Seneca » 08 Oct 2016, 09:33 wrote:That makes sense. But the problem is that M.M. is talking about physics, not about maths. That is why I still think these experiments are useful. To decide if we are "zigzagging" or not when we are running in circles.
Edit:
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.
I would predict B>A. Because the further the ball has travelled the more it will have slowed down because of friction. But the difference will be small (depending on l)
M.M. would predict that A>B. Because according to him the ball has to cover more "distance" during A. This difference would be about 21%. A bit less because the ball will have slowed down at the end of A because of friction (depending on l)
Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
daddie_o, Vexman, if you are so sure you are right, couldn't you do this simple, inexpensive experiment? You have to admit the proof would be more overwhelming. You wouldn't have to use terms like "exactly as" to describe it (when other people see it is not exactly at the same time).

 Moderator
 Posts: 887
 Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
In summary, the claim of the 4pyers is essentially that two vectors of force perpendicular to each other (like propulsion and gravity) result in two (simultaneous/successive?) movements, rather than a single circular movement, making the travelled distance strictly equivalent to the sum of the catheti of an indefinite number of peripheral triangles, despite the fact that no zigzagging exists at any level of observation.
A virtual nightmare for any rational person. Or perhaps I need more training in everyday paradoxical physics.
A virtual nightmare for any rational person. Or perhaps I need more training in everyday paradoxical physics.
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
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!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.
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 5075cm marks in the curve [time A] to the time it takes it to travel from the 75100cm 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.
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
No, we're not saying anything actually moves in a zigzag. That's a metaphor.Flabbergasted » October 8th, 2016, 3:45 pm wrote:two vectors of force perpendicular to each other (like propulsion and gravity) result in two (simultaneous/successive?) movements
You are confusing the equations of physics for the physical objects they describe.
What we're saying is that, mathematically, if you want to properly describe the movement of a body through a curve or around a circle, your equation has to treat the body as if it moved in two successive/simultaneous movements (i.e., in a zigzag), as they approach the limit of infinitely small movements. That is not the same thing as saying they actually move in a really tiny zig zag.
Have you ever observed an object moving in a series of tiny, jagged straightline tangents around a circle? No, but the current physics equations are derived from describing and approximating it in that way. (And why isn't that a virtual nightmare for any rational person? What an absurd double standard you are applying!) The current way of modeling it is the wrong way to do it. The equations are wrong.
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
Oh my goodness daddieo, you have thrown everything at this thread except the kitchen sink.
What does good math do? Good math predicts real life. Good math describes physics precisely because math is the language of physics. There are two types of math: good math that describes exactly how objects behave in our reality and bad math that confuses.
Why is Miles Mathis practicing bad math? Because he is skipping steps in his mathis logic. Skipped step: going from an infinitely zigzagged line to a magically smooth line.
Since daddieo seems to understand mathis math perhaps he can explain how does one go from an infinitely zigzagging line of length 4 to a completely smooth line of length 3.14...?
We don't need any fancy equations. Just answer the question.
I am still waiting for an answer to Simons question of how can a length of 21 billiard balls shrink down to a length of 17 billiard balls?
Instead of more copy and pasting, can daddieo just answer the questions asked of him in a straight forward manner?
What does good math do? Good math predicts real life. Good math describes physics precisely because math is the language of physics. There are two types of math: good math that describes exactly how objects behave in our reality and bad math that confuses.
Why is Miles Mathis practicing bad math? Because he is skipping steps in his mathis logic. Skipped step: going from an infinitely zigzagged line to a magically smooth line.
Since daddieo seems to understand mathis math perhaps he can explain how does one go from an infinitely zigzagging line of length 4 to a completely smooth line of length 3.14...?
We don't need any fancy equations. Just answer the question.
I am still waiting for an answer to Simons question of how can a length of 21 billiard balls shrink down to a length of 17 billiard balls?
Instead of more copy and pasting, can daddieo just answer the questions asked of him in a straight forward manner?
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
Are you reading Simon's mind? It sure looks like it, or you're just putting words in his mouth he never pronounced himself.... I was accused of nitpicking and kindly asked him to rephrase his point with billiard balls which he still hasn't done. If I was to interpret what Simon wanted to point with his billiard balls, I'd say it was just the opposite of what you're implying he said, so the question would be actually : how can a distance of 17 billiard balls inflate to a distance of 21 billiard balls? Or, how can anyone say that distance of 21 billiards balls is traveled in the same amount of time as distance of 17 billiard balls? I'd also anticipate that you finally read any of the links supplied here. It's really frustrating to satisfy your desires regarding Pi (or Mathis math?), when you refuse (?) to read at least all the posts in this thread .Kham » October 8th, 2016, 5:07 pm wrote:
I am still waiting for an answer to Simons question of how can a length of 21 billiard balls shrink down to a length of 17 billiard balls?
I'm convinced that since you are supposedly trained in mathematics that it is absolutely clear to you a) how one can prove Pi's value (since it should most certainly be a part of your lecture on that topic) and b) that Pi's value is irrational number which implies that your zigzagged line is equally involved in determining Pi's value (and the concept of limits, part of the calculus).
You'd like daddie_o to convey the answer with no fancy math involved, I have no problem with that. It is true that you made me curious, so how come that you'd like to avoid equations or any kind of direct mathematical argument, with or without equations? I was really happy to see a real mathematician enter this debate, so I'm actually slightly disappointed.
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
I'm seeing a lot of math being thrown around that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, the mathis miracle of length shrinkage, which seems to me to be the point in all of this Pi=4 nonesense.
Sure, we can confuse this up with unrelated math later, but for now, humor us, please explain the miracle of length shrinkage.
Sure, we can confuse this up with unrelated math later, but for now, humor us, please explain the miracle of length shrinkage.
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
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.
Kham: As a response to my long post where I threw down the gauntlet, your answer just reads as sad and desperate. "Length shrinkage." Really? Who besides you said anything about shrinkage? Is this a Seinfeld episode?
I guess you could...oh, I don't know...try to read Miles's papers, where you will find his arguments laid out without fancy equations. The equation I pasted in my post is the fanciest, and it's not even his equation. (It's also not that fancy.) And he added it to the pi2.html paper as an addendum quite late in the game.
To be honest, I'm sort of surprised that you are afraid of 'fancy' equations, given that you (allegedly) teach high school math. I guess I am out of touch with how bad the education system has gotten. Or maybe they only allow you teach remedial math? Is our children learning?
To quote Miles: "If they wish to comprehend what I have written, they should make some effort to do so. If they don't, they should read something else—something that confirms what they already think they know."
Kham: As a response to my long post where I threw down the gauntlet, your answer just reads as sad and desperate. "Length shrinkage." Really? Who besides you said anything about shrinkage? Is this a Seinfeld episode?
I guess you could...oh, I don't know...try to read Miles's papers, where you will find his arguments laid out without fancy equations. The equation I pasted in my post is the fanciest, and it's not even his equation. (It's also not that fancy.) And he added it to the pi2.html paper as an addendum quite late in the game.
To be honest, I'm sort of surprised that you are afraid of 'fancy' equations, given that you (allegedly) teach high school math. I guess I am out of touch with how bad the education system has gotten. Or maybe they only allow you teach remedial math? Is our children learning?
To quote Miles: "If they wish to comprehend what I have written, they should make some effort to do so. If they don't, they should read something else—something that confirms what they already think they know."
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
daddieo,
Just like you, Miles does not get to the point either.
Just like you, Miles does not get to the point either.
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
Zing!Kham » October 8th, 2016, 9:39 pm wrote:Just like you, Miles does not get to the point either.
But at least I get the point.
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
Gee, Kham, you offer so little yet so much with it. I'd be delighted if it was about science though.
Obfuscation. The equation most often offered on this thread is 2*R*Pi , on one occasion there were the equations of distance & angle in ballistics. All of them mentioned are most certainly, undoubtedly and essentially connected with circles, circular motion, trigonometric functions and many glorious names in »approved« physics arena. For a true mathematician by degree or passion I'm conviced that he or she would be well aware of centuries old debate and controversy regarding Pi, its value, origin and relations to the real world.I'm seeing a lot of math being thrown around that has nothing to do with the issue at hand,…
Nonsense is what bothers me too. Pi=4 > Pi=3.14 , which implies that Mathis is suggesting distance (not length!) inflation and not shrinkage. We are debating all along that Pi=4 implies a) kinematic situations and b) that geometry / static approach is not to be used when analyzing movement because it simply does not reflect a) reality nor b) mechanics of circular motion. That is the point of Pi=4.…the mathis miracle of length shrinkage, which seems to me to be the point in all of this Pi=4 nonesense.
Who would that be, I wonder? I challenge you and the status quo here regarding it, bring something of substantial value to the essence finally.Sure, we can confuse this up with unrelated math later,…
I'd let somebody else respond to your kind invitation, no offense. By the way, I'm really glad you are being amused, there is hardly anything more satisfying to a comediant than a compliment about his humor.…but for now, humor us, please explain the miracle of length shrinkage.

 Member
 Posts: 87
 Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:53 am
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
daddie_o: your discussion of friction is fine  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.
Now, your point on the ball hitting the 3/4 mark at the same time as the straight ball hits the 3 mark illustrates perfectly that the circle path ball is slowing down, as the 3/4 mark is a shorter distance than the '3' mark on the straight path.
And whilst I won't accuse you of being lazy or blowing smoke out of your ass, I won't take up your challenge to spend lots of time reading the further papers. When Mathis makes a statement that I believe to be fraudulent ('the ball does NOT slow down'), I'm not exactly going to expect the rest of the papers to make sense in real life.
And by all means, call me lazy some more, or producing 'FUD', or whatever other descriptions you want to apply. You have your opinion and I have mine, if they aren't the same it's no big deal.
If Mathis and his mate can refine the experiment to the point where they can prove the ball isn't slowing down, rather than just saying so in capital letters, then I will read the rest of the papers as pennance
(edit: poor grammar)
Now, your point on the ball hitting the 3/4 mark at the same time as the straight ball hits the 3 mark illustrates perfectly that the circle path ball is slowing down, as the 3/4 mark is a shorter distance than the '3' mark on the straight path.
And whilst I won't accuse you of being lazy or blowing smoke out of your ass, I won't take up your challenge to spend lots of time reading the further papers. When Mathis makes a statement that I believe to be fraudulent ('the ball does NOT slow down'), I'm not exactly going to expect the rest of the papers to make sense in real life.
And by all means, call me lazy some more, or producing 'FUD', or whatever other descriptions you want to apply. You have your opinion and I have mine, if they aren't the same it's no big deal.
If Mathis and his mate can refine the experiment to the point where they can prove the ball isn't slowing down, rather than just saying so in capital letters, then I will read the rest of the papers as pennance
(edit: poor grammar)
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
It seems to me the debunkers of MM's Pi=4 theory have the stronger points. This discussion shows that in science one must be incredibly precise with the definitions. A circle is an imaginary mathematical idea, that is useful for calculations with objects that are the size that humans interact with in the real world.
It is a lot like the old question, what is the length of the coastline of Britain? Most people will have a number they memorized in a schoolbook, and never thought any deeper than that. The 'real' answer, is that the question is no where near exact enough. The parameters have to be defined, like what minimum feature size/what resolution are we talking about for the map.
I will say that MM in related papers points out that orbital velocity variable derived in one formula, is being substituted for a linear velocity in another formula  which is a logical error. Because it is a core Newton equation, science cannot back down on it, no matter how wrong it is. And because these formulas are dealing with space, and since there is no commercial operations in space that actually have to use this math  honestly the equations can be whatever mumbo jumbo they want.
It is a lot like the old question, what is the length of the coastline of Britain? Most people will have a number they memorized in a schoolbook, and never thought any deeper than that. The 'real' answer, is that the question is no where near exact enough. The parameters have to be defined, like what minimum feature size/what resolution are we talking about for the map.
I will say that MM in related papers points out that orbital velocity variable derived in one formula, is being substituted for a linear velocity in another formula  which is a logical error. Because it is a core Newton equation, science cannot back down on it, no matter how wrong it is. And because these formulas are dealing with space, and since there is no commercial operations in space that actually have to use this math  honestly the equations can be whatever mumbo jumbo they want.
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
Interesting enough you've mentioned debunkers. What seems to me is that most of people on CF that are perfectly able to comprehend the unthinkable deception, fakery and hoaxes on one hand, are completely unable to comprehend that physics (and science in general) is most probably faked and hoaxed in the same manner as everything else. As if there was no place inside physics to perform fakery, or shall we call it fudging or obfuscations of truth. To add weight to what I already tried to show about hiding the truth in science (with Crothers and Churchill in one of previous posts), I want to point additionally to PierreMarie Robitaille and the discovery of fudging regarding black body radiation theory and equations, which seems to be false in its philosophical postulates and thus equations (see here http://www.pteponline.com/index_files/ ... 0505.PDF and here http://pteponline.com/index_files/2015/PP4104.PDF ). His findings and lecture was given in association with Electric Universe conference in 2014 (here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw, same as i.e. Crothers' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXF098w48fo), Robitaille and Crothers even authoring one research publication together. My point  as it seems many many areas in science needs new approach in rethinking and reproving of what we thought was the absolute truth.
From a longer quote as follows: "Errare (Errasse) humanum est, sed in errare (errore) perseverare diabolicum.", attributed to Seneca, which translates to: "To err is human, but to persist in error (out of pride) is diabolical." I couldn't agree more with it.
From a longer quote as follows: "Errare (Errasse) humanum est, sed in errare (errore) perseverare diabolicum.", attributed to Seneca, which translates to: "To err is human, but to persist in error (out of pride) is diabolical." I couldn't agree more with it.
Re: Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4
What points? They haven't made any counterarguments. All they have are questions. But they apparently lack the intellectual curiosity to seek the answers by reading the work of the person who made the argument in the first place. I find that just sad.aa5 » October 9th, 2016, 2:34 am wrote:It seems to me the debunkers of MM's Pi=4 theory have the stronger points.
Yes, precisely. The problem is that physicists haven't been precise enough. Too sloppy. And since physics is applied math, if you aren't applying the math correctly you're going to get wrong answers.This discussion shows that in science one must be incredibly precise with the definitions.
Yes it is imaginary. That's the point. It's an abstract idea, so it must be used very carefully, or as you said, precisely, when applied to describing the motion of real physical objects in our real physical word.A circle is an imaginary mathematical idea, that is useful for calculations with objects that are the size that humans interact with in the real world.
That's exactly the point  it's a logical error, but nobody is willing to question a core postulate of Newton's, no matter how wrong it is. However the formula is applicable to more than manmade satellites (real or imagined), so the consequences of the mistaken formula have much wider ramifications.I will say that MM in related papers points out that orbital velocity variable derived in one formula, is being substituted for a linear velocity in another formula  which is a logical error. Because it is a core Newton equation, science cannot back down on it, no matter how wrong it is. And because these formulas are dealing with space, and since there is no commercial operations in space that actually have to use this math  honestly the equations can be whatever mumbo jumbo they want.
Pretty much everything you said except for the very first sentence supports our position.
Last edited by daddie_o on Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.