A Simple Experiment Proves π = 4

[pavlink]

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

with video link

[kell1990]

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

with video link

Another candidate for the "ignore file". In you go.

[D_Archer]

Ignoring things wont make the truth disappear.

The experiment proves a circular motion is somehow different then a straight line.

Before the experiment this was proven mathematically by Miles Mathis when he ran into math problems with Newton AND real world applications of said math, ie applied math.

Steven Oostdijk is a fellow Dutchman and an engineer, all his faculties are in good order, and this is a good experiment, it is repeatable, it can be improved, and best of all anyone can make their own version.

Regards,
Daniel

[jacmac]

I don't know about the math, but the ball in the curved tube is being slowed down by the curve compared to the ball in the straight line tube.

[Aardwolf]

I don't know about the math, but the ball in the curved tube is being slowed down by the curve compared to the ball in the straight line tube.

If that were the case the friction would be cumulative and would slow the ball progressivley over the duration of the curving balls motion and therefore each meter on the straight run would not correspond with each quarter mark on the curved run.

[Zyxzevn]

I am abhorred by the math that he uses.

From the pdf:

Let us say points A and B are on a circle, and you wish to travel from A to B. It seems like the simplest
thing to do would be to take the path c , since it is the most direct. You just cut straight across on the
hypotenuse. In fact, that is what the ancient Greeks assumed, and their original assumption has skewed
this problem ever since. It is still the assumption today. Mainstream physicists and mathematicians
still assume the circle is composed of a lot of little c-paths. They make the c -paths very tiny and then sum them, giving them the circumference of the circle. But what I have shown is that they have
cheated. You can't take the path c , because it doesn't correctly represent the forward motion and the
sideways motion we just talked about. Obviously, the path a
represents the forward motion and the path b represents the sideways motion. Therefore, no matter how tiny you make that triangle, you have to keep the a and b paths
You will say, “C'mon, that can't be right! I can draw that triangle on the ground, and I can always walk
that c -path. There is nothing stopping me.” True, but if you are walking that
c -path, you aren't walking a curve, are you? You are walking a straight line. And if you combine a lot of those
c -paths to try to create a circle, you aren't really creating a circle. You are creating a polygon. Even if you make your circle out of thousands of those c -paths, in each little triangle you are still cutting the corner. If you cut
the corner, you aren't representing forward motion and sideways motion at the same time in your fake
circle. So it isn't really a circle. You are not creating real circular motion
. You will say, “Even so, if I make those c -paths tiny enough, I will still get the right number for the
circumference of the circle. Everyone knows that.” In this case, what everyone “knows” is wrong. In
fact, if you cut all the corners in each little triangle, you end up getting a number for the circumference
that is way too small. It is 21% too small, which is a lot. It isn't a marginal error, it is huge miss.

This illustrates the way Miles thinks.
He sees a certain method and applies it in a wrong way. And by using it in a wrong way,
he "proofs" that the method is wrong.

In this case he uses the approximation method to determine the length of path around the circle.
This specific method uses triangles. The triangles are laid on the inside of a circle.
The outside of the triangle is nearest to the circle, and because you want to get the length of
the edge of the circle, you only use the outside edge of the triangle.
This gives an inner limit.
With 4 triangles you get PI_min= 4*sqrt(1/2) = 2.8284.
With 6 triangles you get PI_min= 3*1.
You can also get the outer limit, by adding another triangle on the outside edge of the triangle.
With 4 triangles you get PI_Max= 4. This is the value that Miles uses.
With 6 triangles you get PI_Max= 6*tan(30 degr)= 3.4641
So with 4 triangles: 2.8284 < PI < 4
With 6 triangles: 3 < PI < 3.4641
And with more triangles the minimum and maximum values for PI gets closer to real PI.

Miles thinks he is smarter. He does not use the outer edge of the triangle.
He uses squares instead, and the path that he takes is the side of the squares.
He converts the circle into squares. He can use 1 square, or 4 squares. In fact this method in
independent of the amount of squares.
Because he has converted the circle into squares and followed the sides of the squares,
Miles always takes the long route.
A square of width and height 1, gives a path of 4.
So now Miles is mad on the Greek (and Egyptians), because they have a different value for PI.

The method that he uses could be used to calculate the area of the circle instead.
Area=PI*r²
If you use one square around a circle of radius 1, you have exactly an area of 4.
You can see that there is a lot of area outside the circle that is still in the square.
So from that alone, you can see that the area is really smaller than 4.
So you can see that PI must also be smaller than 4.

I am not even sure if Miles understands what a circle is.

There are many other ways to approximate PI.

We could use PI/4= arctan(1)= 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 ....

Or PI/2= (2/1)*(2/3)* (4/3)*(4/5)* (6/5)*(6/7)* (8/7)*(8/9)* .....

Or use a rope around a bottle, as we did in the dark ages.

[LongtimeAirman]

pavlink wrote:

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

with video link

Thanks pavlink.

Steven Oostdijk posted a simple experiment demonstrating that Pi=4 for objects in curved motion.

This important experimental result is a fundamental contribution to physics and an historic accomplishment.

Steven referenced Miles Mathis’ paper The Extinction of Pi, http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html in order to best understand the findings. Miles has released many papers describing kinematic Pi=4, some in an effort to answer wide resistance and misrepresentation of his work. A simple experiment anyone can do at home should go far in answering most reasonable objections.

Steven and Miles deserve recognition and congratulations.
.

[Zyxzevn]

Miles is very good at creating bad math.

Here we have a valid approach to the path around a circle.

But miles insists that we have to zig-zag.

And as I wrote before, this creates squares that always give a path of 4.
Because it is a square!
He is unknowingly converting the circle in a square.
That is because he does not understand math.

Same problem of "Pi=4" is shown in this video.
It also explains what is wrong with it.

Newton’s provides the diagram below, where AB is the chord, AD is the tangent and ACB is the arc. He tells us that if we let B approach A, the angle BAD must ultimately vanish. In modern language, he is telling us that the angle goes to zero at the limit.

It does. But miles starts talking about a different angle. The angle ABD. Which has no meaning here,
because it is an artifact of the construction.
But miles find it so important that he loses his mind,
and he sees it as proof that a circle is the same as the square.

But let us look at another way to get Pi.

Pi is the area of a circle divided by radius squared.
We can do it on paper with square-paper.


The circle on paper has r= 7.
According to Miles, we should have 4*49=196 squares in the circle.
That would be the area of a full square indeed.
But as you can see with your own eyes, the area is smaller.
About 36 squares are outside the circle.
So with your own eyes you can see that Miles is wrong.

So with 160 squares remaining, what is our visual estimation for PI?
PI= 160/49= 3.27.

Need more proof?

Take a cylinder object, and a string.
It could be a cup or bottle or whatever.
Measure the diameter of the cylinder (D). That is the width of the bottle.
Wind the string around the object, exactly one time.
Measure the length (L) that is needed to get around the bottle.
Divide the length (L) by diameter (D), and get your Pi for free.

As people of all times have found out, this value is about 3.14.
Even the video shows this.

This Pi does not change whatever maths or tricks you do with it.
The ball in the circle simply goes to the outside edge of the track,
making its path longer. And it slows down a bit. It must so, because
the change in direction causes the rotation to be different from
the track's direction.
But we can tweek it by changing the length of the circular track.
By making it smaller we can make Pi seem to be 2, or by making
it longer we can make Pi seem to be 4.

It is a joke that I would play on my pupils if I were a maths-teacher.

And this is with a lot of Miles' stuff. He turns maths into a joke,
and you have to be very careful to see through them.

[LongtimeAirman]

.

For curved motion, Pi=4. Limiting ourselves to Steven's experiment and results.

Zyxzevn wrote. This Pi does not change whatever maths or tricks you do with it.
The ball in the circle simply goes to the outside edge of the track,
making its path longer.

StevenOPiEq4finalTwo.gif (8.27 KiB) Viewed 15295 times

Airman. I’ve included a circle with the circumference necessary to reach 4 (by standard Pi=3.14). Note that it is far larger than the existing pvc loop.

And it slows down a bit. It must so, because
the change in direction causes the rotation to be different from
the track's direction.

Airman. The ball in the circular loop does move slower than the ball in the straight section. Your guess about a possible rotation slowing the circular path ball is interesting. The important thing is that your idea is verifiable.

Zyxzevn wrote. But we can tweek it by changing the length of the circular track.
By making it smaller we can make Pi seem to be 2, or by making
it longer we can make Pi seem to be 4.

Airman. You've objected to the fact that Miles has not convinced you that when motion is involved, Pi=4. That's understandable. Here, we have a real experiment. Experiments allow people with completely different perspectives to come together to prove or disprove real scientific facts. You now suggest we can tweek Pi to any value by changing the loop size. That's not a valid comment or interpretation of this experiment.
.

[jacmac]

I will suggest that for this experiment and discussion friction is not measurable or involved.

To cause a ball to change direction(turning in a circle) takes energy. That energy comes from the speed, or inertia, of the ball. The ball gives it up to the tube in the form of increased pressure on the tube, as the tube changes the rotation of the ball(as stated above).
The indication that the amount of energy lost is the same ratio as the reduction of the area of a square to the area of a circle(as shown above) is very interesting, but it says nothing about the calculation of pi. Pi is the relationship of the circumference of a circle to the diameter. That is all.

Many mad ideas in this section of the forum are created by using words and language in new ways that, most of the time, creates confusion on my part as to what is being described or promoted. Seldom does it result in that hoped for AHA moment. Creativity in the meaning of words works much better in literature than in science. IMO

Jack

[Zyxzevn]

.
Airman. The ball in the circular loop does move slower than the ball in the straight section. Your guess about a possible rotation slowing the circular path ball is interesting. The important thing is that your idea is verifiable

The speed of the ball is very important in the experiment.
In the video it seems to slow down quite a bit in the curved path.
It does not seem able to go a second turn, while the straight ball has almost no loss of speed.

I'm glad to help.

[LongtimeAirman]

Zyxzevn Wrote:
The speed of the ball is very important in the experiment.
In the video it seems to slow down quite a bit in the curved path.
It does not seem able to go a second turn, while the straight ball has almost no loss of speed.

I'm glad to help.

The ball’s velocity in the loop appears slower than the velocity of the ball in the straight. It is also observed that the balls begin together and hit all equally spaced marks, 0-4, simultaneously. They hit their marks without significant decrease in speed while in either track. We can therefore ignore drag as a factor.

As a friend recently pointed out to me (more than once) - the two tracks can be compared using the standard relationship- velocity = change in distance over change in time.

Since timeLoop=timeStraight,

(velLoop/distLoop)=(velStraight/distStraight),

This is true when the two velocities are equal and the two distances are equal.

We don’t see them as equal because they are based on two different metrics. We’re very familiar with the straight metric. We use it to measure motion and distances and Pi=3.14... It’s the only metric we knew or considered. This experiment also shows us a new metric - curved motion - in direct comparison with straight motion.

The static physical length of a curve based on standard Pi does not equal the distance traveled by an object moving along that curve. Curved motion is 4/Pi longer than we previously thought.

Seems like an AHA moment to me.
.

[kell1990]

It would be very helpful if some of Miles Mathis' advocates could learn the difference between a helix and a circle.

Pi is not 4 and will never be.

Some years ago the Texas State Legislature--that grand bastion of intellectual knowledge-- tried to pass a law decreeing that Pi was 4. Didn't work then either. The collective faculties of all the universities in Texas came down on them like a duck on a june bug.

Please give this up. It makes the proponents of the EU/PC look like dolts.

[jacmac]

LongtimeAirman says:

The static physical length of a curve based on standard Pi does not equal the distance traveled by an object moving along that curve.

The static physical length of a curve is equal to its length. Does rolling a ball through it change that?

We can therefore ignore drag as a factor.

We agree friction or drag is not a factor.

If you roll a circle down the tube( like a tiny ring) I predict it will not make the turn into the loop. It will fall over.
There are other forces a work which you choose to attribute to some kind of magic math.
I do not buy it. No aha here !

[Zyxzevn]

This is getting funny.
Effectively Miles is telling us that the wheels of a car move faster than the car itself.

But seriously. I can see the ball move slower in the curved path, just measure it.
It has to be slower, because the ball's rotation changes in direction.
This causes friction.
And the ball is pressed towards the side of the path, causing even more friction.

Besides that the length of both paths are not clear.

Another experiment would be a rotating wheel, and holding it against a flat surface.
Now we have again a rotating movement versus a linear movement.
If the wheel goes faster than the surface, you would be right.
And as everyone understands, it goes the same speed.