Mathis vs Postmodern Physics Continued

[StevenJay]

Miles Mathis doing what he does best; ripping the LHC and its progenitor, post modern physics (frankly, that's getting easier and easier).

[junglelord]

I will submit all string theories are not created equal.

I of course spoke to Miles about APM....he saw strings and stopped thinking or reading...however he never did tell me where pi comes from in charge domains....therefore we can accept that a circle is part of charge....and or spheres....so a circular string of angular momentum spins outward with volume and density into spheres. Pi is everywhere...so a spinning circular string is not out of the question.

The rest of string theory should be strung up as he suggests.
http://milesmathis.com/string.html

[StevenO]

Everybody is free to believe in purple gnomes, unicorns or circular strings of angular momentum. As long as you don't forget that pi=4 in real life...

[junglelord]

Sorry I don't buy that four, but I will raise you Phi and e....to your four pi bid.

[borut]

>>Everybody is free to believe in purple gnomes, unicorns or circular strings of angular momentum. As long as you don't forget that pi=4 in real life...

Pi=4 only in dynamics.. orbit of planets, electron + proton... it is about velocities
Pi=3,14... is true pi in geometry

lp
Borut

[altonhare]

>>Everybody is free to believe in purple gnomes, unicorns or circular strings of angular momentum. As long as you don't forget that pi=4 in real life...

Pi=4 only in dynamics.. orbit of planets, electron + proton... it is about velocities
Pi=3,14... is true pi in geometry

lp
Borut

The only way to measure pi is dynamically. You have to travel around the circle, then travel from the perimeter to the center, in order to take the ratio. Or you have to move the measuring tape, or the ruler, etc.

[Siggy_G]

The only way to measure pi is dynamically. You have to travel around the circle, then travel from the perimeter to the center, in order to take the ratio. Or you have to move the measuring tape, or the ruler, etc.

Well, the same goes for measuring a quad or a cube; you have to move the ruler back and forth... It doesn't change the multiplied result or ratio.

The act of measuring or drawing a circle has nothing to do with pi - since pi simply is a geometrical ratio number. It's the ratio between the diameter and circumference. Why do Mathis confuse this with centripetal acceleration and curve dynamics?

Same goes for those who mean that time must be movement of something - because that's the way we measure time... Whether or not something moves or happens as time passes by is irrelevant. It's true that we need some separatelly ticking entity in order to count time intervalls, but still. Measuring time is not time itself.

[StevenO]

The act of measuring or drawing a circle has nothing to do with pi - since pi simply is a geometrical ratio number. It's the ratio between the diameter and circumference. Why do Mathis confuse this with centripetal acceleration and curve dynamics?

You exactly highlight your thought problem. We do not live in a geometric world. We live in a physical world.
A mathematical dimension is not the same as a physical dimension. A mathematical point supposedly has zero dimensions, while a physical point has an extension into at least one dimension and a curve can only be created by an acceleration.

Same goes for those who mean that time must be movement of something - because that's the way we measure time... Whether or not something moves or happens as time passes by is irrelevant. It's true that we need some separatelly ticking entity in order to count time intervalls, but still. Measuring time is not time itself.

We can only demonstrate time with a second physical measurement. It cannot be more abstract than that. Maybe we could see space and time as two reciprocal aspects of motion (as in Reciprocal System Theory) but I think that is already too abstract.

[Siggy_G]

We do not live in a geometric world. We live in a physical world.

Agreed.

A mathematical dimension is not the same as a physical dimension. A mathematical point supposedly has zero dimensions, while a physical point has an extension into at least one dimension and a curve can only be created by an acceleration.

What has this got to do with the ratio between an arc and a line? A quad with sides = 1 has longer circumference than a circle inside it with diameter 1. Both in a physical and mathematical world. I have shown in a separate post why Miles' main argument about pi is wrong; it is based on a wrong mathematical assumption related to vectors.

By the way, Miles seems to agree to most of Einstein's abstract and geometrical world view, so he doesn't seem to be that focused on physical observations and interpretations as any EU proponent would. Even if he attempts to do some mix with the definition of pi.

(All respect for Miles' great artwork though and for him challenging some areas of math/physics)