumulative effects of friction.


daddie_o, thanks for spending your time to understand the experiment I proposed. I like your translation. In you example l=25 cm which is OK. I think if you make it smaller the possible effect of "kinetic Pi=4" will increase relative to the effect of friction. But l should be big enough to allow for accurate measurements.

Like you wrote, it wouldn't take much time to set it up. But if you don't want to do it, that is fine, you are the boss of your own free time. But I think it will be good for you, regardless of the outcome.

daddie_o » 08 Oct 2016, 21:16 wrote:Seneca: the more I think about it, the more I realize your experiment would not be the last word. It would address the question about friction, I agree. But there are those who maintain the change in speed is due to changes in forces, for example centripetal or inertial, which 'return to normal' after the curve, which means the ball would speed up upon exiting the curve. So in those scenarios A would still be greater than B. I don't find those arguments credible. I guess you could calculate the slowdown implied by such changes and (which nobody here has bothered to try to do)see if they fit experimental values. But still, you get my point. In other words, the result of B>A would show that he is clearly wrong, but A>B would not satisfy the skeptopaths.


I understand your frustration but insulting people by calling them skeptopaths won't help. Are you sure people here would argue for a change in speed after the "return to normal"? Because if you look at the energy that would be impossible. I can only promise this: if somebody does the experiment and it proves M.M. is saying I will help to convince the skeptics.

To those who think that energy is needed to keep an object in a circular orbit: Can you explain where this energy is coming from, for example when the moon is orbiting the earth? I am not saying there is no force. But the force is not doing any "work" (in the physical sense). So it has no influence on the kinetic energy of the object. Because the force is always perpendicular to the movement (this is just standard physics not M.M's. In the experiment there is work being done by the friction but that is another force.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby daddie_o on October 9th, 2016, 1:04 pm

Seneca » October 9th, 2016, 12:41 pm wrote:daddie_o, thanks for spending your time to understand the experiment I proposed. I like your translation. In you example l=25 cm which is OK. I think if you make it smaller the possible effect of "kinetic Pi=4" will increase relative to the effect of friction. But l should be big enough to allow for accurate measurements.


Yes, there is a clear tradeoff here between friction/vs. enough time for accurate measurements.

I understand your frustration but insulting people by calling them skeptopaths won't help. Are you sure people here would argue for a change in speed after the "return to normal"? Because if you look at the energy that would be impossible. I can only promise this: if somebody does the experiment and it proves M.M. is saying I will help to convince the skeptics.

To those who think that energy is needed to keep an object in a circular orbit: Can you explain where this energy is coming from, for example when the moon is orbiting the earth? I am not saying there is no force. But the force is not doing any "work" (in the physical sense). So it has no influence on the kinetic energy of the object. Because the force is always perpendicular to the movement (this is just standard physics not M.M's. In the experiment there is work being done by the friction but that is another force.


Well, your promise is almost enough to get me to do it. Maybe I'll bribe convince my son do it for a school science project... :)

I have already made the point about no work being done, but bongostaple didn't get it. He also didn't get that he didn't get it. And if you look at the youtube comments on the experiment, there are others making a similar argument. The most sophisticated involves what happens to the rotational energy of the ball as it enters the circle. Actually, there was one with lots of fancy math there that I don't find anymore. Bongo and at least a couple of youtube commenters seem to believe it will return to prior speed (minus friction) after it leaves the circle (with the idea being that the energy "diverted" in the curve will be restored to the ball). So yes there are those who seem to hold this argument, though I suspect many who put this bogus argument forward do so only with the expectation that some people will buy it and to add to the FUD.

As for skeptopaths, I apply the term to people who say Miles is wrong yet stubbornly refuse to read his work or offer an honest critique of the experiment. In other words, it is not honest skepticism. It is disingenuous and pathological. Ergo skeptopath. But who knows? Maybe they're just lazy, in which case I guess the right term would be a skeptazy bum. But if they're too lazy to read, then they sort of have no business trying to argue against something they haven't made much of an effort to try to understand. They sound like they're standing up in front of class giving a report on a book they haven't read. It takes chutzpah but it's sort of embarrassing. I agree that insulting people won't help, but at least it calls them out on their BS.

In any case, you appear to me to be neither a skeptazy bum nor a skeptopath. Still, I don't quite understand why you don't buy the argument that since the effects of friction are cumulative, we should see a gradual and appreciable (near 21% towards the third quarter) slow down of the ball--but we don't.

Anyway, if the experiment you propoose is run and shows he is wrong, would you please explain to me why he's wrong if you can? Because nobody else here has offered anything even remotely resembling a compelling refutation (which is not surprising since they haven't even read what he wrote).
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby bongostaple on October 9th, 2016, 1:17 pm

Seneca - ref your last paragraph, there is a further force, if I can try to describe it: The ball wants to go in a straight line, but it's in the circle path tube. The inner wall of the tube offers a normal force to the ball's instantaneous tangential velocity, diverting it from a straight path.

If I may, I will quote daddie_o and his approved beginner's physics: "For an unbalanced force to change the speed of the object, there would have to be a component of force in the direction of (or the opposite direction of) the motion of the object."

The normal force offered by the tube has an opposing vector to the ball's otherwise natural straight line path. I do not believe that this force has to be in exactly the same direction or exactly 180deg opposite direction in order to change the speed of the ball.

For example, if the ball hit a wall head-on, the force is directly opposite. Would you expect, given the materials used in the video experiment, the ball to bounce back at 100% of the speed before it hit the wall?

Or, if the ball hit a wall at 45deg, again its course would change, but would it have 100% of its initial speed? Again, I think not, some energy will have been lost in the collision.

So, imagine the ball hit a wall at a more glancing angle, say 15deg, bounces off, then hits another wall at 15deg, etc etc. Would the ball, at the end of this series of course alterations, still have 100% of its original speed? I don't think it would.

So, to borrow a descriptive technique from the Mathis paper, lets make the 15 deg walls 10deg, 5deg, smaller and smaller, until they look just like a curve. But suddenly, the ball whizzes around without losing any speed whatsoever?

Maybe I am in fact just too stupid to be able to understand why I'm wrong, but for what it's worth, the above makes sense to me.
bongostaple
Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: October 4th, 2016, 12:53 pm

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby daddie_o on October 9th, 2016, 2:04 pm

bongostaple » October 9th, 2016, 2:17 pm wrote:Seneca - ref your last paragraph, there is a further force, if I can try to describe it


Bongo, according to your description, this 'further force' should act to slow down the ball more and more as it goes through the curve, akin to friction. In this case we would expect to see the ball slow down more and more as it goes around until it has slowed down by 21%. But we do not see evidence of such a cumulative slowdown in the video as I have explained. Also in this case, the kinetic energy lost would not be restored at the end, so at least Seneca's experiment would apply.
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby Seneca on October 9th, 2016, 2:47 pm

Bongostaple

Don't get me wrong. I agree that there is a normal force that is changing the direction. But this force is not slowing the ball down, friction is.
It becomes clearer if you look at the energy. The force is changing only the direction of the velocity (while the magnitude of the velocity stays the same) so it doesn't change the kinetic energy.
You are arguing that the kinetic energy decreases because of the force.

I made the comparison to the moon circling the earth. An other example is a pendulum. If there was no friction, a pendulum would keep swinging forever despite that it is being forced in a circular path. It this wasn't the case, they wouldn't have been used in clocks. Or look at how a flywheel is used to store (angular) kinetic energy.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby bongostaple on October 9th, 2016, 3:29 pm

quote daddie-o: "As for the use of the word 'exactly:' Yes I did use the word exactly when describing when the two balls hit their 1/4 and 3/4 marks in the experiment, and of course I agree it's not really exactly. But it's close enough that there is no appreciable lag or difference to my eye. Certainly not anything approaching a 21% mismatch, which is what we would expect to see by the 3/4 mark if the 21% miss was due to the cumulative effects of friction."

There absolutely is an appreciable lag - in both cases. At the first quarter mark, the circle path ball has travelled a quarter of a revolution of the circular path, and the straight path ball has travelled a quarter of the line from '0' to '4'. These two markers are not in any way equivalent in distance travelled. In the time the straight path ball travelled a quarter of four, or 'one diameter', the circle path ball travelled (pi * d) / 4 which works out at about 79% of the straight path first marker distance.

Conclusion: We are seeing a 21% miss.

It is quite logical to consider the ball slowing down as a possible cause of this, regardless of the contribution of friction or other forces.

As it stands, the experiment clearly shows the balls travelling different distances in the same length of time, or to put it another way, they are travelling at different speeds.

To make each pair of quarter markers somehow visually equivalent in the experiment is misleading, as they represent different distances.

If the first quarter marking on the straight path were marked at the distance of (pi * d) / 4 instead of d, then it would be absolutely clear that the balls aren't moving at the same speed.

Whether it's friction, centripetal, a combination, or whatever forces, the experimental results show a slowing down.
bongostaple
Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: October 4th, 2016, 12:53 pm

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby Seneca on October 9th, 2016, 3:51 pm

daddie_o » 09 Oct 2016, 14:04 wrote:In any case, you appear to me to be neither a skeptazy bum nor a skeptopath. Still, I don't quite understand why you don't buy the argument that since the effects of friction are cumulative, we should see a gradual and appreciable (near 21% towards the third quarter) slow down of the ball--but we don't.

I agree that the effect of friction is gradual and cumulative while the effect that M.M. is talking about would be instantenous as soon as the ball starts its circular path. But it is hard to tell the difference in the video, maybe I am a bit lazy.

We have no way of knowing many times Steven Oostdijk had to run his experiment to get these results. Perhaps he has played with the parameters (starting height, radius of the turn..) until the result fitted the theory.
daddie_o » 09 Oct 2016, 14:04 wrote:Anyway, if the experiment you propoose is run and shows he is wrong, would you please explain to me why he's wrong if you can? Because nobody else here has offered anything even remotely resembling a compelling refutation (which is not surprising since they haven't even read what he wrote).

Where he could be wrong is in what you wrote earlier "When you're trying to describe movement in a circle, then the circumference is best approximated with the ever-smaller zigzag method (the orthoganal vectors or sides)."
What if we look instead at a diagonal path like this: /. Can you explain why, using the same logic you shouldn't approximate the movement also by the "zigzag" method? Besides for the reason that it would make no sense in the real world.
Last edited by Seneca on October 9th, 2016, 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby daddie_o on October 9th, 2016, 4:36 pm

bongostaple » October 9th, 2016, 4:29 pm wrote:There absolutely is an appreciable lag - in both cases. At the first quarter mark, the circle path ball has travelled a quarter of a revolution of the circular path, and the straight path ball has travelled a quarter of the line from '0' to '4'.


YES! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE EXPERIMENT!

These two markers are not in any way equivalent in distance travelled.


They are not equivalent in geometric length as measured by a ruler, or billiard balls, or whatever, but when you are traveling that path in a circle, they are equivalent in distance traveled, which is what the experiment is all about.

In the time the straight path ball travelled a quarter of four, or 'one diameter', the circle path ball travelled (pi * d) / 4 which works out at about 79% of the straight path first marker distance.

Conclusion: We are seeing a 21% miss.


YES, AT LEAST WE CAN AGREE ON THAT!

But here is the point that you seem to be missing (either deliberately or due to sheer inability to comprehend): a slow down due to friction or whatever other cockamamie force you can come up with will be cumulative. Please take a moment to look that word up in a dictionary. That means that the ball should become slower and slower the longer it is in the circle. So that at the beginning, it will be a little bit slower than the straight ball, but by the end, it will be a lot slower. In other words, it would get gradually slower.

OK, now try to follow me here: The 4 quarters of the circle are equidistant from each other (that means they are spaced the same distance apart from each other, about 13.8cm). The 4 marks on the straight tube are equidistant from each other (17.6cm apart). We see in the video that the ball hits the 1/4 mark in the circle at the same time as the 1/4 mark on the straight tube. It also hits the 3/4 mark at the same time as it hits the 3/4 mark on the straight tube. (Bongo are you still paying attention? Wake up!) If the ball was gradually getting slower due to the cumulative force of friction or whatever, this would not happen. Instead what we would see is something like this: the straight and circular balls would hit the first quarter mark at the same time, but the straight ball would hit the 3/4 mark long before the ball in the circle hit its 3/4 marks. But that's not what we see. Not by a long shot. They appear to hit the 1/4 and 3/4 marks at almost exactly the same time.

(In fact, if the slow down is gradual and the overall difference between the two times is a 21% miss, that means the average difference in time would be 21%, in which case after the halfway point the slowdown would be greater than 21% and by the 3/4 mark it would be something like 31.5% slower).

As it stands, the experiment clearly shows the balls travelling different distances in the same length of time


No!!! That's what you think the experiment is showing but the evidence clearly points the other way: the balls are actually traveling the same distance in the same amount of time, because the circumference of a circle in kinematic situations is 4, not 3.14, just like it is in a cycloid: http://milesmathis.com/cycloid.pdf

Whether it's friction, centripetal, a combination, or whatever forces, the experimental results show a slowing down.


No, no, no, and no. What you are saying is that there is a force acting on the ball that gives it an instantaneous and uniform 21% slowdown as it enters the circle. So it cannot be friction, as we've just seen (for the umpteenth time), because that is cumulative. And you have been shown by me and Seneca why it cannot be the centripetal force. Let me say that again so it has a chance to penetrate your skull: it cannot be the centripetal force. You can't just invent forces or insist that there must be 'whatever forces' to slow it down. You don't know why it does what it does, and you can't explain it. Yet you insist Miles's explanation simply cannot be correct. You just know it. You have the misplaced confidence of somebody who simply has no idea what's going on. Why? Why can't it be correct? You have no clue. In that case, I'm not sure you belong on cluesforum.

[Argghhh...I know I said I wouldn't answer any more of these half-assed, half-baked comments by people who haven't bothered to read his work, but I'm weak. I'm weak. May the forum Gods have mercy on my soul.]
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby bongostaple on October 9th, 2016, 6:02 pm

Right, I get it - I really am too stupid and lazy to understand why you're right and I'm wrong. How I could possibly have thought otherwise is clearly the result of my low intelligence and even lower motivation. Thanks for clearing that up!
bongostaple
Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: October 4th, 2016, 12:53 pm

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby daddie_o on October 9th, 2016, 6:58 pm

bongostaple » October 9th, 2016, 7:02 pm wrote:Right, I get it - I really am too stupid and lazy to understand why you're right and I'm wrong. How I could possibly have thought otherwise is clearly the result of my low intelligence and even lower motivation. Thanks for clearing that up!


Great, finally you understood something!
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby daddie_o on October 9th, 2016, 7:32 pm

Seneca » October 9th, 2016, 4:51 pm wrote:I agree that the effect of friction is gradual and cumulative while the effect that M.M. is talking about would be instantenous as soon as the ball starts its circular path. But it is hard to tell the difference in the video, maybe I am a bit lazy.

We have no way of knowing many times Steven Oostdijk had to run his experiment to get these results. Perhaps he has played with the parameters (starting height, radius of the turn..) until the result fitted the theory.


In my response to mongo, I realized that if the slow down was cumulative and uniform, and the miss was 21%, then that is actual an average miss around the circle, in which case by the 3/4 mark there should be a 31.5% delay in hitting the mark compared to the straight part. Do you see anything remotely close to a 30% delay? If you can say that Steve gamed this experiment to disguise such a miss, you could say that about any experiment I would run. I think the only way you will really be convinced is if you run the experiment yourself.

Where he could be wrong is in what you wrote earlier "When you're trying to describe movement in a circle, then the circumference is best approximated with the ever-smaller zigzag method (the orthoganal vectors or sides)."
What if we look instead at a diagonal path like this: /. Can you explain why, using the same logic you shouldn't approximate the movement also by the "zigzag" method? Besides for the reason that it would make no sense in the real world.


Yes, here are two quotations from his papers that I think explain this point. First from pi2.html:

But let us start at the beginning. By definition, a velocity vector cannot curve. A velocity takes place in one dimension or direction only. In a velocity, there is only one distance in the numerator and one time in the denominator. These times and distances are also vectors, and may not curve. But to create a curve, either mathematically or physically, requires at least two velocities happening over the same interval. Or, to put it another way, it requires two distances measured over the same time interval. If we sum these velocities over the same interval, we achieve an acceleration, and thereby—assuming the two velocities are at an angle—a curve.


So your straight line is a single vector, even as it is slanted. We don't approximate it by zig-zag, because we don't have to. But we do have to approximate a curve that way, because it is composed of two vectors. He goes into more detail in that paper.

Another relevant quotation from pi.html:

Geometry dismisses time as a consideration. Geometry is understood to be taking place at a sort of imaginary instant. For instance, when we are given or shown a radius, we do not consider that it took some time to draw that radius. We do not ask if the radius was drawn at a constant velocity or if the pencil was accelerating when it was drawn. We don’t ask because we really don’t care. It doesn’t seem pertinent. It seems quite intuitive to just postulate a radius, draw it, and then begin asking questions after that.
It turns out that this nonchalance is a mistake. It is a mistake because by ignoring time we have ignored many important subtleties of the problem of circular motion and of circle geometry.
As a simple example of this, when we draw a circle on a Cartesian graph, we make an entirely different set of assumptions than the ones above, although few have seemed to notice this....
....Drawing the graph changes everything. If you draw a circle without a graph, then you can say to yourself that the line (that is now the circumference of the circle) is a length. As a length, it can have only one dimension. A length is a one-dimensional variable, right? Perhaps you can see where I am going with this, and you say, “Wait, a circle curves, so we must have two dimensions, at least. We must have an x and a y dimension.” Yes, at the least we must have that. You saw this because you began to think in terms of the Cartesian graph and you could see in your head that the curve implied both x and y dimensions. Very good. But you are not halfway there yet. Take the circle and actually put it into a Cartesian graph. What you find is that the curve is now an acceleration. In fact, any curve is an acceleration in a two-dimensional graph...
That line that represents a circumference is taking on dimensions very fast now. At first we thought it was just a length. Then we saw that it required two dimensions. Now we can see that it is an acceleration. What next?
Unfortunately, there is more. The Cartesian graph we have put it into to show it is an acceleration is still just an x, y graph. We still don’t have a time variable. A circle is a planar object, existing in a plane, but in the real world a curve on a plane cannot be created without time passing. A two-dimensional object requires three dimensions for its creation, just as a three-dimensional object requires four dimensions for its creation. You cannot draw or walk or describe a figure in a three-dimensional universe without taking time into consideration. Figures require motion and motion requires time.
All this is clear I hope. Nothing esoteric about it, although it may be a bit shocking to be reminded of it. Many readers will think I am talking only to young or naïve people when I say that this problem has remained obscure. But I am talking to everyone, the most brilliant scientists and mathematicians included. You young readers may find it amusing to see what famous scientists still do everyday with circular motion. Here is an equation that is used everyday, right now, by the smartest people alive:

v = C/t = 2πr/t

where v is the orbital velocity, C is the circumference and t is the period of the orbit. Newton used this equation. Einstein used this equation. Feynman used this equation. Every famous person you can think of used and is still using this equation. But it is an error of gigantic proportions. First of all, we have a curved velocity, which is impossible by definition. You cannot describe a curve with a velocity. Next, look at the form. We have C in the place of x, as if C is a simple distance. I have just shown that C is not a simple distance. There is no way to express C with just an x-dimension. In fact, as I have just shown, C is three-dimensional, if you include time. This equation is including time, as you can see by the denominator. You cannot have a t in the denominator and claim you are ignoring time. You cannot put a curve over a time and have it come out to be a simple velocity. Velocity is defined as x/ t. The variable x is one-dimensional and therefore cannot curve.


So your diagonal line is one-dimensional (or two if you include time and treat it as a velocity vector). You don't need to 'approximate' or model it as a complex compound motion, not with the 'zig-zag' or any other method.
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby bongostaple on October 9th, 2016, 7:52 pm

daddie_o » October 9th, 2016, 5:58 pm wrote:
bongostaple » October 9th, 2016, 7:02 pm wrote:Right, I get it - I really am too stupid and lazy to understand why you're right and I'm wrong. How I could possibly have thought otherwise is clearly the result of my low intelligence and even lower motivation. Thanks for clearing that up!


Great, finally you understood something!


In fact, what I actually get is that you think it's OK to call me stupid, because you think your are right and I am wrong. You may well be right. Or I may well be right. But I can say with certainty, I won't be calling you 'stupid', 'lazy', or the most playground of all, 'mongo'. Because I don't feel the need to do that. If you can't keep it civil then you'll run out of people to talk with eventually.
bongostaple
Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: October 4th, 2016, 12:53 pm

Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

Postby daddie_o on October 9th, 2016, 8:01 pm

bongostaple » October 9th, 2016, 8:52 pm wrote:In fact, what I actually get is that you think it's OK to call me stupid, because you think your are right and I am wrong. You may well be right. Or I may well be right. But I can say with certainty, I won't be calling you 'stupid', 'lazy', or the most playground of all, 'mongo'. Because I don't feel the need to do that. If you can't keep it civil then you'll run out of people to talk with eventually.


I never called you stupid. I said you had poor reading comprehension. And yes I called you lazy. But it's not because I think you're right and I'm wrong. It's because you have made as far as I can tell no effort to understand the other side's argument. I can only assume that is because you are lazy or incapable of understanding it. Or because you are just a paid troll here to waste my time and spread FUD. In which case you are very good at doing your job. I would be civil if you were engaging in this debate in good faith. But you're not. You've seen that I'm quite civil to Seneca.

And no, you may not well be right. You're wrong.
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Question of Fakery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests