Mathis and pi

[borut]

If you dont mind I will fight you on this one for a while.

OK But hypotenuse is crossing the arc. You can not move like that. Now if object has velocity and we measure the time it needs to travel around the circle in a way that is mechanically possible, what time it needs to go around?
We all know that distance is defined by time and velocity. Is that objects velocity constant?

[Siggy_G]

If you dont mind I will fight you on this one for a while.

Sure, be my guest

OK But hypotenuse is crossing the arc. You can not move like that.

Is Miles' suggestion any better - moving in zigzags? No, of course, you're moving smoothly along the arc. That's why I mean an arc is just a bent straight line, not made up of zigzag movements. The turning is happening constantly, but can be viewed "per time unit" as tangents or "per time segment" as hypothenuses (shorter = more accurately, longer = less than the actual arc). This constant turning could be caused by e.g. a car's stearwheel at a set position or a carousel wagon constraint to a metal arm (constant radius).

Now if object has velocity and we measure the time it needs to travel around the circle in a way that is mechanically possible, what time it needs to go around? We all know that distance is defined by time and velocity. Is that objects velocity constant?

The reasoning is kind of backwards, but this could be quite easily tested. One way would be to drive a car in constant speed in a predefined circular path on an empty parking lot (make path e.g. by using a long rope straight from a center and place small objects along the path). Then compare the time it takes per loop, with the calculus. I don't see any reason why the loop time measured shouldn't equal: t = d / v -> t = 2*pi*r / v (pi = 3,14159...)

If the car's speed is 20 km/h (5,56 m/s) and the path's radius is 10 meter, then you'll get:

t = (2 * 3,14159 * 10) / 5,56 = 11,30 s

Versus pi = 4:

t = (2 * 4 * 10) / 5,56 = 14,39 s

Any volunteering testers? Any bets? Some anomalies due to stearing/speed inaccuracies, of course. Other ways of testing that I could think of involves too much friction, deceleration or gravity.

[borut]

We are getting closer and closer You answered everything in your last post.

Driving a car in circular way is like making a geometrical circle. The car has a steering wheel and an engine. Photon does not. Have you seen one?

OK here is the point. Even in our real world making circular motion is like drawing a circle on a paper. Like with a car. In a physical world, for photon to do this motion, must be pushed in a zig zag pattern. So if you see a circular motion in nature and not done in an artificial way, then is pushed in zig zag pattern. This is Miles the only point those articles.
lp
Borut

PS still fighting

[Siggy_G]

The car has a steering wheel and an engine. Photon does not. Have you seen one?

Well, photons mostly travel straight forward, but one could say that the engine is the photon's own energy/motion and the steering wheel is gravity. For an electron or proton, the steering wheel is a magnetic field. Like with a car's steering wheel, these are secondary influences to the original movement. These influences are constant, causing gradual movements, not zigzag movements (i.e. where an object moves along one axis at a time).

So if you see a circular motion in nature and not done in an artificial way, then is pushed in zig zag pattern. This is Miles the only point those articles.

I'll still refute that. You can have circular motions from radiation, e.g. radio, light or sound waves, from a source. They emit radially - making circular patterns (well, spherically). These circles/spheres aren't drawn, they are just the result of collective and synchronous movements from a center. If you slice a sphere, you'll get a circle (diameter, circumference, pi...) without having to "draw" it. In any case, I think I've proven the assumption of zigzag movements wrong in the previous posts... These X-Y steps aren't to be taken literally, they are geometrical projections of a movement onto other axises in a coordinate system. The movement itself is smooth, but can be viewed as tangents per coordinate or hypotenuses if segmented.

[borut]

I got you in corner

Yes, the engine is the photon's own energy/motion and the steering wheel is gravity. For an electron or proton, the steering wheel is a magnetic field. Like with a car's steering wheel, these are secondary influences to the original movement. These influences are constant, causing gradual movements, not zigzag movements (i.e. where an object moves along one axis at a time).

Now, lets not have a gravity or magnetic field in our experiment for a while.OK?. Now move any object in circle. Now we can see that object must be pushed from two sides and that force must be changing in time. Now finale
Change of force can not be instant. You need time to change. There you have a zig zag pattern.

I'll still refute that. You can have circular motions from radiation, e.g. radio, light or sound waves, from a source. They emit radially - making circular patterns (well, spherically). These circles/spheres aren't drawn, they are just the result of collective and synchronous movements from a center. If you slice a sphere, you'll get a circle (diameter, circumference, pi...) without having to "draw" it. In any case, I think I've proven the assumption of zigzag movements wrong in the previous posts... These X-Y steps aren't to be taken literally, they are geometrical projections of a movement onto other axises in a coordinate system. The movement itself is smooth, but can be viewed as tangents per coordinate or hypotenuses if segmented.

In sound wave, no molecule of air is moving in circle. Your wave pattern is a geometrical pattern like on your paper.
That pattern means only to you like the circle on paper. It means nothing to a moving photon or moving molecule.

You must admit that my punches are hard

[Siggy_G]

Change of force can not be instant. You need time to change. There you have a zig zag pattern.

The force (and influence) is constant. The change of the object's XYZ movement depends on what time point
or which segment you want to analyze. It doesn't redefine the reality of the smooth movement.

In sound wave, no molecule of air is moving in circle.

I was mainly referring to circular patterns that can occur from something else than assuming that a circle is "drawn". The circular/sperhical patterns comes from a radial effect. (I should have stated "circular patterns from radial motions" instead of "circular motion" in my previous post).

Another example: an electron with its motion slightly offset from a cathode, will curve or spiral towards it. That movement is a result of its original movement (and mass inertia), in addition to the influence of the magnetic field. There's no change of force/influence, but it results in a change of movement.

Now, there is no physical reason for it to only be allowed to move along one dimension at a time. The physical world consists of 3 spatial dimensions, and objects can surely move along all three at once. Such are main (resultant) vectors of movement and consists of 3 coordinates per time unit. The XYZ "steps" are just projections for the sake of calculus or components. Time is our way of subdividing and analyzing the movement, and if anything, it is a dimension by itself. One doesn't need to assume that X, Y and Z do individual steps, one at a time, before settling in new position. I find that a rather nonsensical assumption.

[borut]

I see your point Siggy.

I do not dispute that when you are making circle, pi is 3,14.

When you have radial field of (neutral) particles from inside out, you can not make a circular motion yet. You need to have opposite radial field from outside in. Can you imagine the situation? Only then you can make circular motion of particle inside those fields. AND YES PI = 3,14. You see, you are steering that particle with your field.

But that is not the point. Point is that no particle, without steering, can move in a circular motion.

So were the problem is? Problem is that many things we do not understand. Field of energy!? Gravity!?
If gravity is causing a circular motion by making a circle, then pi would be 3,14. But is not. See article : Proof from NASA that pi is 4. That only means that gravity is not making a circle....and off course that no field is making a circle. Not even EM. IT IS PROOF OF Miles GRAVITY.

[junglelord]

if charge (ES & EM) does not make a circle, then why is pi in all the equations?
Riddle me that?

The answer is because it makes a sphere.
Fields make spheres.

[borut]

if charge (ES & EM) does not make a circle, then why is pi in all the equations?
Riddle me that?

The answer is because it makes a sphere.
Fields make spheres.

The EM could make a circular motion like i show you in previous post, but is not cause of gravity circle. Why? Because then pi would be 3,14.
But what NASA has found out is, that their rockets went higher with calculated speed. How much higher?
Miles proof is exactly for a difference in pi (4 and 3,14). What that means is, that object is not circling around earth, but going in straight line. The earth is expanding .(object also the same rate)

You can not throw some object in any field without a force, and making him circling. You must push a object in a proper way.

[Jarvamundo]

Is this thread not just an argument of the classical field vs the quantum?

essentially quantum being an averaged quantized measurement... you're taking an average of a field... quantums are very useful, they let use utilize a whole heap of field averages, but can ignore details of the field beyond the limitations and ruleset setting the quantum.

ie we find the charge of neutrino's to be zero, the quantum particle charge is zero, is this the average of a higher oscillation of charges we cannot measure within the limitations of the quantum (c), hence within the bounds of the quant we set to zero.

essentially we are blinded of the detail of the field averaged out by the quantum.

I see an argument based on trying to locate or average the infinite... when each component of the infinite is as valid as it's neighbor, and should not be ignored.

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288.... do not be heroic and average, each digit, and the infinite not mentioned, has it's place.

Square plugs don't go in round holes for this very reason

[Siggy_G]

Miles' papers on pi advocates that objects move in one dimension at a time, and where these individual distances are added together to make the total distance traveled. Therefore, he gets that the circumference of a circle is that of a quad, and that pi = 4. The basis of this assumption is not restricted to EM, gravity or circular motions, but was based on his take on geometry/vectors. Then he carries that assumption on to gravity and circular motions.

When he says NASA confirms his theory, it turns out that it is not exactly a press release from NASA saying they were wrong and Miles correct. However, he points to some interesting anomalies and historical calculation problems. I haven't read through all of Miles' papers, but I'll have a look at more of them. For instance, I find his explanation of planetary elliptical orbits plausible (because it is related to actual physics; the play between attractive gravity and repulsive EM).

I think the part we can agree to, is that there are fields of science that we haven't completely figured out yet and that physics math should follow physics, rather than being too abstractly constructed. But there is nothing mystical about circles or pi, nor circular motions in general, the way I see it. The existing explanations of gravity is a different subject.

[StevenO]

<...>
I think the part we can agree to, is that there are fields of science that we haven't completely figured out yet and that physics math should follow physics, rather than being too abstractly constructed. But there is nothing mystical about circles or pi, nor circular motions in general, the way I see it. The existing explanations of gravity is a different subject.

Hi Siggy,

As I stated before, to get a good grasp of this dynamic circle vs. geometric circle problem, you should really study Miles' papers on the calculus. The mistakes in the calculus spill over to a lot of area's in physics and lead to many misconceptions. A math description is always less complete than the actual physics.

[webolife]

Borut,
You are assuming Newton's first law of motion. But his is an idealized mathematical situation which actually exists nowhere in the universe! His predecessor, Galileo, had this one right! All objects move in curvilinear paths. They do so under the influence of the two "forces" as you thought. The one force is centropic pressure [eg. gravity, but not just gravity] and the other is for want of a better term "kinetic energy", which shows up all the time as angular momentum, revolution, rotation, spin, because of that centropic pressure. It is constant, universal, and relentless, and does not act in "steps". Starting a proposition with "What if there were no external forces acting on an object..." simply puts your next clause outside of this universe! Now if you wish to describe the toroidal/helical motions of bodies at various scales [eg. atomic and astronomic] under the influence of magnetic field vortices, then that's a different story.

[altonhare]

Borut,
You are assuming Newton's first law of motion. But his is an idealized mathematical situation which actually exists nowhere in the universe! His predecessor, Galileo, had this one right! All objects move in curvilinear paths. Starting a proposition with "What if there were no external forces acting on an object..." simply puts your next clause outside of this universe!.

Amen.

[webolife]

I was rather hoping we'd agree on this point!