Mathis and pi

[Lloyd]

Web said a long time ago in the previous post above:

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?

* I believe Mathis' answer would be that photons hitting the satellite are what curve its path. Of course, his idea of an expanding universe to account for gravity has changed last January to a spinning universe accounting for gravity [a slight improvement in my opinion]. Actually, he says a combination of gravity and charge determine orbital paths and all other motions, maybe with the exception of photons' straight-line motion. And charge is mass or force resulting from photon collisions or pressure, if I recall correctly.
* I resurrected this thread because Siggy referenced it and because there's similar discussion going on on the Mathis Interview thread on the NIAMI board.

[Lloyd]

Re: Miles Mathis Interview

post by davesmith_au » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:13 am
Now 13 pages long, I see no value in keeping this Miles Mathis topic alive. To derive the circumference of a circle by using (half) squares is, to say the least, unconventional in the extreme. To then redefine pi as a result ...

This thread will now be locked, please don't just start another in it's place. This has nothing to do with EU.

Dave Smith.
Forum Administrator.

* Mathis' theories certainly relate to EU, whether or not the issue of pi does. This thread on Mathis and pi was started a couple years ago and I replied to it yesterday before the Mathis Interview thread was locked. I don't understand why it was locked, since it's on the NIAMI board, which I thought was for discussing anything, besides religion or politics. If there's another reason for locking such threads, like needing to conserve space on the forum, or needing to limit topics or the like, that should be stated, rather than the nebulous reason that it doesn't relate to EU. Everything relates to everything. And the issue of pi and EU more so than many things.
* I agree that the discussion of pi on the locked thread was not very useful, but I think the discussion on this thread is rather excellent. So I hope this thread isn't going to be locked, just because it's about questioning pi in some situations. If people's discussions keep getting cut short, they'll soon stop coming to this forum.

[webolife]

I spoke my piece on this topic early on. Mathis' mathematic reasoning is flawed on the pi issue. The 2D value of pi [ie. the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle] is ~3.1415926... The 3D-pi [ie the ratio of the surface area to the equatorial circle area of a sphere] is indeed 4. Mathis' photon-pushing orbital dynamic is unnecssary since gravitational vectors are the simplest [most elegant] solution. If we want to consider electrical causes for gravitation, that's another topic. Now if people want to throw other arguments of Mathis out because they are flawed, let's have at it. I'm not against discussing Mathis. He presents very interesting challenges to standard mathematical analyses of physical derivatives. If some of his challenges support or are supported by electric universe themes, let's explore these. Personally I think his work does not help the cause of electric universe, but then I think that some of Cardona's work does not help the cause of electric universe either. Likely most folks around here think that the Centropic Pressure Field Theory I describe doesn't help the cause of EU. So be it. That's just me.

[Lloyd]

* Web, if EU theory seeks truth, then all of those theories that seek truth support EU theory. Not?
* I haven't well understood your centropic pressure theory yet, but, offhand, I have the impression that it may be similar to Mathis' photon theory. He calls photon pressure the charge field, so it may also explain charge. So far, I haven't heard any serious EU theory that attempts to explain charge. I believe it only starts with charge as a given, such as protons and electrons consisting of 3 subtrons each, protons having 2 positive and 1 negative subtrons and electrons having 2 negative and 1 positive subtrons. Thornhill also seems to accept attractive forces as given, whereas attraction makes no sense to me conceptually; only repulsion makes sense, as force can thus be transferred by contact, unlike attraction.
* Mathis says protons and electrons emit photons equatorially, which results in the repulsive force. He's going with universal spin to account for the gravitational force, but, it seems more reasonable to me offhand that, as photons are emitted outwardly, they also have to be exerting an inward force, like a sump pump that pumps water from the low end of a swimming pool to the high end, which then flows back down to the pump. The outward flow is repulsion and the inward flow is like gravity or attraction.

[Chromium6]

MF93: The magic and mystery of "pi"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcIbCZR0HbU

Some more on Rational Trig:
UHG40: Rational trigonometry in three dimensions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuaInpbbsg4
UHG39: Rational trigonometry overview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVk3CpjHR4Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gATEJ3f3FBM


MF88: The decline of rigour in modern mathematics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnp4qZX9H1U

[David]

This thread on Mathis and pi was started a couple years ago and I replied to it yesterday before the Mathis Interview thread was locked. I don't understand why it was locked, since it's on the NIAMI board, which I thought was for discussing anything, besides religion or politics. If there's another reason for locking such threads, like needing to conserve space on the forum, or needing to limit topics or the like, that should be stated, rather than the nebulous reason that it doesn't relate to EU. Everything relates to everything. And the issue of pi and EU more so than many things.
* I agree that the discussion of pi on the locked thread was not very useful, but I think the discussion on this thread is rather excellent. So I hope this thread isn't going to be locked, just because it's about questioning pi in some situations. If people's discussions keep getting cut short, they'll soon stop coming to this forum.

This is a puzzling turn of events. Are we to pack up our belongings and reassemble here? That couldn’t have been the motivation for locking the thread, was it?

I suspect that Dave Smith saw all the activity surrounding the "Miles Mathis Interview" and innocently took a peek, just to see what the hullabaloo was about. When he discovered there were pi=4 theory advocates afoot, defending the idea, he was so put off and sickened by the sorry spectacle on display (myself included, but on the opposite side of the fence) that he wisely put an end to this long running ruse.

Yet, here we gather once again to discuss the pi=4 theory. Will this thread suffer a similar fate?