Mathis and pi

[bdw000]

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.

My interpretation of Mathis' pi=4 articles is that he has found what may be some real "anomalies" within the depths of NASA . If he changes pi to 4, he gets the right answer. But this is only one way to fudge the calculations. There are many other ways you could do that: who knows where the error actually lies? I think occam's razor would suggest that perhaps we have an assumption or two that is in error here? Or perhaps it is some (claimed) "measurement" that is in error?

I would guess that Mathis is onto something, but saying pi = 4 seems a bit melodramatic, and few people would accept that pi = 4 (in kinematics) is "proven," mathematically or otherwise. What he has done may be interesting, but it is no proof.

In my very unexpert opinion.

Even if Mathis is wrong on some points, I love is stuff.

[Siggy_G]

My interpretation of Mathis' pi=4 articles is that he has found what may be some real "anomalies" within the depths of NASA . If he changes pi to 4, he gets the right answer. But this is only one way to fudge the calculations. There are many other ways you could do that: who knows where the error actually lies? I think occam's razor would suggest that perhaps we have an assumption or two that is in error here? Or perhaps it is some (claimed) "measurement" that is in error?

Exactly - and well put. There are several sources of error, and I don't even know if they have done experiments and calculations related to whether triboelectric effects have an overall push or drag on the movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelect ... spacecraft

Aircraft flying in weather will develop a static charge from air friction on the airframe.

Depending on which charge the missile frame gets, and depending on any charges in atmosphere layers (say ionosphere), that alone could have a contributing effect on the missile's long travel. The molecule density decreases in height, so if charges between the missile frame and ionosphere are opposite, I believe that could cause a contributing push upwards (more opposite charge at lower altitude, less opposite charge at higher altitude). But I don't have any definite experiments to refer to yet.

[SleestackVII]

There was a recent article found on Ex Falso regarding this topic.

I have written a reply with links to the original critique and the appropriate Mathis papers at:

http://sagacityssentinel.wordpress.com/

I hope that Miles Mathis' readers will take a look.

[Siggy_G]

So, again, it seems it boils down to how one choose to interpret a line or a curve within a coordinate system. That is, the subdivision of a line or a curve.

Just take a look at a diagonal line. Do you interpret the length of this diagonal line to be its length along the X-axis + its length of its Y-axis? Mathis would. But according to Pythagoras and any simple measurement, this wouldn't give a correct result. Do you interpret the length or circumference of a curve (circle sector) to be its length along its X-axis + its length along its Y+axis? Mathis would. But according to vector math and any simple measurement, this wouldn't give a correct result.

Mathis seems to be translating resultant acceleration along two axi to be the numeric sum of both, but it isn't. Each axis is a composition or projection from two perpendicular directions, but the resultant isn't the numeric sum of both.

(The formula for a hypotenuse is A^2 + B^2 = C^2. --> C = squareroot(A^2+B^2) ... not A+B.
Simple values: 3^2 + 4^2 = C^2 --> C = squareroot(9+16) --> C = 5 ... as opposed to C = 3 + 4 = 7.
Draw a figure and measure...)

I should also add that Mathis seems to be mixing this up with integrals. The point of reducing the width of partitions towards zero, is to reach an accurate value for the area underneath a graph. It's not about the surface/length of the graph.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral#Introduction )

[webolife]

I'm following this dialogue cautiously, as I have many questions about Mathis' work, but think Mathis has some fundamental insights that are needed to counter the aimless wanderings of current physics.

Siggy, Mathis has the vector math correct, I think you are the one mistaken on this one. I think you are making the same error addressed earlier, of viewing the curves and chords as if no time element were involved. The resultant vector of vector addition isn't described by a rt. triangle hypotenuse. Vectors A + B always add to vector C, if you will. If two nearly opposite vectors are added together, for example, the resultant vector is nearly zero. It's a directional and temporal quantiy. Vector addition is geometric, not algebraic, so Pythagoras's theorem doesn't apply in the way you attempted.

[Siggy_G]

Vectors A + B always add to vector C, if you will.

Yes, but the magnitude of hypotenuse/resultant vector C is still not the numeric sum of A + B, as I've said. That would only be the case if two forces (A and B) act along the same direction. For a triangle scenario, that is clearly not the case. Vectors are added according to triangle law. My example with Pythagoras was first of all a simple illustration of the length differences in a triangle, and is also related to decomposition of a vector. The sum of any two sides is greater than the third. For vector magnitudes in a coordinate system you'll use triogonometry where direction and relative angles (cos, sin, tan) are of significance.

Here's an illustration. Notice that the resultant vector (r) is not the sum of the x and y axi:

http://www.phys.uwosh.edu/rioux/physlet ... ics_6.html

And see example 2 here, where Pythagoras theorem is applied:

http://www.math10.com/en/geometry/vecto ... ctors.html

[webolife]

I understand and agree, but I'm not sure that's what Mathis was doing...

[borut]

siggy...i hope i understand your problem correctly....think of this example:

You draw a circle on a paper. Can you represent exact properties of movement and energy needed to draw a circle with that representation ?

So if may question is.. how much work have i put in drawing it ?...you can see where i am going?

[Marnee]

I don't understand. So if I take an hour to draw a circle pi will be different than if I take 2 seconds to draw a circle? That can't be right!

Circumference has a definition. Using that definition we find a ratio between the circumference and the radius. That is what is pi. Mathis has invented some other ratio. Pi still holds by definition.

What am I missing?

[webolife]

Marnee, the issue for you is that you are drawing a 2-d representation of an imaginary object, a concept, a circle.
What Mathis is describing is orbital dynamics, a 3-d system involving an object with angular momentum being influenced by an "outside" force, drawing the object into an elliptical path about a center, whose vector quantities also affect the object's motion. The vectors involved in such an analysis involve mas, time, motion, force, and energy in as much as we are able to quantify them. This argument, which still has me [a science and math teacher] a little stumped, because the application of the vectors carries numerous assumptions [eg. Newtonian inertia, the nature of the outside force, the origin and affect of the object's own kinetic energy, etc., the nature of "time", how Mathis' math may be affected by the fact that the orbit is ellitical, rather than circular, etc.] If Mathis has this right, he has opened a new door into celestial mechanics that will affect space research into the future. If not, I don't think it will be because he doesn't understand the nature of Greek pi, the question of this thread.

I introduced an idea earlier, which I will put forward as a question here:
Does the 3-d [surface area/central area =4] version of pi have any relationship to Mathis calculations, or is this just a coincidence?

[borut]

I don't understand. So if I take an hour to draw a circle pi will be different than if I take 2 seconds to draw a circle? That can't be right!

Circumference has a definition. Using that definition we find a ratio between the circumference and the radius. That is what is pi. Mathis has invented some other ratio. Pi still holds by definition.

What am I missing?

1.) PI is just a number and circle is just a circle.

2.) You are missing the point.


Let me put this way: Take a large paper. VERY LARGE . Put it behind the earth. Now draw little dots that represent satellite path on that paper. Now use that circle that you draw for your calculations. What you did is you had putt your calculations out of context. You lack dimensions to represent true movement of that satellite. You deleted that dimensions just by drawing it on the paper. Now you are saying that PI on that paper is equal to PI up in orbit. NO GO.


3.) On my first example.... Take 1/4 of a circle. Now you have arc. You draw that arc with two forces: Fx and Fy. From top to bottom: FxFy(1,0) to FxFy(0,1).What you have is that in order to draw the ¼ of circle you need to change that forces. To achieve "TRUE ¼ of CIRCLE" you would need a curved force or that your forces are changed instantly. You see...you can not have instant change of force. It is limited with speed of light.(c). So yes in order to draw a circle you are zigzagging.
Note please that instant change of forces is equal to using lim where n(number of triangles) goes to infinity in Newton example. It does not go to infinity. It goes to infinity only if you lack dimensions to represent true movement. In other words it is geometry object not circular movement.

4.) But if i am not interested in movement of satellite, only in a circle then yes PI=3,14.......The only limitation is: I can not use that calculations back in an example of satellite movement just because that movement looks like circle. That what we all(including NASA) doing.

[borut]

Mathis point is:

- The PI is extinct in representing a movement of particles or object
- Object does not move circularly. We just see it that way. What that means in for orbit movement is that object is moving linearly (like Einstein in his gravity field). Rocket movement is going linear to linear, so you don’t need PI!!! Or practically you need to put 4 for PI in our (wrong) equations.
- What he meant by circular motion is no matter how in detail we go there is no part of movement that goes in curve. What I mean is there is no movement that curves while there is no force on the object .In the same time, there is limit of how fast I can change the force. In that limit there is no change of force on that object…meaning object goes linearly in that time because I can not physically change force quickly enough .

[webolife]

Borut,
Mostly what you are saying is what I understand as well, but I'm afraid your "linear" motion concept is also an idealization of like order with greek pi. All motion in the universe is curved, Newtonian inertia is entirely an ideal, never actually observed. I could make a poem out of that...

[borut]

Borut,
Mostly what you are saying is what I understand as well, but I'm afraid your "linear" motion concept is also an idealization of like order with greek pi. All motion in the universe is curved, Newtonian inertia is entirely an ideal, never actually observed. I could make a poem out of that...

1) I can not see any idealization in a simple linear motion.
2) Yes we can say that all movement is curved and in a same time that gravity is magic beyond human understanding. Question is.. can you? In this case I prefer Milles gravity and concept that our "view" is curving not motion.

There are also two interesting things by Milles:

1) All motion is caused by collision. - No curved motion can be created.
2) Bending light and explanation of . - Our view is curving

[webolife]

2. Bending light is the same thing as 'our view is curving"... 1=1 ... not a cause/effect relationship.
However, the rectilinear behavior of light is one of its most obvious aspects.
1. So orbital motion is caused by what... gravitons hitting the satelite?