Physical π : Pi's relationship to 4

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

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Seneca on October 4th, 2016, 1:33 pm

albatrosv14 » 03 Oct 2016, 10:22 wrote:I haven't read all posts thoroughly and sorry to interrupt your serious business here, but... Does pi=4 in kinematics mean that the object in a circle with a specific radius, would travel 8r(radius) to get back to the beginning point? If that is true, logically that would mean that the same object would travel the square, where one length is 2r, to the beginning point in same time(comparing that with the circle). Friction not involved.
I can draw an example, if it wasn't understandable.


VexMan » 03 Oct 2016, 15:49 wrote:This is just non workable mechanics you're suggesting with a point traveling on squared path. It is though true that it travels 4 x 2R in both cases, one being physically impossible to execute / follow in reality.

I am not sure an object (instead of a point) couldn't travel such a squared path. I am thinking of a billiard ball on a square billiard table. In each corner there is a 45-45-90 triangle of the same material. So that when the ball hits the triangle it is deflected 90°. You could even use tubes to guide the motion, just as for the circular path.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 446
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby daddie_o on October 4th, 2016, 2:37 pm

Seneca » October 4th, 2016, 2:06 pm wrote:Because at this time it seems to be the only aspect that you could actually verify in the real world. M.M. doesn't seem to make many predictions that I can verify personally. As I underlined in the quote above he uses results of mainstream scientists, and he does a great job explaining them after the fact. But even there I haven't seen any precise predictions that have come true.


Fair enough. I should point out though that he has made many predictions, even if they are not easy for us 'regular Joes' to personally verify. Here somebody compiled a list of most of them: http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t9-lloyd-s-collection-of-miles-predictions

You might be interested in this paper, which outlines the issues with orbital vs. tangential velocity that got him into thinking about Pi=4 in the first place: http://milesmathis.com/angle.html
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby bongostaple on October 4th, 2016, 5:40 pm

I was reading the 'Pi = 4' discussion in the Miles Mathis thread and just had to chip in. I read the Pi=4 Mathis paper, and watched the video it links to several times.

Short Version: Shit experiment, possible intent to deceive, and pi = 3.141592653589793 3.14159 etc., etc., etc.

Longer version: I'll assume anyone reading this has read the source material, and will have the video to hand for review. I started thinking about this approach to what's going on before I read the paper, and thank fuck I did, or I'd have tied myself in knots. I started thinking about what's going on when an object is travelling in a straight path vs a non-straight path.

Newton's First Law of Motion: An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless a force acts upon it.
A circular path = continuously changing direction
Changing direction requires force.
There's some force involved in the ball travelling the circular path.

Now here's the thing - what makes the ball travel in a circular path? It seems obvious that it's the tube - but what is actually happening is that some of the ball's kinetic energy (speed), which as per Newton, would rather be travelling in a straight line, is absorbed by the tube. Not visually apparent in the experiment, but that's because the rigidity of the tube, and the table it's fixed to, means that a puny bit of force from a ball-bearing isn't going to cause visible flexing. If the entire tube setup wasn't anchored to the table, it would almost certainly move when the ball goes around it. If the tube were a lot thinner and the ball was Really Fucking Heavy, it would break through it and carry on in a straight line like Papa Newton deduced.

The balls are not self-propelled, so the circular path ball will slow down - it has no other energy to give away to the opposing force that is diverting it from its preferred straight path. If I ride at constant speed on my motorcycle and take a constant radius corner, I slow down, unless I open the throttle slightly while I'm in the corner.

So, how fast was each ball travelling at the end measurement point? The experiment didn't measure that, or explain why speed was measured at the beginning but not at the end of travel.

The stills labelling the ball at 'quarter 1', 'quarter 2' etc show the ball is not actually bang on the quarter, but is progressively falling behind.

The final quarter of the circular path tube is a tighter curve than the rest, as it butts up to the earlier portion of the tube. This will result in much more deceleration than during the other three quarters of the circle.

In fact, it's not even a fucking circle, is it? It's a spiral.

At the point when the distance travelled is measured, the circular path ball has lost more of its initial speed than the straight path ball. It cannot be expected to travel as far as the straight path ball.

Mathis states 'The ball in the curve is NOT slowing relative to the straight ball.' in his paper, yet I can see that it is slowing, and at the end measurement point, it is visibly significantly slower than the straight path ball. Mathis reckons he is an artist, and is therefore good at looking at things properly. I'd say either he's a shit artist, or he knows this statement isn't true.

Mathis also states: 'Steven has been one of the most outspoken and longlasting of my defenders. He is also very good at it, since he is an engineer himself. '

I beg to differ - either Steven is a shit engineer, or more likely, that rather shonky experiment was deliberately designed to draw attention to the rabbit hole algebra bollocks of the Mathis paper.

An experiment with insufficient data, mislabelled measurements, and a spiral instead of a circle, proves nothing, yet gives the impression of an intent to deceive.

Amusingly, having leaned upon Newton's First Law for the above explanation, it does rather invite comparison with objects supposedly in orbit around the Earth.

Instead of a solid tube modifying the path of a ball that would otherwise travel in a straight line, we have gravity providing the same force on an imaginary 'space station' - which like the balls in this experiment is not self-propelled.

Our imaginary 'space station' orbits at around 250 miles altitude, which is right in the thermosphere, so there is even the presence of friction / drag like that of a ball rolling along a plastic tube. Admittedly it may be minimal, but it certainly isn't a 'vacuum'. It's Really Fucking Hot too, but I'm not sure that makes a difference to this experiment.

Mathis paper: the reason the rockets were 'late' is probably because they had slowed down. The reason the 'rocket scientists' have been seen to 'struggle' with this problem is very convenient: if they described it as I have above, then the impossibility of objects orbiting the Earth at constant speed without any injection of energy would be clear for everyone to see. And that would be….. Problematic…..

Conclusion: Miles Mathis and his 'student' Steven are deliberately setting out to deceive. Avoid.

Cheers
bongostaple
bongostaple
Member
 
Posts: 69
Joined: October 4th, 2016, 12:53 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby VexMan on October 4th, 2016, 9:21 pm

Bongostaple, you've made some very bold statements.

What you've wrote, how you wrote about it and what it implies got me speechless, which a very rare occasion. There are some points though that I believe merely slipped from your reasoning, which should be included in ver.#2 of the experiment you're rudely discussing. I.e. having a circular part of tube setup fixed on the table in order to avoid losing speed of the ball inside due to folding of the tube (which will happen nevertheless only in smaller quantity). If tubes were airless / vacuum inside, it would make experiment better as well. So there are most certainly things to improve in such experimental setup. But when it comes to your reasoning of the experiment you've watched (several times, you even claim), it is just bollocks.

There's no refutation of 1st Newton's law discussed nor observed nor claimed by anyone, your 1st paragraph is just irrelevant. Nothing there at all.
Even if you'd take into account all velocity loss while ball is inside a circular tube, do you see in the video it has fallen behind the other ball by 21%? If you really see/saw it that way, your observation skills and capabilities are likely distorted so you should watch your fingers while chopping onions, you may hurt yourself.
You could simply take your stop-watch and measure the time spent in movement, how to get velocity from there is even simpler. There would be a part of your answer, surprisingly.
You may call Huygens to be using bollocks math as well while you're at it, since he as well pointed to (and proved) cycloid movement inside pendulums. I'd really love to read your essay on de-bunking him, that would be really something .

All in all, void of solid arguments.
VexMan
Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: September 8th, 2016, 8:34 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Flabbergasted on October 5th, 2016, 3:14 am

daddie_o wrote:Here is a guy who has offered elegant and compelling solutions to the mysteries of dark matter, superconductivity, wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, the double-slit experiment, the Proton Radius Puzzle, the Pioneer anomaly and the Casimir effect, as well as explaining beta decay, neutrinos, nuclear magnetic resonance, Brownian motion, ice ages, the tides, the Meissner effect, major solar anomalies, celestial mechanics, etc. His theory explains why G (the gravitational constant) has the value it does (along with Planck's constant, the fine structure constant and a bunch of others), what causes gravity, why photons travel at c, why light is quantized, why E=mc2, why the mass of the electron is about 1820 times less than the mass of a proton ...

There is enough in that bag to nominate MWM for ten Nobel Prizes. Over the years, has any physicist with credentials and access to prestigious journals borrowed from this corpus to make it to fame and glory?

I am not trying to be critical or a besserwisser, but it occurred to me that by arguing there are flaws in practically all the currently accepted models and paradigms in physics (which of course there are and always will be), one ends up giving credence to a number of highly questionable "realities", such as black holes, dark matter, the Big Bang, Einsteinian relativity, space travel, nuclear bombs, and so forth.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 722
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby SacredCowSlayer on October 5th, 2016, 3:42 am

I've mostly refrained from commenting on this Miles Mathis entity, but I've been getting strange contact from people/entities trying to convince me of its "realness".

For now I'll go ahead and state my suspicion that the purpose of MM is to get people arguing at length (or dare I say, for Miles?) about what the Math(is). I know I've had enough PI(e) filling to last me a lifetime from this character.

There's no way to know if he/it is authentic, but I'm unwilling to abandon my instincts. And those tell me there's something wrong here. I suppose time will tell if I'm right.

No offense to the MM fans here.

Note to Mods: please feel free to leave this here or move to the MM thread. The placement here in the "Chatbox" was by mistake.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 261
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby Seneca on October 5th, 2016, 9:00 am

Flabbergasted » 05 Oct 2016, 04:14 wrote:I am not trying to be critical or a besserwisser, but it occurred to me that by arguing there are flaws in practically all the currently accepted models and paradigms in physics (which of course there are and always will be), one ends up giving credence to a number of highly questionable "realities", such as black holes, dark matter, the Big Bang, Einsteinian relativity, space travel, nuclear bombs, and so forth.

Could you explain why you think that?
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 446
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby daddie_o on October 5th, 2016, 10:55 am

Flabbergasted » October 5th, 2016, 4:14 am wrote:I am not trying to be critical or a besserwisser, but it occurred to me that by arguing there are flaws in practically all the currently accepted models and paradigms in physics (which of course there are and always will be), one ends up giving credence to a number of highly questionable "realities", such as black holes, dark matter, the Big Bang, Einsteinian relativity, space travel, nuclear bombs, and so forth.


Such is not the case with MM. He argues against black holes, the big bang, and nuclear bombs. He has argued that the moon landing and ISS are hoaxed, but I don't know if he argues against space travel in principle. He does not believe the vacuum is empty, but rather views space as filled with millions of what he calls b-photons. These b-photon particles constitute what he calls the “charge field,” and he has calculated they have a radius of 2.74 x 10-24 m and that space is filled with about 56 million of these b-photons per cubic meter, on average, though not with uniform density: http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf

Would that enable rockets or other forms of propulsion to work on outer space? I don't know. Does he believe in satellites orbiting the earth? I don't know. Somebody can ask him if they're curious.

As for Einsteinian relativity, well, I'm not really clear on what the big criticism of it is, or if you mean special or general relativity. He has reworked general relativity and turned it inside-out so to speak. As for special relativity, he believes that Einstein was correct about the maximum speed of light (and can even tell you why that is the maximum speed). But he has gone into Einstein's original equations, found errors, and reworked them. His basic argument about special relativity is that when something is moving very fast relative to the observer, you need to take that into account when calculating is velocity/position and use 'transforms' to achieve the correct calculation. So he brings a different perspective/interpretation to trying to understand the import and implications of special relativity. To me that doesn't seem very objectionable, but maybe there's something I'm missing.

EDIT: whoops, I forgot to cover dark matter. Well, what is dark matter/energy? Equations explaining galactic movement don't add up unless you assume some additional mass, which they've called 'dark matter.' They can't observe it, but they know it must be there because the equations they fudged said so. Since energy has mass equivalence, we can lump dark energy in with dark matter. MM says: wait, I know what that stuff is that they're calling dark matter and/or dark energy: it's the b-photons of my charge field.

From http://milesmathis.com/lostmass.html:

To say it in the simplest possible way, the masses we have been measuring up to now have been unified field masses, coming out of Newton's unified field. But because we did not know Newton's field was a unified field, we did not know our masses were unified field masses. Because the unified field contains the sub-field of E/M, and because the sub-field of E/M is in vector opposition to the total field (causing it to be subtracted from the total), our current masses are deceiving. They are too small, and they are too small in the amount of the E/M field. To make the correction—to find the real mass—we have to add the E/M field to every mass in the universe. In other words, to make a correction to the total mass of the universe, we have to add the universal mass or mass equivalence of the entire E/M field.


Where the E/M field he's talking about is just the b-photons.

See here for more on a critique of the "dark matter" solution and more details on his theory: http://milesmathis.com/mond.html
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby daddie_o on October 5th, 2016, 11:43 am

SacredCowSlayer » October 5th, 2016, 4:42 am wrote:For now I'll go ahead and state my suspicion that the purpose of MM is to get people arguing


Sorry but I just have to laugh. Cointelpro shills come in and start spreading seeds of doubt about this guy, trying to get us to waste our time arguing about whether or not he's real, but he gets the blame for people wasting time arguing over whether he's real? That's upside down.
daddie_o
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: April 30th, 2016, 11:21 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby bongostaple on October 5th, 2016, 2:27 pm

VexMan » October 4th, 2016, 8:21 pm wrote:Bongostaple, you've made some very bold statements.

What you've wrote, how you wrote about it and what it implies got me speechless, which a very rare occasion. There are some points though that I believe merely slipped from your reasoning, which should be included in ver.#2 of the experiment you're rudely discussing. I.e. having a circular part of tube setup fixed on the table in order to avoid losing speed of the ball inside due to folding of the tube (which will happen nevertheless only in smaller quantity). If tubes were airless / vacuum inside, it would make experiment better as well. So there are most certainly things to improve in such experimental setup. But when it comes to your reasoning of the experiment you've watched (several times, you even claim), it is just bollocks.

There's no refutation of 1st Newton's law discussed nor observed nor claimed by anyone, your 1st paragraph is just irrelevant. Nothing there at all.
Even if you'd take into account all velocity loss while ball is inside a circular tube, do you see in the video it has fallen behind the other ball by 21%? If you really see/saw it that way, your observation skills and capabilities are likely distorted so you should watch your fingers while chopping onions, you may hurt yourself.
You could simply take your stop-watch and measure the time spent in movement, how to get velocity from there is even simpler. There would be a part of your answer, surprisingly.
You may call Huygens to be using bollocks math as well while you're at it, since he as well pointed to (and proved) cycloid movement inside pendulums. I'd really love to read your essay on de-bunking him, that would be really something .

All in all, void of solid arguments.



No worries, it's only an opinion. I still stand by what I've written though - and I'm not sure why you need to point out there's no refutation of Newton's first law discussed, observed, or claimed. You're correct in that it isn't discussed or claimed, but nevertheless I have watched the video another dozen times and I am seeing the circular path ball lag behind the straight path ball.

You mention 'Even if you'd take into account all velocity loss while the ball is inside a circular tube' - can you clarify whether you agree that there will be at least some loss? Because the labelling in the video strongly suggests that there is zero loss of speed, and Mathis specifically claims there is zero loss in his paper.

I only ask this to make it clearer in my mind - because if a ball travelling in the circular path does not lose speed, as Mathis claims, then where did the force that made it change direction come from?

Bearing in mind that the experiment measures the speed of both balls at the beginning, but does not measure speed of either at the end, and Mathis claims there is no loss of speed, don't you think a well-designed scientific experiment ought to measure the speed at the end, just to be sure? Why wouldn't you measure the speed at the end?

Also, from watching the 'everything twice as big' section, I can see the circular path ball lagging there too. It is, however, a bit more difficult to gauge, as unlike the first experiment which was filmed from directly above, the second was filmed from an angle. Again, in the spirit of well-designed scientific experiments, why on earth would you film one from directly above and not the other? Was the table twice as big? Or was the decreasing speed of the larger ball in a larger circle too obvious?

Anyway, I'm off to chop some onions :)


(edit: spelling)
bongostaple
Member
 
Posts: 69
Joined: October 4th, 2016, 12:53 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby VexMan on October 5th, 2016, 3:16 pm

I wish there was more optimism left in you , SCS and brianv. I once said in this thread that only time will tell about MM, yet I'm hoping utmost he's a real person, just like me. Fed up with nonsense and lies, going only for truth as he understands it. Revolted and furious he may seem suspicious to you, I guess, and his occasional arrogance is not helping him at all, but I somehow have the same gut feeling about him. It's just opposite of yours, saying he's in hyperturbo mode of his life's creativity, with so much to tell the world that he can hardly breathe.
VexMan
Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: September 8th, 2016, 8:34 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby SacredCowSlayer on October 5th, 2016, 3:30 pm

VexMan » October 5th, 2016, 9:16 am wrote:I wish there was more optimism left in you , SCS and brianv. I once said in this thread that only time will tell about MM. . .


Well VexMan, I do have some optimism in my life, but I try not to let it interfere with my senses.

I agree that time will tell about MM.

I'm not here to convince anyone he doesn't exist. For I have no way of knowing.

Until then I would simply propose that a gentleman's understanding around here is in order. That is, forum members should be able to express doubt or skepticism without hasty name calling or accusations.

That's just my suggestion, and I'll happily bow out of any more discussion of the "realness" of MM. Meanwhile I'll perhaps follow along and let time tell for us. :)
Last edited by SacredCowSlayer on October 5th, 2016, 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 261
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby VexMan on October 5th, 2016, 4:21 pm

-_- Bongostaple, just be careful with onions, they've made the strongest men cry in the end :P

Regarding the possible loss of velocity. I'm not that smart to tell you from the top of my head whether this is logical or not, I can only observe and conclude from that. What I noticed in the experiment's video, is that the balls are not aligned from the start, so it's hard to say which one is faster or slower only by that. It would for sure help if velocity was measured at the start & finish, especially if something is claimed to be true on this velocities. So, like I said before, experiment should be executed again, with firmly fixed circular path and measuring velocities of both ball separately at start & finish (possibly even at "quarters" as Oostdijk names them), maybe even by making tubes airless/vacuum-ed . Only than would / could one be certain that velocity either diminishes or remains equal. I think though that velocity loss of the ball inside a circular tube would be progressively diminishing if true, the ball falling behind more and more while traveling through the circular path if any force was slowing it down. Since it's not obvious to me while observing the video, I conclude that ball's velocity loss while in curve - if it would get confirmed by experiment - is not big enough to contradict proving Pi=4 in kinematic situations. But that's just me.
VexMan
Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: September 8th, 2016, 8:34 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby VexMan on October 5th, 2016, 4:35 pm

SacredCowSlayer » October 5th, 2016, 3:30 pm wrote:Until then I would simply propose that a gentleman's understanding around here is in order. That is, forum members should be able to express doubt or skepticism without hasty name calling or accusations.


Fair enough. I sure hope I didn't make you think that with anything I wrote.
VexMan
Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: September 8th, 2016, 8:34 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Postby bongostaple on October 5th, 2016, 5:25 pm

VexMan: Agree, there are all sorts of inconsistencies in the experiment that could be tightened up. However, failing to measure each ball's velocity at the end of the respective tubes pretty much ruins the experimental premise. It's measured at the start, so there's no good reason not to measure it at the end as well. I would estimate the likelihood for neither Mathis nor the video chap thinking of doing so would be approximately zero - especially bearing in mind Mathis clearly states that the ball didn't slow down. He even used capitals to spell 'NOT', so for him to state this pretty much as fact, but not have a measurement at the end is asking the viewer/reader to blindly accept on faith something which underpins his whole Pi=4 theory.

I'd like to see the 'twice as big' version done, filmed from above, with fully timestamped individual frames to allow calculation of velocity throughout the whole travel of the two balls. Then there is sufficient data to draw some conclusions. But as it stands, it is, as I said earlier, a shonky experiment and nothing any engineer should be feeling proud of.

Cheers
bongostaple
bongostaple
Member
 
Posts: 69
Joined: October 4th, 2016, 12:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Question of Fakery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests