Pi Equals Four When Motion Is Involved

I'm sorry to burst people's bubble's but here's the equation.

i8Pix4=no motion

Try it out for yourselves if you you don't believe me.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

What he has done is to start from scratch and corrected errors where he has found them.

Mary. Focus. Pi. In your own words, explain what it is. Not this guy's. Yours.

a reply to: ConnectDots

So the guy just wants to rewrite physics coz he thinks it's wrong?

Shame he can't do simple maths (like working out pi) and questions other things that are quiet obviously right or we wouldn't be where we are now technology wise.

Again, the guys a moron, plain and simple.

Not sure how finding an error in a test proves the laws of maths or physics incorrect. But...

This seems to "prove" that distance is affected by velocity. This could have a great significance to space travel.

But since what is being speculated is an increase it makes the distance longer. If it were the other direction it would mean by moving the distance would become shorter. Should went with PI = 2.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Not sure how finding an error in a test proves the laws of maths or physics incorrect.

That's not what I meant.

He started years ago doing independent study of physics by going to the original texts, reading them, analyzing them, and writing papers based on errors he found.

His work has culminated in his making recommendations for revolutionary changes in the standard model. Not just for pi.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Not sure how finding an error in a test proves the laws of maths or physics incorrect. But...



This seems to "prove" that distance is affected by velocity. This could have a great significance to space travel.

But since what is being speculated is an increase it makes the distance longer. If it were the other direction it would mean by moving the distance would become shorter. Should went with PI = 2.

(The only thing this "proves" is that by applying force (doesn't really matter the type used) it changed the physical characteristics of an object IMHO and i don't think that's anything new)

originally posted by: ConnectDots

His work has culminated in his making recommendations for revolutionary changes in the standard model. Not just for pi.

How do you know? You can't even tell us what pi IS. Even when it's pointed out to you in simple terms.

a reply to: ConnectDots

I wish people would stop using the term or phrase "The standard model" since that only pertains to particle physics. I don't really think or have witnessed anyone refer to accepted science as 'The Standard Model'

Its good to go back to some of the first texts, but that is problematic also since thats the whole point of scientific progression. To analyze and to update things based on new experimental data and observation. Many original texts on subjects contain much that is incorrect.
So unless he read the originals and then read most of the papers that come after, he is basically trying to fix problems in ignorance of the work that came after.

It is like reading a ancient manual about building houses and then thinking... wow straw and mud are not good materials depending on where you are in the world. Then telling the building industry not to use mud and straw... To which they say to you "Yeah... were have you been for the last few hundred years?"

The experiment that apparently shows Pi=4 for movement is deeply flawed and seems to me to be more like manipulation and misinformation than anything else.


Lets look at some reasons why balls moving through tubes are not a great way to do the experiment.
1) If the balls are very close to the inner diameter of the tube, the balls have to displace the air, pushing it out ahead and drawing it in behind. While the pressure differential is likely very small, gas flow around corners is quite different to straight lengths and 'Could' slow the ball as observed
2) Gravity acts downwards on the balls, force causes acceleration. In the first instance everything is roughly equal going down the ramp, it isn't exactly equal but approximately. When the ball on the circular trajectory encounters the circular path, mechanics requires there to be another force causing acceleration of the ball on the circular path. So we have a force acting downwards, and a force acting inwards. The more force applied to the ball, the more friction the ball will encounter. This will cause the ball's tangential velocity to slow in the circular path compared to that of the straight path.
This can account for the difference observed.
3) The release mechanism for the balls looks to be by hand, in the first video you can see one of the balls was released first or is moving with a different velocity.
This is an issue as when the ball reaches the marker they are now both equal. Why? and why is that overlooked? It means that in the length of tubing between the initial straight section and the circular path something is different causing the ball to slow... (point number 1 maybe?) This is quite important.
4) A flexible tube (or indeed any tube) becomes distorted when it is bent like this. Thus the track and the points of contact with the ball will be very slightly different between the circular and the straight track. I doubt this is much of an issue but it could exacerbate point 1 and point 2.

I suspect that if the difference between the tube diameter and the ball diameter was changed, along with the material of the tube the results would be quite different. This is unlikely to happen or be tested by the author because i suspect he landed on this configuration, had his "OMG i discovered something" moment and didn't really bother to experiment that much more.

Still don't hold your breath on the author refuting his 'discovery' that would be loosing face.

originally posted by: SPHARAOH

originally posted by: roadgravel
Not sure how finding an error in a test proves the laws of maths or physics incorrect. But...



This seems to "prove" that distance is affected by velocity. This could have a great significance to space travel.

But since what is being speculated is an increase it makes the distance longer. If it were the other direction it would mean by moving the distance would become shorter. Should went with PI = 2.

(The only thing this "proves" is that by applying force (doesn't really matter the type used) it changed the physical characteristics of an object IMHO and i don't think that's anything new)

I was joking...

a reply to: ConnectDots

I would not claim to be educated enough to explain why the speed of an object changes when it under goes a change in velocity, which is happening in this video by changing it's direction of travel.

However, I am wondering if this guy can tell me what the resulting number for pi would be if he stood the circular tube up rather than it lying down. It would, after all, still be defining the same diameter circle.

a reply to: roadgravel

Honestly to god I wasn't sure if you were so totally my fault. I should have realized the sublte mocking with "This could have a great significance to space travel" I guess it's time for some humble Pi

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't have the tube to unwind, but I do have the photograph I posted and I measured the right half of the circle using a bent flexible plastic ruler to follow the contour of the circle, then I let the ruler snap back to its straight shape and measured the corresponding straight section, which confirmed I'm not suffering from any illusion and that you are wrong. The straight tube is definitely longer. Try using a measurement method similar to mine yourself, bend a sheet of paper around the curve if you don't have a flexible plastic ruler and mark the length of the right half of the circle, then compare that piece of paper to the straight section of tubing. The top of the circle does not match up with the second marking on the straight tubing when compared in this way.

looks like you forgot to count in the camera angle. You can`t just draw straight lines and assume that the camera is at 90 degree above the tube. Like I said, an optical illusion, that`s why you are seeing off centred crosshair and stacked tubes, lol. Try again, I know you can do better than that

My recommendation, though, is to recreate the experiment and see for yourself.

a reply to: SPHARAOH

If this theory was true it should be noticed easily in every day life, I would think.

It should have been made proportional to velocity so some cool effects could be had.

Pi is 3.14. Which means to find the circumference of a circle you multiply the diameter by pi.

IF pi now equals 4, that means the circumference of a circle is calculated by multiplying the diameter by 4.

If you use 4, the circumference will overlap. That means the circle now needs to be bigger. BUT if the circle is bigger the diameter is also bigger.

That all means that, no matter what size the circle, the equation to find the circumference will always be pi at 3.14.

The above is why this joker Miles has no leg to stand on and why he's not raking in the millions for his "new discovery".

In "The Extinction of Pi," Mathis states:

It is a mistake to start with this paper. Those who do start with this paper will very likely be led to believe I am simply doing the calculus wrong. To these people, I say that it is not I who am doing the calculus wrong. It is Newton and Leibniz and Cauchy and everyone since who has been doing the calculus wrong. I have earned the right to write this paper by first writing three important papers on the foundations of the calculus. The first shows that the derivative has been defined wrongly from the beginning, and that the derivative is a constant differential over a subinterval, not a diminishing differential as we approach zero. There is no necessary approach to zero in the calculus, and the interval of the derivative is a real interval. In any particular problem, you can find the time that passes during the derivative, so nothing in the calculus is instantaneous, either. This revolutionizes QED by forbidding the point particle and bypassing all need for renormalization. The second paper proves that Newton's first eight lemmae or assumptions in the Principia are all false. Newton monitors the wrong angle in his triangle as he goes to the limit, achieving faulty conclusions about his angles, and about the value of the tangent and arc at the limit. Finally, the third paper rigorously analyzes all the historical proofs of the orbital equation a=v2/r, including the proofs of Newton and Feynman, showing they all contain fundamental errors. The current equation is shown to be false, and the equation for the orbital velocity v=2πr/t is also shown to be false. Those who don't find enough rigor or math in this paper should read those three papers before they decide this is all too big a leap. I cannot rederive all my proofs in each paper, or restate all my arguments, so I am afraid more reading is due for those who really wish to be convinced. This paper cannot stand without the historical rewrite contained in those papers, and I would be the first to admit it.

milesmathis.com...

So, the findings of three other papers led up to his conclusion.

As previously stated, he started by reading Newton's Principia and other original writings and analyzing them himself step by step and writing papers as he went along.

a reply to: ConnectDots

So the equations that get a very accurate measurement (diameter multiplied by pi at 3.14) is wrong because he says so?

He can't even prove it with maths. He has to have some contrived experiment that involves 3 directions (down, forward, sideways) and all 3 cause friction.

But you keep on ignoring the BASIC maths that proves him wrong. It makes you look soooooooo clever.

My tyres aren't effected by his made up number. My CDs, DVDs and blue-rays aren't either. Neither is the wheel my hamster uses or the bike my daughter rides on.

This guy is a joke. Not "haha" joke, but "he's a moron" joke.

Here's Pi when motion is involved:



...aaaaaannnnd it's still not 4.


Edit:
I forgot to include the source for that GIF:
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: ConnectDots
. . . He should be remembered by the takers of the PSAT, 1980, for questioning one of the answers on the math portion. The PSAT admitted its error and was forced to change all scores nationally. Miles' score: 68/78:214.

This is truly incredibly beyond the pale! An internet crackpot that brags about his PSAT score to convince us of his brilliance!!!

For all you unfortunate posters new to this Mathis guy, it's not quite that he doesn't understand calculus so much as he rejects it entirely.

In fact, he can hardly come across any bit of math or science without rejecting it entirely.

For everyone saying this pi result would invalidate all of physics, well, I've got news for you... He's also come up with "brilliant" refutations of all modern physics.

He seems to think that physics is built up like a house of cards all starting from Newton's mathematical proofs, and somehow ignores the entire corpus of experimental evidence collected since the 1600s.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I won't hold my breathe because I know you can't.

I'd be willing to bet she doesn't actually know what pi is, in terms of a circle.

Maybe she's watched too much of the gameshow " Hollywood Squares" and whenever "Circle gets the square" she might have understood "Circle is a square" and it's now ingrained fact? Other than that dunno?