A Simple Experiment Proves π = 4

[LongtimeAirman]

LongtimeAirman wrote:I would say that the pi calculation is used to determine distance around the circle, not time.

Aardwolf. In geometry yes, but a space agency would want to know why the craft was late. Using Pi=4 solves the problem.
Airman. Exactly. The curved-motion metric was not known. A long wait for an overdue satellite is the first clue. After noticing a delay in every orbit, one adjusts accordingly. Find the problem with the math or correct for it. In any case, Steven’s Pi=4 experiment, unless disproved, advances common understanding beyond possible ignorance, proprietary or security issues.

Time and distance are given by our relationship: velocity * time = distance. Given the time and distance measurements, we calculate the velocity, 120cm/sec. We have a constant time differential (0.1467s) and a constant distance differential (17.6cm). One can choose either time or distance as the dependent variable. To “know why the craft was late. Using Pi=4” implies you know the correct distance and velocity, as well as the new curved motion metric.

LongtimeAirman wrote: There a friction slowing the ball in the circular track pi/4 when compared to the straight track.

Aardwolf. If it were due to friction it would have a cumulative effect and that plot would be a curve not a straight line.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
1. The ball in the circular track is slower than the straight track. There a friction slowing the ball in the circular track pi/4 when compared to the straight track.

or
2. Both tracks are the same length when the curve is measured with Pi=4.

Airman. You and I have agreed. There is no noticeable friction present. I was going for light humor, as in which is true - 1 or 2 (knowing 2 is the correct answer)? Do you believe the ball in the circular track is slower than the straight track, just not due to friction? If so, can you suggest how an initial velocity of 120cm/s is transformed to 92.4cm/s in the circular track? Why accept pi=4 in order to properly calculate time?

Aardwolf wrote: Forward momentum is lost in the tube as it is in an orbit. To correctly account for the lost forward momentum you should use Pi=4 to calculate the time it takes to travel around the curved trajectory.

Airman. The forward momentum doesn’t appear to be lost in the tube (or the orbit). The pvc tube (or gravity) redirects the forward velocity vector – along with the forward momentum - each time differential. Any real loss of momentum would appear as friction.

To calculate the time for an orbit one needs to know the distance and velocity. Given the new curved motion metric, we see that we’ve been under-measuring orbital distance by pi/4. Velocity is 4/pi greater during curved motion than geometry currently assumes. Momentum depends on velocity squared and so it is also greater in curved motion than is currently assumed.
.

[jacmac]

Airman says:

Momentum depends on velocity squared and so it is also greater in curved motion than is currently assumed.

Is that true for a small curve, or just big curves ? Will any amount of deviation from straight trigger Pi to change to 4? If the curve is very tight does Pi go higher than 4 ? Just what are you saying ? What is the relationship of the amount of curve to the size of Pi ?

[lw1990]

Let's say for a moment that the experiment was carried out perfectly, and nothing, like air being harder to push out of a curved tube vs a straight tube affected the results.
Note: even in a closed water pipe, water flows differently based on if its turbulent or not - the more bends/turns in the flow of air, water, gas, etc, the more turbulent, the harder it is to push out. That is just the tip of the iceberg of possible resistances affecting this experiment, but let's ignore all of those and pretend it is actually showing something amazing.

Even if that was the case, the best possible insight from the experiment would be that there is a mechanical reason one ball is decelerating faster, it has nothing to do with pi, the speed it travels relative to the other ball is simply the result, it doesn't change the distance it traveled!

Restated: If one ball travels through the straight tube in 3.14 seconds, and the other takes 4 seconds to travel in the other tube, and both tubes are the same length, then something caused the first 3.14 second ball to travel faster and the 4 second ball to travel slower. Even if by some miracle the speeds coming out of the tube were identical, you would have to find some differentiation in speed along its journey to account for the difference in time, if the length of the tubes are truly equal.

It might be because the initial speed was greater for one ball or lesser for the other ball, it might be turbulent air resistance, it might be a lot of things, but one thing it is definitely NOT is that the 4 second ball warped time, or the distance it traveled, to be longer/shorter in some way! You cannot simply observe this kind of result and then say, well, the only difference my monkey brain can reckon is that the ball traveled in a loopey loop, I guess that means when it rotates that pi becomes a different value. Let's just write pi is 4 now when things travel in a loop, and when things dont, pi is a different value. Now, apply face to palm.

I think it's great these kinds of videos, papers, and posts surface, that people build experiments and ask questions, but yeah, you have to be skeptical when stupidity is presented to you, like pi = 4, and simplify things in terms you can understand. I suppose the magic trick of the video was one tube being longer, if he had made them the exact same length, it would be easier to see that one is simply traveling faster or alternatively was launched first as it exits first. Just like a magic trick which distracts your attention while the magician does some clever hand movement, he makes you pay attention to marks on the tube, instead of what is really happening. I'm not saying he did this on purpose, it's entirely plausible he tricked himself as well.

The first thing I think of when I'm presented with something that seems stupid is remember that my ancestors used to sacrifice the lives of children to please imaginary gods. Our DNA has not changed much since then, we still have the same raw materials in terms of brain function as they did. Keep an open mind by all means, but don't make something real to yourself until you have lots of reinforcing data.

[Aardwolf]

Airman says:

Momentum depends on velocity squared and so it is also greater in curved motion than is currently assumed.

Is that true for a small curve, or just big curves ? Will any amount of deviation from straight trigger Pi to change to 4? If the curve is very tight does Pi go higher than 4 ? Just what are you saying ? What is the relationship of the amount of curve to the size of Pi ?

I would suspect that it's true for all curves. What is the chance that the experimental length they used equated to a ratio of 4. If it were variable the curve might need to be 10 miles or 10 millimeters to equate to 4. You would need to assume they just got lucky it worked on a table sized experiment.

[LongtimeAirman]

.
A Simple Experiment
Proves π = 4
http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf

Part of the beauty of this incredibly simple experiment.

Steven Oostdijk’s Pi=4 Experiment is a direct refutation of angular velocity.

angular velocity = 3.14 * diameter * linear velocity

Showing instead.

angular velocity = 4 * diameter * linear velocity

And since I equated angular and linear velocity, please see.
Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum. http://milesmathis.com/angle.html

Airman said:
Momentum depends on velocity squared and so it is also greater in curved motion than is currently assumed.

jacmac. Is that true for a small curve, or just big curves ? Will any amount of deviation from straight trigger Pi to change to 4? If the curve is very tight does Pi go higher than 4 ? Just what are you saying ? What is the relationship of the amount of curve to the size of Pi ?

Aardwolf. I would suspect that it's true for all curves…

Airman. Correct. Pi=4 is true for all objects moving in curved motion. Curved motion is described as an acceleration comprised of two orthogonal velocities. Curvature has always been the inverse of the radius, nothing new there. Understanding motion shows us that we must recalculate all velocities and distances in curves. We can now build better roads, rails, (orbits) and carnival rides.

lw1990. Let's say for a moment that the experiment was carried out perfectly, and nothing, like air being harder to push out of a curved tube vs a straight tube affected the results.
Note: even in a closed water pipe, water flows differently based on if its turbulent or not - the more bends/turns in the flow of air, water, gas, etc, the more turbulent, the harder it is to push out. That is just the tip of the iceberg of possible resistances affecting this experiment, but let's ignore all of those and pretend it is actually showing something amazing.

Airman. We have two tracks: 1. Circular (measured with pi=3.14) - 55.3cm; and 2. Straight - 70.4cm. The two lengths are in a ratio of 3.14/4. The pvc tube is far from airtight. The balls are 8mm diameter, and the pvc tube inside diameter is 12mm. There is no apparent turbulence as there is no noticeable friction.

lw1990. Even if that was the case, the best possible insight from the experiment would be that there is a mechanical reason one ball is decelerating faster, it has nothing to do with pi, the speed it travels relative to the other ball is simply the result, it doesn't change the distance it traveled!

Airman. There is no “decelerating faster”. The experiment shows two velocities (circular and straight) which are actually the same velocity when pi=4. The slope diagrams I showed in my previous post are linear, proof that there is no decelerating in either track.

lw1990. Restated: If one ball travels through the straight tube in 3.14 seconds, and the other takes 4 seconds to travel in the other tube, and both tubes are the same length, then something caused the first 3.14 second ball to travel faster and the 4 second ball to travel slower. Even if by some miracle the speeds coming out of the tube were identical, you would have to find some differentiation in speed along its journey to account for the difference in time, if the length of the tubes are truly equal.

Airman. What “difference in time”? The initial ball velocities for both circular and straight tracks are 120cm/sec. Both balls hit their marks simultaneously and travel for 0.59sec. Changing pi from 3.14 to 4 doesn’t change the time here. It reflects the additional distance necessary for the ball to complete the circular track.

Those are the only quantified statements I see.

Thanks for the discussion.
.

[lw1990]

You are obviously still fooled by the illusion of the track.

To simplify things, imagine a track that is 100 cm long and straight, a ball is launched through it at a specific speed and the time is measured until it comes out.
You then arrange that same, identical 100 cm long and straight tube track into a semi circle, and a ball is again launched at the same specific speed, and the time is measured until it comes out.

If the times are not identical, but everything else is except the shape of the track, then the shape of track somehow played a part in causing a time difference for the ball to reach the end. You asked 'what difference in time'? That is the difference in time I was referring to. Instead of accepting that there was a difference in time, like every rational person would from an objective point of view, you are invested in a delusion - like a ghost or god, and tricked yourself into believing that the distance itself is increasing so that the time it takes to travel 1 cm each timestep is the same - impossible. The length of tube, 100 cm, has not changed. The ball is also not reversing direction back and forth within the tube, so its distance cannot possibly be longer than 100 cm through the track. The difference is time, which is determined by the speed of the ball when the ball travels only in one direction (forward through the track).

On a different note, the air in the tube does not have to be capped on both sides to be in a closed system. Water flowing through a pipe in which ground or ceiling sprinklers are operating still suffer pressure/velocity losses through the pipe even with an open orifice at the end. This is representative of the fact that air has to be displaced for the ball, or whatever thing, such as more water, to move through the tube. That displacement is limited by the walls of the tube, so it therefore takes more work to displace the air, water, gas, or whatever thing located in the tube. When the tube bends, the direction the air wants to go (forward) again collides with the walls of the tube to a greater degree because of the bend. The greater the bend, the greater the disturbance in flow of air, water, or other gas particles, which makes it even harder to displace those particles. The ball does not move through air like a ripple in a pond - it pushes air out of its way, that takes work. It has to do more air pushing when there are bends, because there is more friction and turbulence.

[LongtimeAirman]

lw1990. To simplify things, imagine a track that is 100 cm long and straight, a ball is launched through it at a specific speed and the time is measured until it comes out.
You then arrange that same, identical 100 cm long and straight tube track into a semi circle, and a ball is again launched at the same specific speed, and the time is measured until it comes out.
If the times are not identical, but everything else is except the shape of the track, then the shape of track somehow played a part in causing a time difference for the ball to reach the end.

Airman. Correct. You’ve basically described Steven’s experiment - substituting his circular track with a semi-circular one. We even agree that the shape of the track plays a part in causing the time difference for the ball to reach the end.
I agree it’s a good idea to perform a semicircular variant of Steven’s experiment, though it’s better to start with verifying the complete set-up. Even easier would be to try and view Steven’s experiment objectively.

lw1990. You asked 'what difference in time'? That is the difference in time I was referring to. Instead of accepting that there was a difference in time, like every rational person would from an objective point of view, you are invested in a delusion…

Airman said. What “difference in time”? The initial ball velocities for both circular and straight tracks are 120cm/sec. Both balls hit their marks simultaneously and travel for 0.59sec. Changing pi from 3.14 to 4 doesn’t change the time here. It reflects the additional distance necessary for the ball to complete the circular track.

Airman. Having the benefit of Steven’s experiment to draw from, we can say there must be a time difference between the time it takes for a ball to travel your 100cm straight path and the time it takes for the ball to travel through the same 100cm length curved into a semi-circular path.
I believe the ball in the straight should travel 200cm in the time it takes to travel around the 100cm diameter semi-circular curve. At this point you might agree that a single 100cm length doesn’t simplify things, we’ll need to add length (as Steven has), and a velocity, etc.

lw1990. On a different note, the air in the tube does not have to be capped on both sides to be in a closed system.

Airman. Let’s limit ourselves to Steven’s experiment. If you don’t like the pvc tubes you can use cardboard and marbles. We have a constant velocity demonstration. That means friction, including turbulence, is not an issue here. Any friction present affects both paths equally – for all intents and purposes it is negligible.

The experimental outcome of an apparent velocity difference between the two paths of more than 20% percent cannot be explained away with friction or delusion. The difference is explained by the curve-motion metric, pi=4.
.

[lw1990]

I believe the ball in the straight should travel 200cm in the time it takes to travel around the 100cm diameter semi-circular curve. At this point you might agree that a single 100cm length doesn’t simplify things, we’ll need to add length (as Steven has), and a velocity, etc.

That is irrelevant, and complicating the experiment. First compare a 100 cm straight track to a 100 cm semicircle track, no need for a 200 cm track at all. You are trying to change the simple experiment I proposed which clearly shows the flaw in reasoning, to a more complex one. The more complex one has the same flaw in reasoning, but it will be harder for you to see that, which is why I compared apples to apples by using the same length of track and bending it into a semicircle. The fact is that if the times vary for the same length of track, it proves a difference in speed happened, not a difference of distance. You are right that comparing a longer track vs a shorter track can show a difference in distance traveled - it merely hides the reason that the distance changes is because one track is longer and one track is shorter.

This is really really simple stuff, I think you are overthinking this and got confused. Take a piece of hollow tube, make it straight, then bend it. If an object travels through it whether it is bent or straight, common sense should make it obvious to you that it will travel the same exact distance in both cases. If there is a difference in time for it to travel through the straight tube vs bent tube, then one ball must have been traveling faster than the other one, there is no other explanation (assuming the ball moves forward the entire time, not back and forth). Merely bending matter into an arc does not make it longer (although it might on the microscopic level if you can break the material's fibers as you stretch it, like bending a licorice candy, this is negligible)

By limiting yourself to 'Steven's experiment', you basically limit yourself to being ignorant. Science doesn't work that way, you have to test things from other (even simpler) perspectives also, even if only in your mind as a thought experiment for simple fallacies like this one. You can't just spot a weird looking anomaly in a complex experiment and draw whatever conclusion, like pi=4, and expect us to take you seriously if you limit yourself to that 'experimental design' only.

What you are basically proposing is similar to time dilation, except you are proposing 'distance dilation'. Time and distance are measurements - not physical things which can be manipulated or dilated. This is the fundamental error in judgement.

[LongtimeAirman]

.
lw1990. By limiting yourself to 'Steven's experiment', you basically limit yourself to being ignorant. Science doesn't work that way, you have to test things from other (even simpler) perspectives also, even if only in your mind as a thought experiment for simple fallacies like this one. You can't just spot a weird looking anomaly in a complex experiment and draw whatever conclusion, like pi=4, and expect us to take you seriously if you limit yourself to that 'experimental design' only.

Airman. My simple observation - We have a real experiment which you refuse to accept or investigate. You prefer thought experiments and known conclusions. Let's agree to disagree.
.

[lw1990]

It would be really simple to debunk Steven's experiment by asking him to please measure the speed of each ball per second, throughout the test, not just the initial speed or final speed.
if the speeds are exactly the same throughout the test, yet one travels a longer distance than the other one in the same amount of time, then you are right, pi=4
however that's gonna be difficult to show because speed is the sole driver of when the balls exit the tube or get to a certain mark...

but, if they go the same speed throughout the track and enter at same time and exit at same time for two different lengths of track, you are right, distance was being created out of thin air within the track because it was bent, and you can collect instant fame from the masses of people who will have their jaw on the floor

you could also test this using my experiment design, a 100 cm track in a straight line, with a ball going 10 cm per second, should take 10 seconds
then, if you can make the ball go 10 cm per second in the semicircle 100 cm track, if it takes significantly longer/shorter to travel through the track, AND the speed is still 10 cm/s throughout the track not just at the beginning, you should get a nobel prize, and physics will be completely shattered

[Maol]

Well, this certainly solves the paradoxical question of "What is the radius of a square?"

[LongtimeAirman]

lw1990. It would be really simple to debunk Steven's experiment by asking him to please measure the speed of each ball per second, throughout the test, not just the initial speed or final speed.

Airman. There are 7 marks on the straight track, and 6 on the circular which allow us to determine speeds during the experiment. View the experiment before you debunk it.

lw1990. if the speeds are exactly the same throughout the test, yet one travels a longer distance than the other one in the same amount of time, then you are right, pi=4
however that's gonna be difficult to show because speed is the sole driver of when the balls exit the tube or get to a certain mark...

but, if they go the same speed throughout the track and enter at same time and exit at same time for two different lengths of track, you are right, distance was being created out of thin air within the track because it was bent, and you can collect instant fame from the masses of people who will have their jaw on the floor

Airman. That’s what the experiment shows. We have two apparently different constant velocities: circular - 94.3cm/s; and straight - 120cm/s; that are both equal to 120cm/s when pi=4.
Steven Oostdijk deserves the fame, but it will be some time before reactionary rejection, etc. has run its course. His goal was to confirm the prediction of the cuved motion metric, pi=4, by Miles Mathis. Miles has been dealing with rejection for years, but has strong supporters like Steven.

lw1990. you could also test this using my experiment design, a 100 cm track in a straight line, with a ball going 10 cm per second, should take 10 seconds
then, if you can make the ball go 10 cm per second in the semicircle 100 cm track, if it takes significantly longer/shorter to travel through the track, AND the speed is still 10 cm/s throughout the track not just at the beginning, you should get a nobel prize, and physics will be completely shattered

Airman. Aside from the fact that 10cm/s is probably too slow for a good rolling contact, your experiment should show the same effect, confirming or contradicting Steven’s. Do it well enough and you could gain some recognition too. As far as history goes, pi will be 4 for angular velocities and motion, and 3.14 for geometry. Most people won’t know or care that there was a debate over the difference.

.............................

Maol. Well, this certainly solves the paradoxical question of "What is the radius of a square?"
Airman. Pi are square.
.

[lw1990]

In your own words, you just said one ball in one track has a 'velocity' of 94.3 cm/s and the other has a velocity of 120 cm/s

This means one ball is traveling slower than the other ball

If what you were saying, which is that extra distance is the reason for the balls not getting to a certain mark at the same time, then there would absolutely not be a velocity or speed difference, there would only be a distance difference. basically, both balls would travel at the same speed NOT different velocities. but you just said the experiment shows different velocities - this shows there is a difference in speed, not distance.

You are basically saying that the 'distance' you are proposing is not there, and manifests itself as a slower speed, which just absolutely shows normal physics, except steven/mathis/etc go full retard and throw speed out the window and then force it to be distance instead all because of what? it makes pi=4 and that seems shocking to idiots who read the headline.

It just makes me want to grab your head and shake you until you wake up from this. I seriously hope you just think about it for 2 minutes before replying. I am losing faith in humanity from this..

[LongtimeAirman]

Airman said. That’s what the experiment shows. We have two apparently different constant velocities: circular - 94.3cm/s; and straight - 120cm/s; that are both equal to 120cm/s when pi=4.

Apparently different means they appear different. They are actually the same when pi = 4.
.

[lw1990]

Are you serious right now
They 'appear' to be different velocities because they are.
Your false idols of Mathis and his student have made you a foolish believer in the superstition of pi=4
By convincing you that the very real phenomenon of speed of the ball does not matter, but whatever bull they feed you, like 'distance warping magic' affects the experiment instead.

How do we know that a ball in any given experiment is traveling at any given speed, how do we know it is not just 'appearing to do so'? This is the kind of problem you get when you invent things with no basis in reality.