David wrote:I was under the impression that the Miles Mathis pi=4 theory fails to meet even a bare minimum scientific threshold and should be discussed elsewhere; possibly at the UFO, Bigfoot, and Crop Circle websites (assuming the theory can actually make it over the top of their extremely low hurdle).
The last time we discussed the pi=4 theory at this forum, the administrator locked the thread and made the following comment:
“I see no value in keeping this Miles Mathis topic alive. To derive the circumference of a circle by using (half) squares is, to say the least, unconventional in the extreme. To then redefine pi as a result ...”
“This thread will now be locked, please don't just start another in its place. This has nothing to do with EU.” -- Dave Smith (Forum Administrator)
First posted September 9, 2008
Abstract: I show that in kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static situations. I am analyzing an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. When measuring your waistline, you are not creating an orbit, and you can keep π for that. So quit writing me nasty, uninformed letters.
David wrote:Chromium6,
Here is just one of the many glaring contradictions that can be found in those particular Mathis articles:
“It means that the radius is a velocity itself.”
–- http://milesmathis.com/pi.html
“The radius of the circle is obviously not a velocity; it is a distance.”
–- http://milesmathis.com/avr.html
Summation
We have discovered several important things.
1) Pi is a centripetal acceleration and has the dimensions of acceleration.
2) The circumference of any circle has the dimensions m2/s3, if written out in full.
3) If the radius is treated as a distance, then the circumference has the dimensions m2/s2.
4) Pi is not applicable to orbits or most other physical circles, since the tangential velocity is not equal to the radial velocity. There is no pi in the sky.
5) In orbits and all other circular motion v ≠ 2πr/t. Something may equal 2πr/t, but it isn't a velocity.
6) There is no such thing as orbital velocity. There is only tangential velocity. The curve described by an orbit is not a distance, nor is it a velocity. It has the dimensions m2/s3, just like the circumference.
The circumference of any circle has the dimensions m2/s3.
LAShaffer wrote:OH, come on now. His math can't possibly be any worse than the astronomer who originated semi-major axis cubed divided by time squared and thought it signified something, or the banker who added 4 pi squared to the same exponential ratio to come up with the nonsense called gravity. That kind of math makes you question a person's sanity.
This thread is not intended to be an area to snipe, name-call or otherwise deride Miles Mathis as a writer. If you want to curse, snipe or "get-dirty" over Mathis -- please send a personal email on this board.
"I’m Doing God’s Work"
Is it any wonder, then, that once, when asked about Goldman Sachs’ incredibly lucrative and yet highly controversial actions in stirring the pot of global finance, Mr. Loyd Blankfein stunningly retorted, "I’m doing God’s work."
Chromium6 wrote:Does this need correction?
---------------------------------
So what could cause such a large failure in such a simple experiment? We have to look at the math to tell. Although the rocket flew over 1/3 higher at apogee, the math shows "almost a 20% error", according to Hoagland. I have scanned his math, and he appears to be right.
David wrote:Chromium6 wrote:Does this need correction?
---------------------------------
So what could cause such a large failure in such a simple experiment? We have to look at the math to tell. Although the rocket flew over 1/3 higher at apogee, the math shows "almost a 20% error", according to Hoagland. I have scanned his math, and he appears to be right.
Mathis actually used conspiracy theorist Richard Hoagland as his sole source of data. No joke! Here is the link to the Hoagland article that Mathis used as evidence for the pi=4 theory:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm
For those who are unfamiliar with Richard Hoagland, check this out:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland
This is just one of many Miles Mathis conspiracy theories: "NASA is hiding something". His most recent conspiracy theory (May 31, 2014) is that the Lincoln assassination never happened, it was faked:
http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests