Discuss conspiracies, mysteries and paranormal phenomena.
Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

josephty1
 Freshman Poster
 Posts: 86
 Joined: October 7th, 2015, 9:23 pm
 Location: North America
Post
by josephty1 » January 2nd, 2017, 10:08 pm
its not my favorite subject
Last edited by josephty1 on November 7th, 2017, 10:30 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Public school and the people in it are fake as shit. Money and workaholic culture replaces healthy social interaction.

josephty1
 Freshman Poster
 Posts: 86
 Joined: October 7th, 2015, 9:23 pm
 Location: North America
Post
by josephty1 » January 2nd, 2017, 10:10 pm
The Extinction of π
by Miles Mathis
byebye π
If you get lost at any point in this paper
you may go to the short version
First posted September 9, 2008
Abstract: I show that in all kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static or geometric situations. I am analyzing the equivalent of an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. I will also remind you this is not just a theory: it has been indicated by many mainstream experiments, including rocketry tests and quantum experiments (see links below).
[September 24, 2016: There is now a simple experiment posted on youtube by a Dutch engineer, one of my readers, showing pi=4 when motion is involved. To go with the arrival of that experiment, I have published another short paper on the subject, which stands as a further simplification and may be easier to penetrate than the analysis below for most people. You may also consult my recent paper on the cycloid for further clarification and simplification of the problem.]
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised this paper has ruffled feathers. It was meant to. I made my title provocative on purpose, so it is no wonder it has succeeded in provoking. You don't promote a revolution in science with meekness, and no one has ever accused me of being meek. They have accused me of a lot of things, but never that. I saw very quickly that, beyond my main thesis, I could counter all the pidolatry on the internet with this paper, and of course I embraced that with my usual fervor.
That said, before we get started let me answer a couple of prejudices. Many readers, especially those just coming to my papers, will hit a wall at some point in this paper. No doubt many already hit that wall when they read the title. Understandably, π as 4 is a big pill to swallow. This is admittedly one of my most difficult papers to absorb. It alone is a huge red pill, and will start you on a journey far more fantastic and interesting than any Matrix movie. Beyond that, this paper cannot stand alone. It is a mistake to start with this paper. Those who do start with this paper will very likely be led to believe I am simply doing the calculus wrong. To these people, I say that it is not I who am doing the calculus wrong. It is Newton and Leibniz and Cauchy and everyone since who has been doing the calculus wrong. I have earned the right to write this paper by first writing three important papers on the foundations of the calculus. The first shows that the derivative has been defined wrongly from the beginning, and that the derivative is a constant differential over a subinterval, not a diminishing differential as we approach zero. There is no necessary approach to zero in the calculus, and the interval of the derivative is a real interval. In any particular problem, you can find the time that passes during the derivative, so nothing in the calculus is instantaneous, either. This revolutionizes QED by forbidding the point particle and bypassing all need for renormalization. The second paper proves that Newton's first eight lemmae or assumptions in the Principia are all false. Newton monitors the wrong angle in his triangle as he goes to the limit, achieving faulty conclusions about his angles, and about the value of the tangent and arc at the limit. Finally, the third paper rigorously analyzes all the historical proofs of the orbital equation a=v2/r, including the proofs of Newton and Feynman, showing they all contain fundamental errors. The current equation is shown to be false, and the equation for the orbital velocity v=2πr/t is also shown to be false. Those who don't find enough rigor or math in this paper should read those three papers before they decide this is all too big a leap. I cannot rederive all my proofs in each paper, or restate all my arguments, so I am afraid more reading is due for those who really wish to be convinced. This paper cannot stand without the historical rewrite contained in those papers, and I would be the first to admit it.
[Added December 10, 2012: after an email from a reader concerning the Taxicab geometry, it dawned on me that Hilbert's metric is basically equivalent to my "metric" in this paper. In Hilbert's metric, π also equals 4! And it equals 4 for the same basic reason π equals 4 in this paper: my "limit" is approached in the same way his is. See below, where I show the approach to the limit using circle geometry. Well, Hilbert uses the same sort of analysis. Only difference is, I dig a bit deeper into the kinematics, showing the real cause of the problem. At Wikipedia, they say the difference in metrics is caused by singleaxis motion:
This is essentially a consequence of being forced to adhere to singleaxis movement: when following the Manhattan metric, one cannot move diagonally (in more than one axis simultaneously).
But that isn't the cause. The cause is the motion itself. The motion brings the time variable into play, which adds another degree of freedom to the equations. You may now consider the fact that contemporary physicists often use the Manhattan distance or metric when they get in a jam, especially at the quantum level. The Manhattan metric is the same as Taxicab geometry. And you can now understand why using this metric helps them: as I show in this paper, standard geometry fails because it fails to include the time variable explicitly, which fouls up the math and then the physics. In kinematic situations like the orbit, the correct math and physics includes the analysis I provide in this paper, in which π=4. And this means that all the hotheads on the internet going ape over my paper now have to take on Hilbert as well. I don't esteem Hilbert and never have, but in this case having him as an ally is a considerable boost. The mainstream esteems him, often more than Einstein or Newton, it would seem. So if my proposing π=4 automatically qualifies me as a crank or crackpot, these critics will have to explain why the same does not apply to Hilbert. Is Hilbert a crackpot for proposing that π=4?
Also of considerable interest is the fact that in Taxicab geometry, the circumference is 8r, as I show in this paper. Furthermore, all this also connects to my earlier corrections to a=v2/r, where I show that the denominator should be 2r rather than r. The same thing would be found in Taxicab geometry, by extending the equations just beyond where Hilbert took them. To read more on this, you may now consult my latest paper, where I extend my comments of this section and offer some more diagrams and animations, including a video on youtube produced by Caltech.]
[Addendum April 2014. Another reader has now helped me add to this proof, since she has reminded me that the arc of a cycloid is also 8r. That is, in the cycloid, π is replaced by 4, just as in the Manhattan metric. I don't know why I didn't think to include this before, since it is so obvious. We should have always asked more persistently why the arc of the cycloid is 8r while the circumference is 2πr. As a matter of kinematics, it makes no sense. The same point draws both, so why the 21% miss? I will be told that it is because with the circumference, the circle is not moving along an xaxis, but with the cycloid, it is. It is the difference between a rolling circle and a nonrolling circle. It is this lateral movement that adds the 21%. But whoever is telling me this is missing a very important point: in the kinematic circle I am talking about, the circle is also rolling. If you are in an orbit, for instance, the circle is not moving laterally, but a point on the circle is moving. The circle is rolling in place, and it is moving exactly like the point in the cycloid. Therefore, we see it is not the lateral motion that adds the 21%, it is the rolling alone. A static circle and a circle drawn by motion are not the same. The number π works only on the given static circle, in which there is no motion, no time, and no drawing. Any realworld circle drawn in time by a real object cannot be described with π.
If we study the generation of the cycloid closely, we find more evidence of this, since the arc of the cycloid isn't some sort of integration of the circumference with the distance rolled. It can't be, because some point on the circle is always contiguous with the flat surface. We would have to slide the circle in order to add any of the xdistance traveled. What is actually happening is that with the cycloid, the xtoy integration of distances is explicitly including time, as you see here:
In that integral, we have three variables or functions: x, y, and t. Study the second and third lines of the math, where we are explicitly following the value of t. It is not the sine or cosine of x or y we are following, it is the cosine and then sine of t. In that integration, we have three degrees of freedom or a 3vector. So it is not the lateral motion that is causing the difference, it is the inclusion of time. To calculate the arc length of the cycloid, we need the integral which includes dt. But when we calculate the circumference, we don't include any dt. So the methods of calculation don't match. Despite that, we use the naive static circumference that includes π when we calculate orbits. This is illogical, since all orbits include time. They should be solved with integrals like the one above, not with the static circumference calculated from π.
You may wish to differentiate the two as I do in my long calculus paper. There I differentiate between length and distance. A length is a given parameter that does not include motion or time. It is geometric only. But a distance is a length traveled in some real time, so it requires motion. A length is not kinematic, while a distance is. The circumference 2πr is a length. The circumference 8r is a distance.]
more:
http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html
Public school and the people in it are fake as shit. Money and workaholic culture replaces healthy social interaction.

gravity25x
 Freshman Poster
 Posts: 127
 Joined: December 9th, 2016, 8:49 pm
Post
by gravity25x » January 3rd, 2017, 2:16 am
Well I never really paid attention beyond Algebra 1 and just memorized how to do the problems (like the other 99% of people) so either way I'm good.

Cornfed
 Elite Upper Class Poster
 Posts: 6203
 Joined: August 17th, 2012, 5:22 am
Post
by Cornfed » January 3rd, 2017, 2:35 am
Is this a parody of something?

droid
 Elite Upper Class Poster
 Posts: 3143
 Joined: September 20th, 2013, 7:38 am
Post
by droid » January 3rd, 2017, 6:20 am
Just another unfunny attentionwhore time waster, with gems like this:
We should have always asked more persistently why the arc of the cycloid is 8r while the circumference is 2πr. As a matter of kinematics, it makes no sense. The same point draws both, so why the 21% miss? I will be told that it is because with the circumference, the circle is not moving along an xaxis, but with the cycloid, it is. It is the difference between a rolling circle and a nonrolling circle. It is this lateral movement that adds the 21%. But whoever is telling me this is missing a very important point: in the kinematic circle I am talking about, the circle is also rolling. If you are in an orbit, for instance, the circle is not moving laterally, but a point on the circle is moving. The circle is rolling in place, and it is moving exactly like the point in the cycloid. Therefore, we see it is not the lateral motion that adds the 21%, it is the rolling alone. A static circle and a circle drawn by motion are not the same. The number π works only on the given static circle, in which there is no motion, no time, and no drawing. Any realworld circle drawn in time by a real object cannot be described with π.
If we study the generation of the cycloid closely, we find more evidence of this, since the arc of the cycloid isn't some sort of integration of the circumference with the distance rolled. It can't be, because some point on the circle is always contiguous with the flat surface. We would have to slide the circle in order to add any of the xdistance traveled
What is actually happening is that with the cycloid, the xtoy integration of distances is explicitly including time, as you see here:
Flatearthers, Noforestson earth, and all these other time wasters should be publicly tarred and feathered, seriously
1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?

gravity25x
 Freshman Poster
 Posts: 127
 Joined: December 9th, 2016, 8:49 pm
Post
by gravity25x » January 3rd, 2017, 6:47 am
droid wrote:Just another unfunny attentionwhore time waster, with gems like this:
We should have always asked more persistently why the arc of the cycloid is 8r while the circumference is 2πr. As a matter of kinematics, it makes no sense. The same point draws both, so why the 21% miss? I will be told that it is because with the circumference, the circle is not moving along an xaxis, but with the cycloid, it is. It is the difference between a rolling circle and a nonrolling circle. It is this lateral movement that adds the 21%. But whoever is telling me this is missing a very important point: in the kinematic circle I am talking about, the circle is also rolling. If you are in an orbit, for instance, the circle is not moving laterally, but a point on the circle is moving. The circle is rolling in place, and it is moving exactly like the point in the cycloid. Therefore, we see it is not the lateral motion that adds the 21%, it is the rolling alone. A static circle and a circle drawn by motion are not the same. The number π works only on the given static circle, in which there is no motion, no time, and no drawing. Any realworld circle drawn in time by a real object cannot be described with π.
If we study the generation of the cycloid closely, we find more evidence of this, since the arc of the cycloid isn't some sort of integration of the circumference with the distance rolled. It can't be, because some point on the circle is always contiguous with the flat surface. We would have to slide the circle in order to add any of the xdistance traveled
What is actually happening is that with the cycloid, the xtoy integration of distances is explicitly including time, as you see here:
Flatearthers, Noforestson earth, and all these other time wasters should be publicly tarred and feathered, seriously
Oh the days where men (yes, only men) would get together and hunt down a politician (or other public figure) they didn't like and beat, tar, and feather him (and nothing would happen to them, since no one knew who they were, no cameras, no fingerprints, no dna..). Oh that would have been wonderful. lol


 4 Replies
 666 Views

Last post by Teal Lantern
September 13th, 2013, 4:23 am


 2 Replies
 769 Views

Last post by Jester
March 6th, 2015, 9:48 am

