I see.
So which knob do I turn, then.....?
Uh-huh. Impressive !
But did you answer my question? Which knob do you turn to achieve and maintain resonance in the QEG! Wait... I know.... it's the Variac knob!
Now if we only knew which knob to turn to make it run itself......
:'(
Page 1 of N
Dibs on N passing 100 in 6 months time.
@gravock: I know how to achieve and maintain Voltage Rise by Standing Wave Resonance, which I think is what you are describing. By controlling reflections and turning phase angle knobs I can accumulate charge and bounce it back and forth in a waveguide or other resonant cavity, reinforcing itself almost like a laser, but with charge instead of light. And the QEG people had better hope that never happens there on their cluttered workbench with improper insulation, layout, routing and components. If they ever do actually generate 28 kV in a resonant, reinforcing tank circuit of the kind I think you mean, making use of VRSWR and tuned cavities, they will wind up in a world of hurt when their _wrong type_ capacitors explode or they create an arc that couples some tender flesh to the discharge from the caps while resonating. They will find out what the "near field" really means.
(They are actually operating, or trying to operate, in a very dangerous range of voltage and current. I'd rather work on a 500,000 volt electrostatic system than a 30 kV system connected back to the mains in any way, and I have considerable experience with both regimes. There is a reason that Dr. Frankenstein used those big knife-switches....)
TK,
This can be your thread, if you like. I can change the title to, "TK's Resonant Quantum Energy Generator, (TKR-QEG)" or, something of your choosing. It's up to you.
Gravock
I decided to take the first step. If you oppose this change, then I will take the thread back and rename it to it's original title of "How to Achieve and Maintain Resonance in the QEG".I don't know why you want to name any thread about me, but if you sincerely want to know how to obtain resonance in a QEG device, it's easy... it must be, if Robitaille and his crew can do it with what they are using. If you want your electrical resonance to occur at a particular frequency you match your inductances and capacitances to give you the correct frequency. The power handling requirement will determine the size and windings of the heavy inductance, and you can then select capacitance to match, remembering to use _the right kind of caps_ not motor-start capacitors. If you then want to use resonant pumping, that is, you want to drive your electrical resonance by a mechanical input of power at the same frequency as the resonance, you design your stator pole pieces and rotor shunt and their clearances and drive system appropriately. I think any competent electromechanical engineer with some experience in extreme high voltage and rapidly rotating assemblies should be able to carry out the necessary calculations, and a competent machinist/model builder could put it together in a week and have it demonstrating full electromechanical resonance at the desired frequency, even in a cave (suitably equipped of course) in Northern Afghanistan.
Thanks,
Gravock
Page 1 of N
Dibs on N passing 100 in 6 months time.
The Extinction of Pi (http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html)Any fourth grader with a compass, a thread, a tack, and a ruler can show that the ratio of circumference to diameter otherwise known as Pi is a lot closer to 22/7 than it is to 28/7.
On a slightly related note, Vi shows how Pi is misused (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG7vhMMXagQ) (video).
Summary: See snapshot below, of the above publication.
Gravock
Any fourth grader with a compass, a thread, a tack, and a ruler can show that the ratio of circumference to diameter otherwise known as Pi is a lot closer to 22/7 than it is to 28/7.
Any fourth grader with a compass, a thread, a tack, and a ruler can show that the ratio of circumference to diameter otherwise known as Pi is a lot closer to 22/7 than it is to 28/7.This is going to be fun!
Yes, the above quote is true for static or abstract circles, but it is not true for orbits or real circles with motion and includes a time variable. The arc of a cycloid is 8r, which pi is also replaced by 4, just as in the Manahattan metric. In orbits and circles drawn out over time, you can't compare a velocity (the diameter) to an acceleration (the circumference) because you need more information. Oddities such as this, which misses it by 27%, is one of the many reasons why things don't work out in the real world like they do on paper. Read and understand the article, then comment. Condemnation before investigation is folly, which is the mentality of a fourth grader!Pi staunchly refuses to change even for very small or very large values of pi. Using the wrong named constant in a problem and then declaring that the named constant's value has changed because that constant's value does not fit the problem belies a misunderstanding of what the word "constant" means.
Gravock
Using the wrong named constant in a problem and then declaring that the named constant's value has changed because that constant's value does not fit the problem belies a misunderstanding of what the word "constant" means.Are you saying that uniform circular motion is a worse measure of a circle than a piece of string?
Are you saying that uniform circular motion is a worse measure of a circle than a piece of string?Pi is a symbol for the ratio of circumference to diameter of a perfect circle. That ratio is a constant value. If a ratio between two quantities is a different value then one or both are not proportional to the circumference and diameter of the same perfect circle.
What is the name of the following ratio in your book?:
t_{C} / t_{D}Where:
t_{C} = Period of one revolution in uniform circular motion.
t_{D} = Period necessary to travel the diameter by a constant velocity equal in magnitude to the tangent velocity of the uniform circular motion.
Pi is a symbol for the ratio of circumference to diameter of a perfect circle....but what is a perfect circle? Is it formed non-physically / abstractly on paper, or physically by inertia of a moving mass and some quasi-centripetal force?
If one travels at a constant speed then the time taken to follow one path versus another is the ratio of the lengths of the paths.Agreed. But when you measure the circumference of a perfect circle with constant tangential velocity of a moving mass and its diameter with the constant velocity of equal magnitude then you are dealing with a physical circle and the two lengths of these two different physical paths obtained by this method, refer to that physical circle ...and the ratio of these two lengths is 4.
...but what is a perfect circle? Is it formed non-physically / abstractly on paper, or physically by inertia of a moving mass and some quasi-centripetal force?A circle is a well defined geometric shape. You appear to be diving deeper and deeper into Sophistry.
These two circles are not equivalent. ...but both have circumferences and diameters that are measured differently and analyzed differently by math since the former does not contain a time variable and the latter does.
The very fact that the ratio value that you obtain does not correspond to the defined ratio of the length of a circle's circumference to its diameter tells you that by definition what you are measuring is not the ratio of the length of some circle's circumference to its diameter.
Agreed. But when you measure the circumference of a perfect circle with constant tangential velocity of a moving mass and its diameter with the constant velocity of equal magnitude then you are dealing with a physical circle and the two lengths of these two different physical paths obtained by this method, refer to that physical circle ...and the ratio of these two lengths is 4.
You will find Pi defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter everywhere from Wolfram-Alpha to Mirriam-Webster.
When you measure a non-physical circle (e.g. abstract circle on paper) then the ratio of its circumference to diameter is 3.1415...
If you limit your definition of Π as the ratio of circumference to diameter in abstract circles only, then you are only correct.
A circle is a well defined geometric shape.It is - in abstract geometry devoid of time.
You appear to be diving deeper and deeper into Sophistry.Instead of writing that borderline Ad Hominem remark your time would be better spent proving that abstract timeless circles are equivalent to physical circles.
The very fact that the ratio value that you obtain does not correspond to the defined ratio of the length of a circle's circumference to its diameter tells you that by definition what you are measuring is not the ratio of the length of some circle's circumference to its diameter.Not necessarily. This discrepancy can also be an indication that physical circles are not the same as non-physical circles.
You will find Pi defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter everywhere from Wolfram-Alpha to Mirriam-Webster.Abstract geometric circles - yes. Not physical ones.
It is - in abstract geometry devoid of time.Begin with the definition: Pi is the ratio of a given circle's circumference to its diameter.
Instead of writing that borderline Ad Hominem remark your time would be better spent proving that abstract timeless circles are equivalent to physical circles.
Not necessarily. This discrepancy can also be an indication that physical circles and non-physical circles are not the same.
Abstract geometric circles - yes. Not physical ones.
Begin with the definition: Pi is the ratio of a given circle's circumference to its diameter.I agree with that definition, but not all distance has to be measured by a flexible string.
Take the ratio that you propose represents the ratio of a given circle's circumference to that circle's diameter of your proposed "circle".Yes and my proposed circle is formed as described here (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/).
You state that your comparison fails on a gross level: by over 20%. Ergo your interpretation of your "circle's" dimensions fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles.That conclusion is non-sequitur.
You are free to set about trying to prove all that: your "circle" that according to your evaluation grossly fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles is really a circle, and your measurement of the circumference is correct, and your measurement of the diameter is correct. Good luck with all that.That's why I wrote it would be fun.
Straw man: No one has stated that that "all distance has to be measured by a flexible string.Quote
Quote from: MarkE on May 17, 2014, 07:48:11 PM
Begin with the definition: Pi is the ratio of a given circle's circumference to its diameter.
I agree with that definition, but not all distance has to be measured by a flexible string.
Quote from: MarkE on May 17, 2014, 07:48:11 PM
Take the ratio that you propose represents the ratio of a given circle's circumference to that circle's diameter of your proposed "circle".
Quote
Quote from: MarkE on May 17, 2014, 07:48:11 PM
You state that your comparison fails on a gross level: by over 20%. Ergo your interpretation of your "circle's" dimensions fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles.
That conclusion is non-sequitur.
You make the claim that there are "physical circles" that are somehow different than "abstract geometric circles" without first establishing that these so called "physical circles" meet the criteria for any circle. You then by your own account show that these "physical circles" fail to satisfy a basic property of circles: that the circumference and the diameter satisfy an established ratio.
This disparity just proves that physical circles have different properties from abstract geometric circles.
Does your "circle" satisfy the relation that all points on the circumference are equidistant from the center? Does it satisfy the relation that the circumference is a closed path? That is for you to show. The fact that you state that the ratio of the length of the circumference and the diameter doesn't satisfy the established ratio for such an object strongly suggests that the points on your circumference are not all equidistant from the center.
Instead of vaguely attacking my "interpretation" maybe you could point out concrete errors in my measurements of the circumference of my circle.
Then have at it. It is up to you.Quote
Quote from: MarkE on May 17, 2014, 07:48:11 PM
You are free to set about trying to prove all that: your "circle" that according to your evaluation grossly fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles is really a circle, and your measurement of the circumference is correct, and your measurement of the diameter is correct. Good luck with all that.
That's why I wrote it would be fun.
You make the extraordinary claim of the existence of some "physical circle" that is a circle yet fails to satisfy a basic property of circles. You can prove your outlandish claim or not.
Instead of brushing it off, try to prove that my circle is not a real circle or that your abstract geometric circle and my physical circle are the same, because if they are not then you cannot expect them to have the same properties and use that disparity to prove/disprove anything.
Your quote says nothing about circles.
Failure to distinguish between abstract geometric circles and physical circles led to the Explorer 1 anomaly.
"The launch of Explorer 1 in 1958, presided over by none other than Werner von Braun, provided an orbit that was more than 1/3 higher than expected. The orbit was so much larger that the rocket was at first thought to be lost. The expected signal was late, not by a few seconds, but by 12 minutes. Later that decade, Explorers 3 and 4 confirmed the anomaly, as did the three navy rockets of the Vanguard program."
Since then that 27% error was buried in a constant.That is an assertion of yours that whether or not it is correct, you have done nothing to connect it to your claim of these "physical circles".
An unexpected orbit means that the path taken did not match the path expected based on the presumed forces. The author of your citation admits in that citation that he merely assumes that NASA took up his odd idea.
You can read more about it here or just brush it off as an inconvenient piece of data that does not fit your preconceptions.
Failure to distinguish between abstract geometric circles and physical circles led to the Explorer 1 anomaly.
"The launch of Explorer 1 in 1958, presided over by none other than Werner von Braun, provided an orbit that was more than 1/3 higher than expected. The orbit was so much larger that the rocket was at first thought to be lost. The expected signal was late, not by a few seconds, but by 12 minutes. Later that decade, Explorers 3 and 4 confirmed the anomaly, as did the three navy rockets of the Vanguard program."
Straw man: No one has stated that that "all distance has to be measured by a flexible string.
If you read about Von Braun, and claim to know anything about orbital mechanics, you would know that a higher orbit is caused by a higher velocity. This is basic orbital mechanics 101. So, all that happened was that the vehicle that carried Explorer 1 went a bit faster than required. They engineered in a fudge factor to ensure that it made orbit. Orbital velocity is 17,500 mph and if you were in charge of that mission, you too would have added a bit more juice to make sure it exceeded that velocity. If you erred on the slower side, no orbit would have been achieved. The higher the orbit, the faster the vehicle needs to go.Nope. Higher orbits require _less_ velocity than lower orbits. To orbit lower, you must speed up, not slow down.
Read some books on the first rendezvous and the math required to pull that off. The craft at the lower orbit had to speed up to meet the other craft even though the other craft was behind it. You had to slow down to speed up and/or speed up to slow down.
Bill
Placing a square around the circle and using the perimeter of the square as a base to measure the distance instead of a flexible string gives Pi = 4. A perimeter is defined as the length of an enclosing curve. Also, a perfect circle will be inscribed within, by rotating the surrounding square 1/4. This example is known as Taxicab geometry or rectilinear distance.It's known as "taxicab geometry" because taxis are confined to streets, usually, and can only travel rectilinearly. Also, it's a guess but probably true that many taxicab drivers have not been exposed to two years of calculus study and problem solving in institutes of higher education.
Gravock
Placing a square around the circle and using the perimeter of the square as a base to measure the distance instead of a flexible string gives Pi = 4. A perimeter is defined as the length of an enclosing curve. Also, a perfect circle will be inscribed within, by rotating the surrounding square 1/4. This example is known as Taxicab geometry or rectilinear distance.Only if the work is done wrong does it come out to four. Only at the eight points on the circumference that lie on arcs that are multiples of pi/4 radians are the the insets from the inscribed box equidistant in X and in Y. In all other locations the distances are unequal, invalidating the premise that the perimeter length of each successive approximation remains the same as that of the original inscribed square.
Gravock
It's known as "taxicab geometry" because taxis are confined to streets, usually, and can only travel rectilinearly. Also, it's a guess but probably true that many taxicab drivers have not been exposed to two years of calculus study and problem solving in institutes of higher education.
This does NOT mean that "pi=4", since pi is not defined that way in the first place, and I think you are just being silly.
Only if the work is done wrong does it come out to four. Only at the eight points on the circumference that lie on arcs that are multiples of pi/4 radians are the the insets from the inscribed box equidistant in X and in Y. In all other locations the distances are unequal, invalidating the premise that the perimeter length of each successive approximation remains the same as that of the original inscribed square.
I must say, your post is not a scientific argument and is totally meaningless.
Gravock
It's known as "taxicab geometry" because taxis are confined to streets, usually, and can only travel rectilinearly.True, or not true? Do you dispute this statement of mine? Please provide evidence for your disputation, since you are concerned with "scientific arguments" and "meanings".
Also, it's a guess but probably true that many taxicab drivers have not been exposed to two years of calculus study and problem solving in institutes of higher education.True, or not true? Do you dispute this statement of mine? Please provide evidence for your disputation, since you are concerned with "scientific arguments" and "meanings".
This does NOT mean that "pi=4", since pi is not defined that way in the first placeTrue, or not true?
... and I think you are just being silly.
It's known as "taxicab geometry" because taxis are confined to streets, usually, and can only travel rectilinearly.
Also, it's a guess but probably true that many taxicab drivers have not been exposed to two years of calculus study and problem solving in institutes of higher education.
This does NOT mean that "pi=4", since pi is not defined that way in the first place, and I think you are just being silly.
How taxis are confined to streets is not a scientific argument against Pi = 4 in circles with a time variable.Let's try it with a "time variable" then. Draw a big circle and a square around it. You walk around the square and I'll walk around the circle, at the same speed. Who will walk completely around, first?
The level of education of many taxicab drivers is totally off-topic and is not a scientific argument against the "taxicab geometry".
It has already been established that Pi = 3.14... for abstract geometry circles with no time variable. However, what you fail to realize, is Pi = 4 for real circles with time variables. Also, you asserting I am being silly isn't a scientific argument either, and is nothing more than a psychological projection.
Gravock
Let's try it with a "time variable" then. Draw a big circle and a square around it. You walk around the square and I'll walk around the circle, at the same speed. Who will walk completely around, first?
(And I note that you did not provide a single credible reference or support for your position. Nor did you provide an example of problem-solving using your value.)
If there's an increase in X, then there will be a proportional decrease in Y which maintains the same distances and perimeter. Also, you're trying to derive 3.14 as Pi in this example by using radians where a full circle equals 2 * 3.14 or Tau. This is no different than me saying 2 * 4 = 8 to represent the eight points on the circumference that lie on arcs that are multiples of 4/4 or 1.For any finite path approximation by turning the corners instead of traveling from vertex to vertex that are closest to the circumference you artificially increase your travel distance. For every approach towards the circumference you make a matching turn away from it. If you make enough and small enough squares subtracting the area they consume from the inset square will give you an approximation of the circle's area. The more and smaller squares you use, the better the area approximation. Because you keep turning away from the circumference your estimate of the perimeter length never improves. If the method took the diagonal paths then the path approximation would improve with more and smaller squares and eventually approach Pi*D.
There's a reason why the taxicab geometry correctly represents the true value of Pi being four in a real circle with a time variable.
Gravock
You conveniently left out the first four steps. We'll start walking at the same speed in the fifth tile or the fifth step in the illustration below, and we'll finish at the same time.TinselKoala wins every time following the circular path. You keep turning away from the perimeter and have to go back over and over again increasing your travel distance to 4/Pi Tinsel Koala's.
In addition to this, I have provided references and support for my position. Your disagreement with those references doesn't make them not credible!
Gravock
For any finite path approximation by turning the corners instead of traveling from vertex to vertex that are closest to the circumference you artificially increase your travel distance. For every approach towards the circumference you make a matching turn away from it. If you make enough and small enough squares subtracting the area they consume from the inset square will give you an approximation of the circle's area. The more and smaller squares you use, the better the area approximation. Because you keep turning away from the circumference your estimate of the perimeter length never improves. If the method took the diagonal paths then the path approximation would improve with more and smaller squares and eventually approach Pi*D.
TinselKoala wins every time following the circular path. You keep turning away from the perimeter and have to go back over and over again increasing your travel distance to 4/Pi Tinsel Koala's.
TK does not win, for the square will be as uniform as the circle itself at the planck length.No, making the diversionary steps forced by the squares method you have specified smaller increases the number of diversionary steps. By your own assertion, the length of such a path remains stuck at 4*D. The path length of the circumference is Pi*D which has been approximated to eight digits as 3.1415953.
Gravock
No, making the diversionary steps forced by the squares method you have specified smaller increases the number of diversionary steps. By your own assertion, the length of such a path remains stuck at 4*D. The path length of the circumference is Pi*D which has been approximated to eight digits as 3.1415953.
No, because a real circle with a time variable will have a path length which is also stuck at 4*D at the planck scale due to traversing through space-time in a zig-zag or rectilinear motion. The path length of the circumference is 4*D with no approximation.If you want to keep ignoring reality, you are free to do so.
Gravock
If you want to keep ignoring reality, you are free to do so.
You conveniently left out the first four steps. We'll start walking at the same speed in the fifth tile or the fifth step in the illustration below, and we'll finish at the same time.
In addition to this, references and support for my position has been provided. Your disagreement with those references doesn't make them not credible! You have only asserted those references aren't credible without providing one scientific argument against any of those references posted in this thread.
Gravock
Tile 5 or step 5 is impossible to achieve. ???
.
Again, your post is not a scientific argument.LOL, I've covered why the squares method taken to its limit converges on the area but not the circumference. And your scientific counterargument was?
Gravock
LOL, I've covered why the squares method taken to its limit converges on the area but not the circumference. And your scientific counterargument was?
In order to establish a circular path, a continuous acceleration must be centripetal: orthogonal to the instant velocity which directs it to the center of a circle.I was away today and regrettably I could not participate in the ongoing discussion about circular motion.
Look up Planck's constant - matter/energy is quantized. A circle is theoretical, there's no perfect circle in nature anywhere. A real circle with a time variable is quantized at the planck scale with a zig-zag or rectilinear circumference, just as you find with the square in the squares method. This is how there is a convergence on the rectilinear circumference at the planck scale.Look up limits. Each one of your jaunts along two edges of the approximating squares travels along one segment towards the perimeter and one away from it. Dividing into a larger quantity of smaller squares does not change the path length. It does not make the path a better approximation of the circumference. Y * X/X is still Y even for very large and very small values of X.
Edit: Also, in step two of the squaring method, we can see there are four points of the square which converge on the rectilinear circumference of the circle. In each successive step of the squaring method, more and more points converge exponentially. At the planck scale, all points will have converged on the rectilinear circumference of the circle.
Gravock
I was away today and regrettably I could not participate in the ongoing discussion about circular motion.Wrong and wrong. This is basic calculus and physics.
I just saw the statement above made by MarkE and I disagree with him that a centripetal force directed at the center of the circle depicted in Diag.4 (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/) will result in circular path without violating Newton's 1^{st} law.
This is because an orthogonal force & acceleration cannot change any velocity component that is perpendicular to it.
Invented math and physics yield nonsense answers.
This problem is germane to the discussion about Pi in kinematic circles and I invite everyone to discuss it before we return to the Pi issue.
I remind everyone that Newton 1^{st} law pertains to the innate vector of motion as well to any components of that motion.
Please study the diagram attached below *
And let's keep the discussion civil and scientific. It is OK to call attention to a Straw Man when one sees it but please do not immediately assume that it is constructed maliciously. It can be a result of misunderstanding.
Since not everyone reading this discussion might be familiar with the names of these debating fallacies please link them to their definitions at RationalWiki.org (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man)
P.S.
@TinselKoala
You might find this (http://milesmathis.com/manh.pdf) paper about Taxicab geometry enjoyable.
@TinselKoala, @MileHigh, @Farmhand
I guarantee that the problem of circular motion illustrated here (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/) will bring you many minutes (or hours) of intellectual enjoyment even if you are a practical guy that prefers knobs and molten solder. I welcome you to disagree with me since you make a good opponent.
Please begin by stating whether in your opinion Diag.3 or Diag.4 or Diag.5 (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/) depict reality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend to the diagram below ( its hi-res version is here (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138598/) ) :
V_{T}(t_{0}): Tangential velocity at time interval t_{0.}
V_{║}(t_{1}) : Velocity at the time interval t_{1} that is parallel to the tangential velocity at the previous time interval (t_{0}).
V_{┴}(t_{1}) : Velocity that is perpendicular to the velocity V_{║}(t_{1}) at the time interval t_{1}.
Example statements:
│V_{T}(t_{0})│= │V_{T}(t_{1})│= │V_{T}(t_{2})│= etc... : A statement meaning that the magnitude of all tangential velocities is equal in all time intervals t_{0}, t_{1, }t_{2}, etc...
V_{║}(t_{1}) ║ V_{T}(t_{0}): A statement meaning that velocity V_{║}(t_{1}) is parallel to velocity V_{T}(t_{0}).
V_{║}(t_{1}) < V_{T}(t_{0}): A statement meaning that the velocity V_{║}(t_{1}) is smaller than the velocity V_{T}(t_{0}).
Each one of your jaunts along two edges of the approximating squares travels along one segment towards the perimeter and one away from it. Dividing into a larger quantity of smaller squares does not change the path length.That was Gravityblock's whole point. The path length does not change with finer subdivision - only area does.
Wrong and wrong. This is basic calculus and physics.Invented math and physics yield nonsense answers.Refute my statements rigorously. Show me the error in logic or math.
QuoteWrong and wrong. This is basic calculus and physics.Invented math and physics yield nonsense answers.
Refute my statements rigorously. Show me the error in logic or math.
An argument by assertion is not the way to do it.
First of all: How can V║(t1) be smaller than the tangential velocity VT(t0) if the force acting on it was always perpendicular between t0 and t1 ?
That theory page does not show rigorously that when "the direction of the centripetal acceleration is inwards along the radius vector" then circular motion is produced - it just asserts it, like you.Refute my statements rigorously. Show me the error in logic or math.http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node6.html (http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node6.html)
An argument by assertion (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion) is not the way to do it.
First of all: How can V║(t1) be smaller than the tangential velocity VT(t0) if the force acting on it was always perpendicular between t0 and t1 ?
That was Gravityblock's whole point. The path length does not change with finer subdivision - only area does.LOL, you can enjoy yourself misstating what I have said if that pleases you.
You were supposed to be a good opponent and refute his observation that real physical circles have the same circumference as physical squares - not agree with Gravityblock.
BTW: A real physical circle must be defined by some real physical process, not an abstract one.
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node6.html (http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node6.html)http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml
That theory page does not show rigorously that when "the direction of the centripetal acceleration is inwards along the radius vector" then circular motion is produced - it just asserts it, like you.
The question how can V_{║}(t_{1}) be smaller than the tangential velocity V_{T}(t_{0}) if the force acting on it was always perpendicular between t_{0} and t_{1}, still stands unanswered.
LOL, you can enjoy yourself misstating what I have said if that pleases you.It does not please me to misstate you, but drawing conclusions from your statements and synthesizing a larger statement from several of your statements is not a misstatement. It is an acceptable way of conducting conversation. If I make an error along the way I expect you to point it out.
Gravityblock's method does not reproduce the path of travel along the circumference. ...This is the same as stating that at the limit the chord approaches the curve/arc.
The shortest path between two points is only orthogonal line segments when one of those segments is zero length. The distance following a Manhattan route between vertices on the circumference is therefore always greater than the straight line distance between the same vertices.
It does not please me to misstate you, but drawing conclusions from your statements and synthesizing a larger statement from several of your statements is not a misstatement. It is an acceptable way of conducting conversation. If I make an error along the way I expect you to point it out.LOL, no that's called making things up. If you can't win the point, just build a man of straw to slay.
Plane geometry does not involve time.
This is the same as stating that at the limit the chord approaches the curve/arc.
BTW: Note that this is a condensation and interpretation of your words and your animation - a valid debating technique, not a misstatement.
And you would be correct if all of the points on the curve/circle had the same time coordinates - like in an abstract geometric circle.
Here we go: A special pleading to "circles" that are not "circles" except when you two want them to be circles. Yet they fail tests for basic properties of circles.
But neither Gravityblock not I are analyzing abstract circles. We are analyzing real circles made by real physical processes where the points on the circle do not have the same temporal coordinates.
In such real circles, the chord does not approach the curve and this very issue is the subject of this paper (http://milesmathis.com/lemma.html).Neither you nor Gravityblock have established that your special "circles" are in fact circles.
LOL, now you don't believe first semester calculus. You are free at any time to as you say use actual facts to argue your specious and silly case.
You are welcome to prove your assertion that at the limit the chord approaches the curve/arcs created by real physical processes.
Plane geometry does not involve time.But we are not discussing abstract timeless plane geometry. You are assertions about Pi are correct in abstract time geometry.
http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml (http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml)This link you posted refers to an article describing a physical circle, created by real forces acting on a real mass. There is no avoiding the time variables in this one.
Each one of your jaunts along two edges of the approximating squares travels along one segment towards the perimeter and one away from it. Dividing into a larger quantity of smaller squares does not change the path length. It does not make the path a better approximation of the circumference.
But we are not discussing abstract timeless plane geometry. You are assertions about Pi are correct in abstract time geometry.Circles are basic constructs of plane geometry. [/quote]
Here we go back to your special pleadings of "abstract" and "physical" circles. Until such time as you can actually delineate what it is that makes a circle: "physical", distinct from textbook circles, and still qualifies them as circles, you might as well say "brominsmores".
This link you posted refers to an article describing a physical circle, created by real forces acting on a real mass. There is no avoiding the time variables in this one.
So you assert. Read it again.
That article states:
"Note that in both cases, Δv points to the center of the circle reflecting that the acceleration is also directed towards the center of the circle"
..but it is just an empty assertion.
That article does not prove that the acceleration vector and force that causes the circle lays on a line that passes through the center of the circle.
That article correctly subtracts two tangent velocity vectors. On my diagram that is V_{T}(t_{0}) - V_{T}(t_{1}) but it fails to prove that the result of this subtraction lays on a line that passes through the center of the circle.Let's see your vector math that can actually hold an object on a circular path while the accelerating force does not point radially through the center of that circle. Be sure that whatever "circle" you use satisfies the requirements: a closed path where all points on the circumference are equidistant from the center.
What proof did you or that article give that the acceleration/force vector lays on such line? What proof did you or that article give that the acceleration/force vectors do not lay on the dashed lines depicted on the diagram below that does not pass through the center ?
Here we go: A special pleading to "circles" that are not "circles" except when you two want them to be circles.I was clear from the first post about the difference between abstract circles and physical circles.
...
Neither you nor Gravityblock have established that your special "circles" are in fact circles
Yet they fail tests for basic properties of circles.They don't.
Until such time as you can actually delineate what it is that makes a circle: "physical", distinct from textbook circles, and still qualifies them as circles, you might as well say "brominsmores".A circle is a set of equidistant points on a spatial plane from the center of the circle. The difference between an abstract and physical circle is whether these points have time coordinates or not. Physical circles do and those coordinates are not the same. Time is hard to diagram and most likely that's why you are confused about the distinction.
Citing the rantings of internet cranks as reference "papers" hardly seems like a discussion of anything real.That paper is relevant because it discusses the approach of the chord to the arc in real physical circles at the limit.
LOL, now you don't believe first semester calculus.Actually I don't thing that's applicable in case of physical circles.
You are free at any time to as you say use actual facts to argue your specious and silly case.Mathis proves that the chord does not approach the arc at the limit in kinematic circles quite exhaustively with rigorous arguments. I shouldn't have to repost his paper here - a link should be sufficient.
MarkE,Which does absolutely nothing for getting the path traveled following orthogonal segments to better approximate the path length of the circumference.
The plot of a convergent sequence {a_{n}} is shown in blue in the illustration below. Visually we can see the sequence is converging to the limit 0 as n increases. Similarly, we can see the exponentially larger quantity of smaller squares in each successive squaring method is converging while the path length does not change.
Gravock
Which does absolutely nothing for getting the path traveled following orthogonal segments to better approximate the path length of the circumference.
I was clear from the first post about the difference between abstract circles and physical circles.Really? What is that difference? What qualifies a "physical circle" to be a circle and what properties may it have that are different than an "abstract circle"?
You are off in the bushes again.
Are you claiming that the circle in that article you quoted (http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml) is not a circle?
Slay those men of straw. I have stated clearly that Pi is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and the mutual claim you make with GravityLock that the ratio is numerically equal to four is patently false.
Your argument that Pi=3.14 defines a circle instead of the circle defining the Pi is putting the cart before the horse and it is a fallacy. But I thank you for sensitizing me to this line of argument reversal. I will be ready for it with other opponents.
"Those coordinates" are not the same as what? A plane has two axes. A circle is a construct of plane geometry. Be sure that your "physical circle" conforms to those requirements.
A circle is a set of equidistant points on a plane from the center of the circle. The difference between an abstract and physical circle is whether these points have time coordinates or not. Physical circles do and those coordinates are not the same.
Time is hard to diagram and most likely that's why you are confused about the distinction.Again, a circle is a construct of plane geometry. There are only two dimensions. If you cannot draw it on a piece of paper then it isn't plane geometry.
The paper is relevant because it discusses the approach of the chord to the arc in real physical circles at the limit.The paper's premise is utter and total BS. Mathis introduces the line RBD which never appears in Lemma VI. Lemma VI declares that as B approaches A that the angle subtended between B-A-D approaches zero. This is visibly obvious. As B approaches A, B rises to A and the line between B and A comes closer and closer to being parallel with the line between A and D. Ergo in the limit the slope of the line between A and B becomes tangent to the circle, parallel to the line between A and D and the subtended angle: B-A-D goes to zero. Ergo the cited article is in error.
Attack author's arguments not the author. We are beyond burning Brunos and the likes of him.
The path length isn't changing as it converges, and we can visually see this, so this is the exact path length of the circumference. The "better" approximation you speak of simply doesn't exist as you wrongly assert.Indeed the Manhattan path length does not change. Neither does it converge with the circumferential path length. The outline formed by the inner square vertices converges with the circumference. Those points are not the path.
Gravock
Indeed the Manhattan path length does not change. Neither does it converge with the circumferential path length. The outline formed by the inner square vertices converges with the circumference. Those points are not the path.
Really? What is that difference? What qualifies a "physical circle" to be a circle and what properties may it have that are different than an "abstract circle"?I already answered that directly.
You are off in the bushes again.Just answer directly "yes" or "no" instead of writing about bushes.
Slay those men of straw. I have stated clearly that Pi is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter,That's not what I am disagreeing with.
and the mutual claim you make with GravityLock that the ratio is numerically equal to four is patently false.Prove it for kinematic circles.
"Those coordinates" are not the same as what?"Not the same" as in "not identical". Not the same time coordinate for each point.
A plane has two axes. A circle is a construct of plane geometry. Be sure that your "physical circle" conforms to those requirements.Again, a circle is a construct of plane geometry. There are only two dimensions. If you cannot draw it on a piece of paper then it isn't plane geometry.In abstract geometry - yes. All of the points belonging to an abstract geometric figure exist at the same instance in time, so the time can be disregarded.
The paper's premise is utter and total BS.Did you pay attention which limit is reached first?
Indeed the Manhattan path length does not change. Neither does it converge with the circumferential path length. The outline formed by the inner square vertices converges with the circumference. Those points are not the path.That is the correct analysis for abstract timeless circles only. It should be added that the Manhattan area converges to the area of the abstract circle, too.
That is the correct analysis for abstract timeless circles only. It should be added that the Manhattan area converges to the area of the abstract circle, too.
@Gravityblock
MarkE is correct that the Manhattan path does not converge with the circumference of an abstract timeless circle at the limit. In an abstract circle, the chords (or hypotenuses) converge with the circle/arc - not the catheti of the right triangle. Please remember that when you discuss this issue with him or he will eat you alive.
Again, we can visually see in each successive squaring method the number of inner square vertices are also exponentially increasing around the circumference, and at the planck length, the inner square vertices will be at all points on the rectilinear circumference of the circle itself.That is both true and irrelevant. Since we can connect the inner vertices with chords, as the number of chords tends towards a large number, such as 1/lP, all the vertices being on the circumference, the chords will closely approximate the path of the circumference. If they did not, then the area approximation established by those vertices would not match the area of the circle. Ergo the path formed by taking a straight line between those vertices closely approximates the true circumferential path length. Since that path length converges towards ~3.1415953 and not 4.0, the claim that the sum of 1/lP diversions from the circumference and back matches the path length of the circumference fails.
Gravock
That is both true and irrelevant. Since we can connect the inner vertices with chords, as the number of chords tends towards a large number, such as 1/lP, all the vertices being on the circumference, the chords will closely approximate the path of the circumference. If they did not, then the area approximation established by those vertices would not match the area of the circle. Ergo the path formed by taking a straight line between those vertices closely approximates the true circumferential path length. Since that path length converges towards ~3.1415953 and not 4.0, the claim that the sum of 1/lP diversions from the circumference and back matches the path length of the circumference fails.
I already answered that directly.I have yet to see any such description. If you think you have provided one kindly point at the post that provides it.
Once again you misstate what I have said. Pi is a defined relationship. The value of that relationship has been reliably approximated to eight decimal digits as: ~3.1415953. I have said that a geometric object that purports to have a circumference to diameter ratio that does not conform within the measured and/or calculated error bands to a correspondingly precise expression of Pi, then the the object fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles. This tortured idea that an object that fails to demonstrate a circumference to diameter ratio in close accord with a reliably approximated value of Pi is completely silly. How long do you two intend to keep this nonsense up?
Just answer directly "yes" or "no" instead of writing about bushes.
That's not what I am disagreeing with.
You have also stated that if Pi so defined is not 3.14 then the circle fails to have the property of the circle that you are familiar with and because of that is not a real circle.
You also disqualified a physical circle as a circle because physical circle is not a two-dimensional figure. These two are not Straw Men.
Even the form of the question is silly.
I asked you whether that circle in the article (http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml) you quoted qualified as a circle and if not then what is it in your opinion. I still have not received a direct answer.
Prove it for kinematic circles.What is a kinematic circle?
"Not the same" as in "not identical". Not the same time coordinate for each point.Time is irrelevant to plane geometry.
In abstract geometry - yes. All of the points belonging to an abstract geometric figure exist at the same instance in time, so the time can be disregarded.Time never entered. It is not a matter of disregarding something that is not significant. Time plays no part.
In physics time cannot be disregarded and a physical circle is not a strictly 2D object.Kindly provide an academic link that identifies and describes one of these time dependent "physical circles".
No, the inner vertices at the planck length can not be connected with chords in a real circle with a time variable. By connecting the inner vertices at the planck length with chords, then you are saying matter moves in a continuous motion and not in discrete jumps.A plane geometry object has nothing to do with time. Plane geometry is a field of mathematics. If you want to play: "You can't do XYZ in the physical world" then you are already stuck with much bigger problems than whether chords can be mapped between presumed squares with presumed vertices at static positions in space.
Gravock
Matter doesn't move in a continuous motion, it moves in discrete jumps at the planck length. When the squaring method reaches the planck length, the inner square vertices will be at all points on the rectilinear circumference of the circle itself, which is not continuous and is made of discrete jumps. The Manhattan path does correctly simulate the time variable in real circles at the planck length!That's rubbish. The Manhattan path has no time element to it. It is plane geometry. How long are you going to insist on this silly game?
Edited for better clarification.
Gravock
A plane geometry object has nothing to do with time. Plane geometry is a field of mathematics. If you want to play: "You can't do XYZ in the physical world" then you are already stuck with much bigger problems than whether chords can be mapped between presumed squares with presumed vertices at static positions in space.
That's rubbish. The Manhattan path has no time element to it. It is plane geometry. How long are you going to insist on this silly game?
Plane geometry must also obey the laws of physics when dealing with the physical world. In other words, if you want to use geometry to analyse the motion of a physical object, then a circle should be drawn in discrete jumps to represent the discrete jumps in the physical world. If the physical world says matter moves in discrete jumps at the planck scale, then the geometry must correctly represent this. If not, then you are using geometry to break the laws of physics. Now, if you're analysing an abstract circle with no time variable, then you are free to show a continuous motion by connecting the inner vertices with chords to show a continuous motion. However, this is not the case for a real circle with a time variable.That is some really tortured boot strapping. You have as far as I know been arguing that Pi = 4 based on the plane geometry of a circle. The behaviors of a circle do not change because of how you might want to apply a circle in a model or an experiment.
Gravock
The Manhattan path does have a time element to it when we are at the planck scale. The planck time is the amount of time it takes light to move one planck length. Since we can't go beyond the planck length in the Manhattan path without breaking the laws of physics, then the planck length correctly represents the time as points in those discrete jumpsTwo dimensional geometry has no time element.
Gravock
I have yet to see any such description.The definition was in this post (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/msg403043/#msg403043).
If you think you have provided one kindly point at the post that provides it.
Once again you misstate what I have said. Pi is a defined relationship.No I do not. You are plainly stating that a circle is not a circle if the relationship of circumference to diameter is not ~3.1415953 while failing to define the circumference of a physical circle and conflating it with the circumference of an abstract circle.
The value of that relationship has been reliably approximated to eight decimal digits as: ~3.1415953. I have said that a geometric object that purports to have a circumference to diameter ratio that does not conform within the measured and/or calculated error bands to a correspondingly precise expression of Pi, then the the object fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles.This is the reversal. You are attempting to prove that circle is not a circle because it does not conform to your expected ratio of circumference to diameter.
This tortured idea that an object that fails to demonstrate a circumference to diameter ratio in close accord with a reliably approximated value of Pi is completely silly. How long do you two intend to keep this nonsense up?Silly is only your insistence on conflating the circumference of an abstract circle to a circumference of a physical circle and using the same measuring processes for both.
Circles are plane geometry objects. They exist in two dimensions. That is not my doing. That is the accepted definition.This is true of abstract circles only.
Two dimensional geometry has no time element.
Below is an illustration showing two dimensional geometry that has a time element. Each dot represents 1 meter, and the space between each dot represents one second.Plane geometry is independent of time. This has all gotten very silly.
Gravock
Did you pay attention which limit is reached first?I did not ask about Mathis. I asked about you.
Apparently among other things, Mr. Mathis did not.
Plane geometry is independent of time. This has all gotten very silly.Abstract plane geometry does not represent physical problems.
Plane geometry is independent of time. This has all gotten very silly.
The definition was in this post (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/msg403043/#msg403043).You have jumped from a "spatial plane" to an undefined space that has a time dimension. Circles are two dimensional planar objects. This has fully degenerated into a nonsense fest.
"A circle is a set of points on a spatial plane equidistant from the center of the circle. The difference between an abstract and physical circle is whether these points have time coordinates or not. Physical circles do and those coordinates are not the same" - Later you even asked me what the phrase "not the same" referred to.
A "physical circle" is some imaginary construct of yours where time has entered into plane geometry. If you can locate an academic reference that supports your idea then kindly link it. Otherwise, you are simply making up nonsense.
No I do not. You are plainly stating that a circle is not a circle if the relationship of circumference to diameter is not ~3.1415953 while failing to define the circumference of a physical circle and conflating it with the circumference of an abstract circle.
No, Pi follows the relationship of the geometric plane object known as a circle. That relationship has been quantified to great precision. A claim that some object alters that quantity by a large value is silly and specious. The proposed object by failing to conform with the known ratio fails to demonstrate a basic property of the plane geometry object known as a circle. A dog is not a kangaroo with a very small pouch.
By doing it you are letting ~3.1415953 define the circle instead of letting the Circle define the ratio between its circumference and diameter. Such reversal makes a conclusion out of the premise.
When a measurement is inconsistent with the established properties of an object, then either the object is not what is believed, or the measurements are in error. Who do you think you can sell on this silly boot strapping game of trying to redefine a circle so that you can subsequently redefine Pi? This exercise is getting beyond tedious.
I agree with you you that Pi=c/d but I disagree with you how c & d are measured physically.
It's not my expected ratio. It is a well established ratio. The burden is on you to establish that this thing you call a "physical circle" is anything other than an invented construct of yours. It is up to you to show that even though it fails to demonstrate a well established property of circles that it is in fact a circle.
This is the reversal. You are attempting to prove that circle is not a circle because it does not conform to your expected ratio of circumference to diameter.
A circle is a circle is a circle is a plane geometry object. A circular path is a trajectory that follows the plane geometry of a circle.
Silly is only your insistence on conflating the circumference of an abstract circle to a circumference of a physical circle and using the same measuring processes for both.
I will keep it up a long time if you won't answer my questions directly.
This is the definition of abstract circles only.
What is "that" in the article you quoted (http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml) ?
Prove my illustration is wrong instead of simply asserting geometry is independent of time. Is the illustration 2D? Yes it is! Does it have a time element? Yes it does! Does it correctly represent the real world and physics with time? Yes it does!Pick up a geometry primer. There is no time element in your 2D figure. The figure itself does not in any practical sense change with time. You have chosen to use a 2D figure to represent some temporal relationship.
Gravock
Pick up a geometry primer. There is no time element in your 2D figure. The figure itself does not in any practical sense change with time. You have chosen to use a 2D figure to represent some temporal relationship.
You have jumped from a "spatial plane" to an undefined space that has a time dimension. Circles are two dimensional planar objects. TThe equidistance constraint is a spatial constraint. The existence of this constraint in the definition does not preclude the existence of temporal aspect of a circle.
A "physical circle" is some imaginary construct of yours where time has entered into plane geometry. If you can locate an academic reference that supports your idea then kindly link it.Appeals to authority do not work on me.
A circular path is a trajectory that follows the plane geometry of a circle.Since you had finally given me an acceptable name to you for a physical circle. From now on I will call it a "circular path" instead of "physical circle" to make you happy.
The equidistance constraint is a spatial constraint. The existence of this constraint in the definition does not preclude the existence of temporal aspect of a circle.Plane geometry does not have anything to do with time.
Appeals to authority do not work on me.Without a reference your quirky ideas of circles that aren't circles lack foundation.
The mainstream science has been ignorant about this issue since Newton and in my eyes they deserve no respect for that.LOL, sure you lack evidence but it is the whole world of science that has been wrong for centuries. Good luck with that.
Now your problem is to show how a circular path doesn't have the identical geometry of the "abstract circles" you keep claiming that it differs from while still being circular.
I do not expect to find there a rigorous distinguishment between an abstract geometric circle and circular path.
Since you had finally given me an acceptable name to you for a physical circle. From now on I will call it a "circular path" instead of "physical circle" to make you happy.
Then you are utterly and completely wrong.
It still does not change anything, though.
I still claim that the ratio of the circumference of a "circular path" to its diameter is 4, when measured inertially.
Then once again you are completely wrong.
And I still claim that a "circular path" of a massive object is not formed by an acceleration/force that lays on lines passing through the center of this "circular path".
Yes, valid vector math might provide useful evidence. If you do it right, you should see your errors.
I guess I still owe you vector math with special attention to intervals and observation points that prove the above claim.
Mathis has been disproven. His objection to Lemma VI is highly contorted.
Mathis has already shown exhaustively that the angle ABD reaches the 90º limit before the angle BAD reaches 0º so I will not repeat that.
Experiment triumphs theory when adequate controls are in place and proper care has been taken to ensure that the observations are what they appear to be. One can mess up an experiment as easily as getting any theory wrong.
@Gravityblock.
Do you realize that this is provable empirically by some computer controlled airpucks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyZTJtAxOCI) on a smooth level surface?
Empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.
MarkE,Take any object with one or more points that are at a fixed distance from the center, and rotate that object about its center. The points remaining a fixed distance from the center by definition follow the same circular path. The path between those points around the original shape has nothing to do with the rotation of that object.
Take a square with a perimeter of 4, such as in step 2 of the illustration we have been discussing. When you rotate this square by a 1/4, do you agree a "circular path" will be inscribed within?
Gravock
Next wrap a string around circle, and cut that string where it meets the start. Now lay the string out and see how much of the perimeter of your square you can cover. Are we done with this mindless game yet?No, I've been pointing out that a circumference of a geometric circle measured by a string yields different length than circumference of a circular path measured inertially.
I agree with that definition, but not all distance has to be measured by a flexible stringStraw man: No one has stated that that "all distance has to be measured by a flexible string.
Plane geometry does not have anything to do with time.But a circular path laying on a plane does.
LOL, sure you lack evidence but it is the whole world of science that has been wrong for centuries.There is not much theoretical work done on the subject of proportions in circular path of motion because people like you summarily dismiss the difference between circular motion and an abstract geometric circle devoid of the time aspect, before even looking into the issue.
Now your problem is to show how a circular path doesn't have the identical geometry of the "abstract circles" you keep claiming that it differs from while still being circular.I don't see it as a big problem.
Then you are utterly and completely wrong.Then once again you are completely wrong.Don't repeat I'm wrong without an accompanying proof regarding this issue in circular paths of motion.
Yes, valid vector math might provide useful evidence. If you do it right, you should see your errors.My simple question to you "how can a force that is always perpendicular to the tangent velocity can change a parallel component of that velocity" is a beginning of such vector analysis.
Mathis has been disproven.Where can I read a rigorous critique of his paper ?
No, I've been pointing out that a circumference of a geometric circle measured by a string yields different length than circumference of a circular path measured inertially.There is only one kind of circle. Despite all gentle efforts to guide you and GravityBlock you insist on flunking fourth grade math. If it's a game of yours and GravityBlocks, it is a silly and tedious one.
Straw man: No one has stated that that "all distance has to be measured by a flexible string.Straw man: no such statement was made. If you object to the idea that a flexible string can be used to measure either the circumference of a circle or the perimeter of a square, then you are free to offer such an objection no matter how inane it might be.
A path is circular if it maps out to a circle. If it did the circle that the path maps out, like all circles would have a C/D ratio of a circle, which is far from 4.0.
@Gravityblock
MarkE is correct in his diagram about the measurements of a geometric timeless circle (in his diagram the string comes up short) but he is incorrect about a circular path traversed by a massive object.
In the latter the time to complete one revolution is 4 times longer than the time to traverse the diameter by velocity whose magnitude is equal to tangential velocity.This is just sad.
If you let him conflate the static situation with the dynamic one, he will be successful in refuting your postulate.
Where can I read a rigorous critique of his paper ?One particularly humorous one can be found by Googling: "Miles Pantload Mathis".
There is only one kind of circle.An abstract timeless circle - yes.
Straw man: no such statement was made. If you object to the idea that a flexible string can be used to measure either the circumference of a circle or the perimeter of a square...I quoted your own words.
An abstract timeless circle - yes.If a path does not map out a circle, then it is not a circular path.
...but a circular path of motion is something different.
Then as any fourth grader can be successfully taught you can learn that the circumference of a circle is much less than the perimeter of the square it inscribes.
I quoted your own words.
I don't object to measuring the circumference of an timeless geometric circle by a string (nor a perimeter of a geometric square).
Object all you want. Howl at the moon if you want.
I object to applying it to a circular path of motion (...or a square path). Motion should be measured with motion - not a string.
Take any object with one or more points that are at a fixed distance from the center, and rotate that object about its center. The points remaining a fixed distance from the center by definition follow the same circular path. The path between those points around the original shape has nothing to do with the rotation of that object.
Pop quiz: Take any solid object that is a close approximation to a circle: soda can, pill bottle, whatever you like. Place it on a piece of paper and carefully draw a square that the circular end of the object inscribes. Next wrap a string around circle, and cut that string where it meets the start. Now lay the string out and see how much of the perimeter of your square you can cover. Are we done with this mindless game yet?
According to your definition in the bold portion above, the square does inscribe a circular path within. Also, a circular path is a real physical circle with a time variable according to your definition. So, according to your logic and definitions, this circular path inscribed by the rotation of the square by 1/4 has a time element?Read the words again. Take whatever time that you like.
Gravock
Take any object with one or more points that are at a fixed distance from the center, and rotate that object about its center. The points remaining a fixed distance from the center by definition follow the same circular path. The path between those points around the original shape has nothing to do with the rotation of that object.
Read the words again. Take whatever time that you like.
There is no such thing as a "physical circle" distinct from a circle. A circle is a plane geometry object. It has no time dependency. Be my guest and find any academic citation that states that a circle has a time element.
Do you understand the difference between a path and motion along a path?
@Gravityblock
MarkE is correct in his diagram about the measurements of a geometric timeless circle (in his diagram the string comes up short) but he is incorrect about a circular path traversed by a massive object.
In the latter the time to complete one revolution is 4 times longer than the time to traverse the diameter by velocity whose magnitude is equal to tangential velocity.
If you let him conflate the static situation with the dynamic one, he will be successful in refuting your postulate.
In a "physical circle",This is an invention of yours.
the motion itself forms the path
This is your silly invention.
from the perimeter and the path is formed over a period of time, while the path itself is not formed by a single point or center. The path of a physical circle forms a single point, the center. In other words, it is not an instantaneous circle, thus it has both a time element and a path to measure.
In an abstract geometrical circle,This is another invention of yours. There is no such thing as either a "physical circle" or an "abstract geometrical circle" distinct from the plane geometry shape known as a "circle".
the perimeter is formed from a single point that has no time period, the center, and is without motion, and both the center and the perimeter of the abstract circle is formed instantaneously without a time element and has no path to measure. A physical circle and an abstract circle are the inverse of each other.
Gravock
Earth's orbital radius = about 149.6 million km. Duration of one full orbit is of course one sidereal year, 365.256 days or about 31,558,118 seconds.
(wikipedia).
The tangential velocity of the Earth in its orbit is 29814 meters per second, derived from v^{2}=GMs/r.
Now let us calculate.
The circumference of the orbit (assuming pi = 3.1416 and a circular orbit) is 2 x pi x 149.6 million km, or about 939.97 million km.
The tangential speed computed from the radius and the conventional value of pi is therefore 939.97 million km / 31,558,118 seconds or about 29785 meters/second.
The diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds. Curiously.... 10035553 x 3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.
Conclusion..... The value of pi, for the real figure of the Earth's orbit, taking TIME and velocity into account, must be very close to 3.1416, and not close at all to 4.
Please feel free to show a working that demonstrates otherwise.
MarkE is trying to use plane geometry, which has left the time element out in it's current form, in order to measure a physical circle that does have a time element. He tells me I can't use the Manhattan path to measure Pi = 4 in a physical circle because the Manhattan path has no time element, which I disagree with when the points are at the planck scale. However, he is doing what he said I couldn't do in plane geometry. The summation of his own logic and his own definitions are conflicted and contradictory to each other in every way.There is no time dependency of any kind in plane geometry. You keep promoting the fallacy that by making the segments smaller, that the Manhattan estimate of the circumference path length improves. It does not because for every segment, no matter how long or how short that returns to the circumference, a matching segment turns away from the circumference. Making the segments smaller inversely increases the number of segments, including all those segments that turn away from the circumference. One can easily come up with star burst patterns where the inner vertices approximate the outline of a circle better and better with more and smaller sections but where the path length does not converge towards that of the circle's circumference. Using the inane Mathis argument that you have borrowed for the Manhattan path for a star burst path, one could erroneously claim Pi = 5 or even 500. In order to converge on the length of a path each segment must point back to the curve. Alternately, applying the Manhattan path to a right triangle would lead to the bull shit conclusion that the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the sides instead of equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the sides.
Gravock
What's the matter, too much actual math? Did you "Pi=4" claimants not notice that I have proven you wrong, YET AGAIN, using a real physical circle with time element involved?
I don't agree with your calculations and your values for those calculations. For example, I can show how the orbit time is an exact lunar year of 30591067.1428570401. I can also tie it to gravity and the speed of light: G * Z or 9.80 * 30,591,067.1428570401 = 299,792,458 (speed of light). Also, your math doesn't take into account the helical orbit of earth.You are once again claiming things you are not showing. I showed my work and where I got my numbers from, remember? And I didn't use false precision either.
Gravock
MarkE,Time has nothing to do with plane geometry. It doesn't matter how many times you try and redefine mathematics or physics in some contrived style such as Mathis, you've placed yourself on the wrong end of well demonstrated facts. If this is all an exercise in performance art, you are putting on a very tedious show.
Your last few posts gave me some valuable insight into how you think. You perceive time as not being real and is a man made concept used for measurement. I don't agree! However, by knowing how you perceive things, it will allow me to have a more productive debate with you from here on out.
Gravock
Time has nothing to do with plane geometry. It doesn't matter how many times you try and redefine mathematics or physics in some contrived style such as Mathis, you've placed yourself on the wrong end of well demonstrated facts. If this is all an exercise in performance art, you are putting on a very tedious show.
A plane geometry object has nothing to do with time. Plane geometry is a field of mathematics.
You are once again claiming things you are not showing. I showed my work and where I got my numbers from, remember? And I didn't use false precision either.
You did not show where you got your numbers from. The tangential velocity in your post is not based on empirical data or a real physical measurement. How did you calculate the tangential velocity? Please provide the equation you used for this.
Gravock
Earth's orbital radius = about 149.6 million km. Duration of one full orbit is of course one sidereal year, 365.256 days or about 31,558,118 seconds.(EVERYTHING AFTER THIS POINT IS CALCULATION AS SHOWN, WITH UNITS INCLUDED.)
(wikipedia).
The tangential velocity of the Earth in its orbit is 29814 meters per second, derived from v^{2}=GMs/r. (That is, from PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS.)
Now let us calculate.
The circumference of the orbit (assuming pi = 3.1416 and a circular orbit) is 2 x pi x 149.6 million km, or about 939.97 million km.
The tangential speed computed from the radius and the conventional value of pi is therefore 939.97 million km / 31,558,118 seconds or about 29785 meters/second.
The diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds. Curiously.... 10035553 x 3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.
Conclusion..... The value of pi, for the real figure of the Earth's orbit, taking TIME and velocity into account, must be very close to 3.1416, and not close at all to 4.
Please feel free to show a working that demonstrates otherwise.
Earth's orbital radius = about 149.6 million km. Duration of one full orbit is of course one sidereal year, 365.256 days or about 31,558,118 seconds.
(wikipedia).
The tangential velocity of the Earth in its orbit is 29814 meters per second, derived from v^{2}=GMs/r.
Now let us calculate.
The circumference of the orbit (assuming pi = 3.1416 and a circular orbit) is 2 x pi x 149.6 million km, or about 939.97 million km.
The tangential speed computed from the radius and the conventional value of pi is therefore 939.97 million km / 31,558,118 seconds or about 29785 meters/second.
The diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds. Curiously.... 10035553 x 3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.
Conclusion..... The value of pi, for the real figure of the Earth's orbit, taking TIME and velocity into account, must be very close to 3.1416, and not close at all to 4.
Please feel free to show a working that demonstrates otherwise.
Zzzzzzzz.
@ All,
I do not agree with the calculations and the values used by TK. Now, pay close attention. Pi = 4 is the ratio between the Distance + Time of the circumference and the diameter. However, Pi = 3.14 is the ratio between only the distance of the circumference and the diameter. Below is the mathematical proof and it is based on Frank Znidarsic's quantum transitional speed of 1.0939 MHz meters or 1,094,000 m/s. We'll use the values in which TK has provided. Then we'll reconcile the differences between his values and the values in which I accept in a later post, assuming of course he concedes from his current positon.
According to TK's values, the diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds. Curiously.... 10035553 x 3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.
4 * 10035553 seconds = 40,142,212 seconds, and 3.1416 * 10035553 seconds = 31,527,693 seconds
40,142,212 seconds / 31,527,693 seconds = 1.27200906 or 4 / 3.14 = 1.27...
4 - 3.14 = 0.86
1.27200906 * 0.86 = 1.093927791, which is equal to the quantum transitional speed of 1.094 MHz meters or 1,094,000 m/s. The quantum transitional speed is directly tied to the Planck's constant, the fine structure constant, the speed of light, the speed of sound in the nuclear structure of the atom, etc.
The taxicab geometry is showing the distance + the Time of the circumference is 4 times longer than the distance + the Time of the diameter. MarkE is trying to eliminate "Time" by connecting the inner square vertices with chords in the squaring method of the taxicab geometry in order to get the conventional Pi of 3.14, which is the ratio of the distance only. By doing so, then he his left with only the distance of the circumference without Time. Space-Time is inseparable, and it is a shame how plane geometry in it's current form conveniently leaves Time out of the mathematical equation. This is proof that Time is real and is more than a man made concept used solely for the purpose of measurement.
Gravock
@ All,LOL. Other than the established crackpot Miles Mathis there are few who would continue to fight your many times lost battle with reality.
I do not agree with the calculations and the values used by TK. Now, pay close attention. Pi = 4 is the ratio between the Distance + Time of the circumference and the diameter. ...
Gravock
LOL. Other than the established crackpot Miles Mathis there are few who would continue to fight your many times lost battle with reality.
4 * 10035553 seconds = 40,142,212 seconds, and 3.1416 * 10035553 seconds = 31,527,693 secondsDIMENSIONLESS, since you are taking the ratio of two quantities of SECONDS.
40,142,212 seconds / 31,527,693 seconds = 1.27200906 or 4 / 3.14 = 1.27...
4 - 3.14 = 0.86Two more DIMENSIONLESS numbers, the ratio and the product of DIMENSIONLESS numbers, not to mention the FALSE PRECISION and the nonsensical subtraction of two ratios.
1.27200906 * 0.86 = 1.093927791,
which is equal to the quantum transitional speed of 1.094 MHz meters or 1,094,000 m/s.Where did these "meters per second" units come from? A DIMENSIONLESS number is NOT EQUAL to a velocity or a "MegaHertzMeters" made-up quantity.
The quantum transitional speed is directly tied to the Planck's constant, the fine structure constant, the speed of light, the speed of sound in the nuclear structure of the atom, etc.
DIMENSIONLESS, since you are taking the ratio of two quantities of SECONDS. Two more DIMENSIONLESS numbers, the ratio and the product of DIMENSIONLESS numbers, not to mention the FALSE PRECISION and the nonsensical subtraction of two ratios.Where did these "meters per second" units come from? A DIMENSIONLESS number is NOT EQUAL to a velocity or a "MegaHertzMeters" made-up quantity.
YOU FAIL at this step because your UNITS do not compute properly. "SIX" does not equal "Half a dozen EGGS". Is six o'clock equal to a six-pack of cola? That is what you are claiming here. DIMENSIONS, aka UNITS, matter and must work out algebraically just as the numbers themselves must. YOU FAIL in this.
I can make up all kinds of numbers too. If the UNITS do not work out, as they do not work out in your pretend calculation above .... they are wrong.
You are playing some pretty silly games with numbers there.
Please read my previous post. I already addressed your dimensionless crap prior to you posting this.Dimensionless crap? The DIMENSIONLESS NUMBERS came from your post, didn't they?
Gravock
Dimensionless crap? The DIMENSIONLESS NUMBERS came from your post, didn't they?
Do you now dispute the FACT that units, aka dimensions, MUST work out properly in any calculation? Let's see you give some support for THAT.
Now please show your COMPLETE calculations, as I have done, that also show the units/dimensions working out properly.
But of course you cannot.
If the photon comprises two magnetic dipoles, then the dipole in the field would, logically, be half the size of the photon. Velocity and mass have an inverse proportionate relationship. So, if the photon moves at the speed of light (C) then the velocity of the dipoles in the field would be 2C. Velocity and mass are inversely proportional. So. If the mass of the photon were given as 1, then the dipole in the field would be 0.5. If the electron comprises 3 composite dipoles from that flux, then its mass would be 0.5 for each of those three composites. And, if the proton is simply a composite of three electrons then, each vanishing charge, those quarks, would continually interact with the 'field'. This because its mass/velocity would be coincident with the mass/velocity of the dipoles in the surrounding field of strings. Which means that each of its quarks would also have a mass/velocity of 0.5. Four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the pion is 1.5 x 4 = 6. And four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the gluon is 6 x 4 = 24. The pion and the gluon only have two dimensions of volume as they manifest within a prescribed space, that string scaffold referred to in the field description. Therefore, 3 second pions, having only length and breadth is 6 x 6 x 3 = 108. And 3 gluons having only length and breadth is 24 x 24 x 3 = 1728. This gives a mass of 1837.5. Minus 1.5 for the quarks that have neither volume or mass, gives a total of 1836. Some variation of this number is, no doubt, required to accommodate the spherical shape of the dipoles, but it's complex - a 2 dimensional sphere.
Please provide a scientific rebuttal instead of asserting your opinion.Please find someone who will help you regain your lost grip on reality. Your idiocy has been disproven many times now. If you want to rave like a lunatic, then rave like a lunatic.
Gravock
Please find someone who will help you regain your lost grip on reality. Your idiocy has been disproven many times now. If you want to rave like a lunatic, then rave like a lunatic.
I see that your election is to rave. If you are not the crackpot Miles Mathis, it seems you are intent to give him a run for his money to see who might be a bigger crackpot.
Quantum Transitional Speed of 1,094,000 m/s
G*Z: 9.80 m/s^{2} * 30,585,600 seconds = 299,792,458 (speed of light)
299,792,458 m/s / 274 m/s^{2} (sun's gravitational acceleration at the surface) = 1,094,000 seconds (based on quantum transitional speed)
274 x 1094000 m/s = speed of light
1 / 3.14 = 0.318309
0.318309 * 1,094,000 m/s = 348,231 m/s (aether's linear velocity according to Ionnis Xydous)
3.14 * 348,422 m/s = 1,094,000 m/s
The aether's linear velocity is 861 times less than the speed of light or 1000 times the sound velocity in air.
Wavelength (860.48 meters) = velocity (speed of light) / frequency (348,422 Hz) <---------Quantum Transitional Velocity is hidden inside this equation.
860.48 meters / 274.8 = 3.14 meters
I will continue this later when I have more time and tie everything together. As you can see by this quick peak, the dimensionless numbers are fading away and changing into units/dimensions. Wait for it......
Gravock
I see that your election is to rave. If you are not the crackpot Miles Mathis, it seems you are intent to give him a run for his money to see who might be a bigger crackpot.
Here, have some more fun with numbers:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg5674.html
MarkE is trying to use plane geometry, which has left the time element out in it's current form,This reminds me of some crackpot I read in my 30's...can't remember who though. Wasn't Time Cube (http://www.timecube.com/) but sounds a little like him.
This reminds me of some crackpot I read in my 30's...can't remember who though. Wasn't Time Cube (http://www.timecube.com/) but sounds a little like him.
To me the word "path" always means a projection onto a plane.
This reminds me of some crackpot I read in my 30's...can't remember who though. Wasn't Time Cube (http://www.timecube.com/) but sounds a little like him.GB has posted a number of references to the established crackpot Miles Mathis. Mathis seems to be the source of GB's inspiration for posting nonsense BS. To get an idea of just what kind of hogwash that guy Mathis spills onto the www you can check: http://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/. Or you can go directly to Mathis' FB page.
To me the word "path" always means a projection onto a plane.
How many seconds are in a meter?Blue
Gravock
How many seconds are in a meter?
GravockBlue
LOL.
Light goes 300 million meters in a second, and that leads us to the answer. In one meter, there are 1/300 million seconds.
Gravock
MarkEThe red gerbil that takes a brachistochrone path wins.
In reply #152, which car wins the race? The yellow car or the green car? Or, is it a tie? Oh, maybe the blue car wins the race? Also, which car travels the greatest distance?
Gravock
How many seconds are in a meter?Wow....A Koan. Your question does not contain enough information to answer usefully.
Also, in the image below, which car wins the raceNeither since no force has been applied to them. They both stay where they are until acted on by an external force.
GB has posted a number of references to the established crackpot Miles Mathis. Mathis seems to be the source of GB's inspiration for posting nonsense BS. To get an idea of just what kind of hogwash that guy Mathis spills onto the www you can check: http://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/. Or you can go directly to Mathis' FB page.I saw your earlier mention and I looked that up. Pretty funny stuff.
Yes, Mathis' derivation of Pi = 4 is wonderful parody. GB has done what he could to try and carry on the joke well past its expiration.Especially since he also proves (perhaps inadvertently) that the pythagorean theorem can't possibly be true. Something we have something like a hundred distinct proofs for.
Especially since he also proves (perhaps inadvertently) that the pythagorean theorem can't possibly be true.
GB has posted a number of references to the established crackpot Miles Mathis. Mathis seems to be the source of GB's inspiration for posting nonsense BS. To get an idea of just what kind of hogwash that guy Mathis spills onto the www you can check: http://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/ (http://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/). Or you can go directly to Mathis' FB page.
Yes, Mathis' derivation of Pi = 4 is wonderful parody. GB has done what he could to try and carry on the joke well past its expiration.
This is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal, and is an argument by assertion with nothing to back up your false claims.Shut. The FUCK. Up.
We can draw eight steps or 64 steps or an infinity of steps, and it will not change a thing.
LOL. Now you're playing the role of a Pythagorean Theorem Truther? Are you a member of Internet Nutters for Pythagorean Truth? Have you circulated a petition demanding to investigate the conspiracy behind various proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem?QuoteQuote from: sarkeizen on Today at 02:55:12 AM
Especially since he also proves (perhaps inadvertently) that the pythagorean theorem can't possibly be true.
This is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal, and is an argument by assertion with nothing to back up your false claims.
Gravock
Mathis is not the source of my inspiration. However, logic and truth is my source for inspiration. In case you haven't noticed, I have made references to Frank Znidarsic, Ioannis Xydous, Frank Wilczek, Lane Davis in addition to Miles Mathis along with videos, references, graphs, publications, images, etc. You provide no references, and only post arguments by assertions with nothing to back up your false claims.Oooh baiting!!! It's a fun game for all on the internet. You assert that I make false claims. Where is your proof? Oopsie daisy!!!
Gravock
The joke is on you, since you couldn't predict which car would win the race. Your statement is nothing more than another psychological projection by you.Oooh, more baiting!
Gravock
Shut. The FUCK. Up.
It was actually an exercise left for the reader. Yes what I made WAS an assertion but if you had learned logic from somewhere other than the internet you would have realized that not every assertion IS an argument.
But now I guess it's on...
Are you saying that Miles Mathis use of "steps" to demonstrate that Pi=4 (Effectively this:http://jamiehubball.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tumblr_lbxrvck4pk1qbylvso1_400.png?w=549 (http://jamiehubball.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tumblr_lbxrvck4pk1qbylvso1_400.png?w=549)) is correct?Quote from: MathisWe can draw eight steps or 64 steps or an infinity of steps, and it will not change a thing.
Is this a correct way to find the length of the arc?
Also notice how I take time to get you to put your thesis in words we agree upon before I kick the living crap out of it. A habit you might want to pick up.
Oooh baiting!!! It's a fun game for all on the internet. You assert that I make false claims. Where is your proof? Oopsie daisy!!!
Oooh, more baiting!
LOL. "Pee Wee's Playhouse" went off the air but you give us this.
Is this a correct way to find the length of the arc?
Also notice how I take time to get you to put your thesis in words we agree upon before I kick the living crap out of it. A habit you might want to pick up.
Do you disagree with Mathis's statement of, "we can draw eight steps or 64 steps or an infinity of steps, and it will not change a thing? If you disagree with his statement, then please show how the perimeter changes after each step. Your method for finding the length of the arc is not applicable for a circular path with a time variable.
Al-right, then once again let me get your thesis in words before we begin, as I previously did with the car race. Do you think pi is a dimensionless constant? Also, do you think the circumference is only a length and/or only a distance in a circular path with a time element?
Gravock
My proof is your lack of references, your lack of mathematical rebuttals, and your lack of scientific rebuttals to back up your assertions.LOL. Your statements are all ... wait for it ... assertions!
Gravock
LOL. Your statements are all ... wait for it ... assertions!
LOL. "Pee Wee's Playhouse" went off the air but you give us this.
The two "wait for it" statements were not assertions, and were backed up with mathematical rebuttals.LOL. Somewhere your "mathematical rebuttals" were devoid of any math, or any actual data that supported your assertions. We all know that you are playing a game for LULZ. Do you think you are doing well?
Gravock
Another psychological projection. It's obvious you try to bury your posts behind a bunch of spam when the debate isn't going in your favour.Debate? Where is the debate? You deny the Pythagorean Theorem.
Gravock
Is this a correct way to find the length of the arc?Just pointing out that you have avoided answering my question but of course you will demand that I answer yours, then perhaps lie a little or pretend that you have. Is there a reason that the deliberately ignorant all act this way?
Do you disagree with Mathis's statement of, "we can draw eight steps or 64 steps or an infinity of steps, and it will not change a thing?"Yes. In the specific sense that it is meaningful to the problem at hand - which is measuring the arc. You could apply the identical principle to the hypotenuse and end up with a contradiction to the pythagorean theorem. However since we know the pythagorean theorem to be true by other means we know that this can not be a correct measure. QED.
Your method for finding the length of the arc is not applicable for a circular path with a time variable.At what point did I mention "my method". I'm just saying that Mathis could have his head cut off and do math nearly as well as he currently does.
Al-right, then once again let me get your thesis in words before we begin, as I previously did with the car race.Actually you didn't. You didn't explain either question well and you didn't answer my questions. Go ahead and look. Nope. At no point did you find out what I think about the actual problem you were positing. Do you usually delude yourself like this?
Do you think pi is a dimensionless constant?Define "dimensionless constant" using only the lemmas of ZF(C).
LOL. Somewhere your "mathematical rebuttals" were devoid of any math, or any actual data that supported your assertions. We all know that you are playing a game for LULZ. Do you think you are doing well?
Just pointing out that you have avoided answering my question but of course you will demand that I answer yours, then perhaps lie a little or pretend that you have.
Do you disagree with Mathis's statement of, "we can draw eight steps or 64 steps or an infinity of steps, and it will not change a thing? If you disagree with his statement, then please show how the perimeter changes after each step. Your method for finding the length of the arc is not applicable for a circular path with a time variable.
GravockYes. In the specific sense that it is meaningful to the problem at hand - which is measuring the arc. You could apply the identical principle to the hypotenuse and end up with a contradiction to the pythagorean theorem. However since we know the pythagorean theorem to be true by other means we know that this can not be a correct measure. QED.
Define "dimensionless constant" using only the lemmas of ZF(C).
I showed mathematically how those numbers were not dimensionless as TK wrongly asserted, and I also provided actual data and mathematics to where those numbers came from in order to back up my statements.LOL. Now in attempting to defend your silly assertions with respect to your empty assertions directed at me, you're referencing your empty assertions made some time ago to TK.
Gravock
LOL. Now in attempting to defend your silly assertions with respect to your empty assertions directed at me, you're referencing your empty assertions made some time ago to TK.
I did not deliberately avoid answering your questionDid you answer my question? Nope. Did you do so accidentally? Nope. Anything that is not accidental is deliberate right?
instead took your advice to get your thesis in wordsI asserted how the Mathless-Wonder used a technique which has a consequence which should be obviously incorrect to someone with high-school math. You, without asking even a single question declared that I was a) Making an argument and b) that it was wrong.
as I previously did in the car race.In the car race post you asked two questions. One was meaningless to me. I told you so and the other was not put clearly enough for you and I to be talking about the same thing. Hence you did not get me to state my thesis in mutually agreed on terms. Which, again if you read the relevant part of this thread. You'll see that's what I was asking you to do and what you utterly failed to do for me. :D
However, I think most readers would disagree with you on this point.Which is, of course irrelevant. The statement in contention was "Did you ask me questions to get me to state my thesis in mutually agreed on terms." Clearly the answer is no. There wasn't even a single round of you directly responding to my statements. Just stop trying to rescue your ego or whatever nonsense is going on here.
In the context of...Not what I asked. Can you do what I asked or do you not know what I'm talking about?
Did you answer my question? Nope. Did you do so accidentally? Nope. Anything that is not accidental is deliberate right?
Not what I asked. Can you do what I asked or do you not know what I'm talking about?
Yes. In the specific sense that it is meaningful to the problem at hand - which is measuring the perimeter of a circular path with a time element. Satisfied?Nope. The problem at hand was what the Mathless-Wonder stated, he makes no mention of a time element in that part of his argument. In fact, if you read it you'll see he's refuting the way an ordinary person would reason. However I think you can see that he is wrong.
It is you who is not doing what I ask.Man did I have you pegged.
Just pointing out that you have avoided answering my question but of course you will demand that I answer yoursIt's always the same with you guys. :D
Do you think pi is a dimensionless constant, or not?I asked you to define that in terms that are useful to me. You have refused to do so and have refused to admit you don't understand. Why is that?
Nope. The problem at hand was what the Mathless-Wonder stated, he makes no mention of a time element in that part of his argument. In fact, if you read it you'll see he's refuting the way an ordinary person would reason. However I think you can see that he is wrong.
So why not just admit it? Is the Mathless-wonder somehow perfect? Is he infallible?
He was wrong. He was stupid. He was an idiot. It happens.
The rectilinear path in the Manhattan path correctly simulates a time elementHowever again, if you READ the portion you'll see that he's not talking about a time element, in this part of his argument.
However again, if you READ the portion you'll see that he's not talking about a time element, in this part of his argument.
Sorry, it's just the facts.
Man did I have you pegged.It's always the same with you guys. :DI asked you to define that in terms that are useful to me. You have refused to do so and have refused to admit you don't understand. Why is that?
the rectilinear mathematical equations is evidence of a time element.If by "rectilinear mathematical equations" you mean his use of drawing "steps" and claiming (or at least appearing to) that this correctly measures the arc. Then it's not evidence of anything if it doesn't do that and I think you know that it doesn't.
There is no better definition that is more useful to you, other than your own definition, and you have refused to provide this.Are you high? What we are talking about is YOUR concept. How can you demand that I provide a definition for YOUR concept?
LOL, as has been pointed out to you as well as Miles Mathis, the method fails to correctly determine the length of even a single line segment that is not parallel to one of the ordinate axes. The perimeter of the object doesn't change: It is what it is. And the hapless Mathis method of determining that perimeter starts with an inaccurate estimate and never improves.
This is not what I asked you. I asked you, "If you disagree with his statement, then please show how the perimeter changes after each step." You once again try to take a circular path with a time element and turn it into a circle with no time element.
Gravock
If by "rectilinear mathematical equations" you mean his use of drawing "steps" and claiming (or at least appearing to) that this correctly measures the arc. Then it's not evidence of anything if it doesn't do that and I think you know that it doesn't.
Are you saying that you don't see how this would come up with a different value for the pythagorean theorem?
Are you high? What we are talking about is YOUR concept. How can you demand that I provide a definition for YOUR concept?
All I did was ask you to frame it in a manner grounded in Axiomatic Set Theory. The point of using ZF(C) is so that mathematics has a common understanding of how things are proven. One that is free of ambiguity.
So either you don't know how to do this and are too much of an enormous gaping asshole to admit it OR you are deliberately dragging your heels (or perhaps something else but the first one seems the most likely. :D :D :D ).
It's just too bad for you that you eschew proven methods that can determine very accurate approximations for straight line and arc lengths for a method that is a proven failure for the same tasks.
Why are you trying to change the subject by bringing in Pythagorean theorem?I'm not. Have you done ANY math? This is just a simple high-school level proof by contradiction. Assume that your hero the Mathless-Wonder's assertion is true: That drawing steps accurately determines the length of an arc. Which would imply that it correctly measures a line segment. However it can not correctly measure the hypotenuse of a triangle. Which we know is true through approximately 100 other proofs.
Pi is not my concept and neither is a dimensionless constant a concept of mine.I asked you to define what YOU mean. Do you understand that bit? Do I need to use smaller words? If not, how is it possible that you do not understand that idea in your head that you label "dimensionless number" is YOUR CONCEPT of a "dimensionless number". Not only that but it is the version of the term that can be most usefully argued with YOU.
I am not demanding that you provide a definition of MY concept as you wrongly asserted.Either you don't know what you are talking about (entirely possible) or we are discussing an idea that is in your head. If it's in your head. Then it is, for the purposes of this discussion YOUR CONCEPT. I can't be asked to usefully define that any more than I can be asked to determine how much head trauma was required for you to accept Mathis's claims.
It is you, who is deliberately dragging your heels in answering these simple questionsPlease just stop showing how little you know about math. You were not elected, at any time to the high-council of what gets decided on as simple. Is 1+1 simple? There are proofs for that range from 50 lemmas long to the one in Principa Mathematica which is hundreds of pages long. The point of a set-theoretic approach is to avoid ambiguity.
Another useless statement and another assertion made by you.LOL. Archimedes method for determining the circumference in relation to a circle's diameter is excellent. His method starts out with barely 1% path length error in the first pass, 0.07% in the third pass and 0.004% in the fifth pass that he worked out by hand 2000 years ago. This is an easily verified historical and mathematical fact. On the other hand as is readily demonstrated with a string, some thumb tacks, a ruler and a soda can or any other cylinder by any fourth grader, your path length estimate comes out with an initial error of over 25%. A string of length 4 * D wraps the cylinder base one full turn and more than another 90 degrees. By your own admission your inept method does not improve from that very inaccurate estimate no matter how many iterations one takes.
Gravock
LOL. Archimedes method for determining the circumference in relation to a circle's diameter is excellent. His method starts out with barely 1% path length error in the first pass, 0.07% in the third pass and 0.004% in the fifth pass that he worked out by hand 2000 years ago. This is an easily verified historical and mathematical fact. On the other hand as is readily demonstrated with a string, some thumb tacks, a ruler and a soda can or any other cylinder by any fourth grader, your path length estimate comes out with an initial error of over 25%. A string of length 4 * D wraps the cylinder base one full turn and more than another 90 degrees. By your own admission your inept method does not improve from that very inaccurate estimate no matter how many iterations one takes.
You can check these numbers on a calculator of your choice.
Once again, you have taken the time element out of the equation, and this does not represent the real world! Why did the yellow car win the race, even though it travelled a greater distance while having the same net fall as the green car?LOL, I didn't take out what was not there in the first place. You cannot show that your hapless Manhattan method correctly estimates the path length of an arc, or even the length of a single line segment that is not parallel to one of the ordinate axes. So much for your math.
Gravock
LOL, I didn't take out what was not there in the first place. You cannot show that your hapless Manhattan method correctly estimates the path length of an arc, or even the length of a single line segment that is not parallel to one of the ordinate axes. So much for your math.
Now, you are back to trying to change the subject again. True to form, you have not established by equation or demonstration that either car won the race. Given the dimensions, and taking certain simplifying assumptions we could solve the equations of motion and find the expected winner. The car on the steeper track accelerates faster and has a higher average speed. When the track horizontal run is long enough that average speed makes up for the increased path length.
The video clearly demonstrates which car wins the race, and that is the yellow car which takes the longest path. This is not changing the subject. This has to do with acceleration and distance.LOL, the video? You posted a static .png picture without any links. It is still off the subject. It is still well understood. It still has nothing to do with your silly proposition that a Manhattan route yields a correct perimeter distance.
Gravock
If by "rectilinear mathematical equations" you mean his use of drawing "steps" and claiming (or at least appearing to) that this correctly measures the arc. Then it's not evidence of anything if it doesn't do that and I think you know that it doesn't.
Are you saying that you don't see how this would come up with a different value for the pythagorean theorem?
LOL, the video? You posted a static .png picture without any links. It is still off the subject. It is still well understood. It still has nothing to do with your silly proposition that a Manhattan route yields a correct perimeter distance.
I'm not. Have you done ANY math?Perhaps this needs to be spelled out a bit for our friend.
I think it would be rather hilarious to take a walk in the city with gravock. When you come to that vacant lot and want to cut across the diagonal to get over to the next Starbuck's... he will be constrained to make little right-angled segments that are parallel to the streets, while you simply walk the diagonal and get your decaf nonfat Grande Latte halfway drunk by the time he walks in the door.
Obviously you, sarkeizen, and MarkE would jump into the green car and take the straight and shortest path, while I jump into the yellow car taking the curved and longest path and win the race!It's funny how any person with working synapses, and who is not just trolling for responses could reach such a conclusion after I have explained that the experiment could have just as easily leveled the blue track and the blue car would never reach its destination. Readers can decide for themselves why it is that you have offered such a conclusion.
LOL, here we go again with you trying to introduce movement into static geometry.
In your example above, you once again conveniently left out the time element by not allowing me to have the same acceleration along the rectilinear path as one would have by travelling a curved path in the real world with a time variable.
You on the other hand would only have a velocity across the diameter. You do not win TK, for there is no such thing as an orbital velocity. It is an acceleration along the perimeter or circumference of a curved path and only a velocity across the diameter.That was quite a load. Are your pants full yet?
Gravock
It's funny how any person with working synapses, and who is not just trolling for responses could reach such a conclusion after I have explained that the experiment could have just as easily leveled the blue track and the blue car would never reach its destination. Readers can decide for themselves why it is that you have offered such a conclusion.LOL, here we go again with you trying to introduce movement into static geometry.That was quite a load. Are your pants full yet?
Obviously you, sarkeizen, and MarkE would jump into the green car and take the straight and shortest path, while I jump into the yellow car taking the curved and longest path and win the race!LOL. Why am I in any car? I asserted exactly one thing. That Mathis wrote something which, if correct disproves the pythagorean theorem. You jumped up and down and hollered and whined like an infant about how I was wrong (without asking a single question!). I've provided a clear, jargon-free proof of my point. If there's a problem with my logic, then please point out the precise lemma (that's a math term you know!) where I made my error. Blanket statements like "But it's just not Timey enough" are arguments by assertion by-the-by. :D :D
TK's example was based on movement and not static geometry, but he conveniently left out the time variable which is found in the real world, just as plane geometry conveniently leaves time out of the equation. My reply to his example did not use static geometry. Please show me otherwise! Also, there are many high road low road videos showing the same result. Also, I clearly stated that both cars had the same net fall in my original post, so you can not say you thought one track was level and the blue car would never reach its destination. It is your pants that is full, and this is another psychological projection by you.Yes, your pants are very full.
Gravock
I tend to think that crackpots like Philip, Profitis and gravityblock are, in part expressing some self-esteem issues.
This is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal, and is an argument by assertion with nothing to back up your false claims.
GravockShut. The FUCK. Up.
It is you who has self-esteem issues and not able to handle the truth. Your post below is evidence of this.Because I told someone who wrongly called something an argument by assertion to shut the fuck up? Didn't you deserve that? Really seems like it. In fact I personally believe that you have a serious deficiency in "shut the fuck up" and decided to supplement your clearly lacking diet.
Yes, your pants are very full.
You have yet to showSo dude, what is the hold up...there must be a clear problem with my proof right? Or is Mathis...*GASP* wrong and fallible?
Especially since he also proves (perhaps inadvertently) that the pythagorean theorem can't possibly be true. Something we have something like a hundred distinct proofs for.This is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal, and is an argument by assertion with nothing to back up your false claims.
GravockShut. The FUCK. Up.
You have wrongly assumed and asserted the Pythagorean theorem holds true in a non-Euclidean geometry, but it doesn't.Explain what part of this diagram is expressly stated as non-euclidian. http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg
You have yet to show how my response to TK's example used static geometry as you wrongly and falsely asserted. It is your pants which are very full.LOL, no I don't have to play your games your way just because you say so. It's perfectly fine to stand back as you load up your pants and stay far back as you play with the contents.
Gravock
TK's example was based on movement and not static geometry, but he conveniently left out the time variable which is found in the real world, just as plane geometry conveniently leaves time out of the equation. My reply to his example did not use static geometry. Please show me otherwise! Also, there are many high road low road videos showing the same result. Also, I clearly stated that both cars had the same net fall in my original post, so you can not say you thought one track was level and the blue car would never reach its destination. It is your pants that is full, and this is another psychological projection by you.
Gravock
The circumference of the orbit (assuming pi = 3.1416 and a circular orbit) is 2 x pi x 149.6 million km, or about 939.97 million km.
The tangential speed computed from the radius and the conventional value of pi is therefore 939.97 million km / 31,558,118 seconds or about 29785 meters/second.
The diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds. Curiously.... 10035553 x 3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.
Conclusion..... The value of pi, for the real figure of the Earth's orbit, taking TIME and velocity into account, must be very close to 3.1416, and not close at all to 4.
Please feel free to show a working that demonstrates otherwise.
@gravityblock..did mathis have anything to say about the standing of the second law thermodynamics?
He has an article on entropy (http://milesmathis.com/ent.html). Mathis defines heat as photon density.So uh...when are you going to get back to me on my question. It was clear, in plain English and somehow devoid of profanity. :)
Explain what part of this diagram is expressly stated as non-euclidian. http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpgI can give you an easier question if you can't answer this one.
Are you saying the taxicab geometry is euclidean?What I'm saying is that this diagram (http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) implies that pythagoras theorem is untrue. You say I'm wrong because pythagorian theorem doesn't hold in non-euclidian geometry.
Gravityblock, you're oh so very clever, like your argument add in time
and maturity should come.
John.
What I'm saying is that this diagram implies that pythagoras theorem is untrue. You say I'm wrong because pythagorian theorem doesn't hold in non-euclidian geometry.
Do you understand that in order for your comment to be relevant something in that diagram must be in non-euclidian geometry?
If you do somehow understand that then please indicate what.
Compare your diagram to the image belowSo you're refusing to answer a clearly worded, plain English question again?
I think it would be rather hilarious to take a walk in the city with gravock. When you come to that vacant lot and want to cut across the diagonal to get over to the next Starbuck's... he will be constrained to make little right-angled segments that are parallel to the streets, while you simply walk the diagonal and get your decaf nonfat Grande Latte halfway drunk by the time he walks in the door.Obviously you, sarkeizen, and MarkE would jump into the green car and take the straight and shortest path, while I jump into the yellow car taking the curved and longest path and win the race! In your example above, you once again conveniently left out the time element by not allowing me to have the same acceleration along the rectilinear path as one would have by travelling a curved path in the real world with a time variable. You on the other hand would only have a velocity across the diameter. You do not win TK, for there is no such thing as an orbital velocity. It is an acceleration along the perimeter or circumference of a curved path and only a velocity across the diameter.
GravockDon't lie.
Note the frequent appearance of the quantity "SECONDS".... a TIME VARIABLE found in the real world.Quote from: TinselKoalaThe circumference of the orbit (assuming pi = 3.1416 and a circular orbit) is 2 x pi x 149.6 million km, or about 939.97 million km.
The tangential speed computed from the radius and the conventional value of pi is therefore 939.97 million km / 31,558,118 seconds or about 29785 meters/second.
The diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds. Curiously.... 10035553 x 3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.
Conclusion..... The value of pi, for the real figure of the Earth's orbit, taking TIME and velocity into account, must be very close to 3.1416, and not close at all to 4.
Please feel free to show a working that demonstrates otherwise.
It is you who is trying to mislead the reader.
So you're refusing to answer a clearly worded, plain English question again?
i) If I say that this diagram: http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) showing a bunch of "steps" implies that the pythagorean theorem is false. Do you agree with me or not?
ii) If not, then is your basis for your objection that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry?. Yes or no?
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry. Agree or disagree?
If you disagree how can your objection to my proof about the diagram be unrelated to the diagram? If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.
it is not euclidean geometry and is actually non-euclidean.So in other words this diagram http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg is non-euclidean right?
So in other words this diagram http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) is non-euclidean right?
Your question wrongly implies it has one or the other, when in fact it has both. This is a deliberate misdirection made by you.So let's just clarify something here. You think that I am deliberately misleading (somebody) by implying that the diagram must be either euclidean or non-euclidean in it's entirety. Right? So clearly this terrible bias of mine would show up in this thread? Let's look shall we....
If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.
If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.
Do you understand that in order for your comment to be relevant something in that diagram must be in non-euclidian geometry?
If you do somehow understand that then please indicate what.
Explain what part of this diagram is expressly stated as non-euclidian. http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg
It has both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry in it. Your question wrongly implies it has one or the other, when in fact it has both. This is a deliberate misdirection made by you.LOL. Your pants are overflowing. The EPA may soon declare you your very own SuperFund site.
Gravock
sarkeizen,
Are you saying the taxicab geometry is euclidean?
Gravock
You demand that I answer your questionI'm not demanding anything in any useful sense of the word. However there appears to be no rational reason for you to refuse to answer my questions.
while you refuse to answer my questions.I answered that question clearly, fairly and honestly. You asked me "Are you saying" and I clarified exactly what I was saying. How was that insufficient?QuoteAre you saying the taxicab geometry is euclidean?
I'm not demanding anything in any useful sense of the word. However there appears to be no rational reason for you to refuse to answer my questions.You will have to give GB some slack. His pants have overflowed to the point that he can no longer see.
Mathis made a mistake that an O-Level calculus student should have caught. You think I'm wrong. I've been nothing but open and honest and forthcoming about my argument for that point. I've engaged you at every turn on this point. I wish I could say the same for you. It's taken me a considerable amount of time to get simple yes or no answers from you on well-defined points, on a topic you think is worth discussing and you claim to understand well.
I answered that question clearly, fairly and honestly. You asked me "Are you saying" and I clarified exactly what I was saying. How was that insufficient?
My question still stands (now asked SIX times): You say that the diagram contains both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry. Which parts do you consider euclidean and which parts do you consider non-euclidean?
I answered that question clearly, fairly and honestly. You asked me "Are you saying" and I clarified exactly what I was saying. How was that insufficient?
My question still stands (now asked SIX times): You say that the diagram contains both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry. Which parts do you consider euclidean and which parts do you consider non-euclidean?
So you're refusing to answer a clearly worded, plain English question again?
i) If I say that this diagram: http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) showing a bunch of "steps" implies that the pythagorean theorem is false. Do you agree with me or not?
ii) If not, then is your basis for your objection that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry?. Yes or no?
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry. Agree or disagree?
If you disagree how can your objection to my proof about the diagram be unrelated to the diagram? If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.
ROFL
At least sarkeizen has a legitimate rebuttal and is contributing to this thread, unlike yourself.LOL, are you still trying to convince anyone that you are serious? You lost that battle a long time ago.
Gravock
LOL. You do realize don't you that now that you say that the geometry is non-Euclidean you are stuck both with stating what geometry system is represented and why under that geometry Mathis' taxi cab path has any validity?
So now you are doing plagiarism, too? You'd think you could at least rephrase your stolen excerpts.
http://taxicabgeometry.net/general/definitions.html (http://taxicabgeometry.net/general/definitions.html)
I never said the geometry in the diagram is all non-euclidean as you wrongly assert. At its simplest, traditional taxicab geometry changes the Euclidean distance formula to the metric proposed by Herman Minkowski where the distance between two points (x_{1},y_{1}) and (x_{2},y_{2}) is d_{t} = |x_{2} - x_{1}| + |y_{2} - y_{1}|LOL. You wish to propose a system of plane geometry that cannot distinguish the length between paths taken directly between two points and paths taken circuitously around to travel between those points to describe ... wait for it ... the distance along of the direct paths. Have your pants exploded yet?
The idea behind this distance formula is that the distance between two points is not measured on a straight line, but on horizontal and vertical lines. This definition leaves other geometric features such as points, lines, and angles as Euclidean. Until 1996, this was the form in which the geometry was investigated, discussed, and used. It was around this time that Thompson and Kaya independently began research into angles that natively belong to taxicab geometry thus launching investigations into a purer form of taxicab geometry.
Traditionally, taxicab geometry has included elements that are not native to the geometry. The primary example is Euclidean angles. Since angles are defined as arc length along a circle and the taxicab circle is quite different than the Euclidean circle, native taxicab angles are not Euclidean. Pure taxicab geometry uses angles that are native and natural to the geometry.
Gravock
fair useIt's little wonder that with your pants so full you don't understand the difference between plagiarism and copyright violation. The latter is about obtaining permission to republish another's work. The former is about crediting the source.
noun
noun: fair use; plural noun: fair uses
(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.
I don't have the time nor the energy to rephrase the excerpts that is being used for teaching and research purposes. The excerpts are not stolen and falls under fair use, and is not plagiarism as you wrongly asserted. Also, the formula of d_{t} = |x_{2} - x_{1}| + |y_{2} - y_{1}| is an in-line image on the website, and I choose not to copy this image, but to type it out. I find it interesting how you throw plagiarism at me for exposing your deliberate misdirection in one of your previous posts. You have now exposed your immaturity and how you are a very vindictive person. Also, this is totally off-topic, and is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal in any sense.
Gravock
LOL. You wish to propose a system of plane geometry that cannot distinguish between two slopes to describe ... wait for it ... the distance along sloped lines and arcs. Have your pants exploded yet?
Taxicab geometry only fails one of the axioms or postulates of Euclidean geometry, ... wait for it... and this is not one of them.LOL. Funny how you are drawing Euclidean circles and saying that you are measuring them in taxicab geometry. I'd warn the neighbors about those pants of yours.
Gravock
It's little wonder that with your pants so full you don't understand the difference between plagiarism and copyright violation. The latter is about obtaining permission to republish another's work. The former is about crediting the source.
LOL. Funny how you are drawing Euclidean circles and saying that you are measuring them in taxicab geometry. I'd warn the neighbors about those pants of yours.
Another wrong assertion by you!LOL, you really don't want to read do you? Attribution is not the same as permission. Plagiarism is a failure to attribute.
Plagiarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism) is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work. According to the fair use act, brief excerpts do not need permission to be republished if used for teaching and research purposes and is not considered wrongful appropriation, as you once again wrongly asserted. I never claimed the excerpts as my own original work, and it is also not defined as stealing under the fair use act if used for teaching and research purposes.
Are you claiming the two images you provided in your previous posts are your own work? If not, then I'm sure you didn't obtain permission to republish those copyrighted images.
Gravock
Are you asserting euclidean circles drawn in taxicab geometry is the one postulate of Euclidean geometry in which it fails?LOL, it's fun to watch you troll by making things up. In case you didn't know: a taxicab "circle" is drawn as a Euclidean square.
Gravock
LOL, you really don't want to read do you? Attribution is not the same as permission. Plagiarism is a failure to attribute.
Another wrong assertion and misdirection made by you. Plagiarism is not a failure to attribute. Plagiarism is wrongfully appropriating (borrowing without permission) and stealing and taking credit for someone else's work as your own. According to the fair use act, brief excerpts do not need permission to be used for teaching or for research purposes, thus it does not fall under wrongful appropriation and/or stealing. I also didn't take credit for someone else's work as my own. It is you who don't want to read and this is another psychological projection made by you. This is nothing more than another distraction to the main purpose of this thread.LOL, you've buried yourself with your own words.
Gravock
LOL, it's fun to watch you troll by making things up. In case you didn't know: a taxicab "circle" is drawn as a Euclidean square.
LOL, you've buried yourself with your own words.
There isn't a person alive who has testified against me in open court.There's no need for any person alive to testify against you, for you'll convict yourself in an open court by your own words.
Gravock
Another assertion by you without giving any details or information on how I buried myself with my own words. This is getting ridiculous. I am done with you, and will be putting you on my ignore list (troll list). It also reminds me of something I said in another thread about you in regards to "your own words", as shown in the quotes below. You have nothing original or meaningful to say.LOL, one need only read your words and comprehend them to see how you have buried yourself vis-a-vis plagiarism.
Gravock
Once again, taxicab geometry has traditionally included elements that are not native to the geometry. The primary example is Euclidean angles. Since angles are defined as arc length along a circle and the taxicab circle is quite different than the Euclidean circle, native taxicab angles are not Euclidean. Pure taxicab geometry uses angles that are native and natural to the geometry. I have already stated many times prior to this in regards to the diagram of sarkeizen that there was both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry in it. You're not telling me anything I do not already know. So, how can a euclidean circle in taxicab geometry fail one of the postulates of euclidean geometry?LOL. Something that does not exist in a set cannot be evaluated by the rules that apply only to that set.
Gravock
gravityblock I've been reading this since about 05 and you've got to be in the running
for one of the most boring ever. I hope your life is a bit more fun!
John.
And remember when doing your calculations for the wheel that Pi = 4,
then you can get it right first time!
John.
Please show me where you answered my question clearly, fairly and honestly.Exactly where I posted my response. You used the interrogative phrase "Are you saying" with a reference to a property (or non-property) of "taxicab geometry" . Taxicab geometry is orthogonal or unnecessary to the point: If you object to something on the basis of some property then you must believe that that said property is relevant. Which if you read my question you'll see that's what I was saying.
Or if for some reason you no longer think the terms euclidean and non-euclidean are sufficient to describe the diagram's geometry and were unable to form a sentence to communicate that. Then please point out which features on the diagram are in a particular geometry.
i) If I say that this diagram: http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) showing a bunch of "steps" implies that the pythagorean theorem is false. Do you agree with me or not?
ii) If not, then is your basis for your objection that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry?. Yes or no?
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry. Agree or disagree?
Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment, but before I do, please clarify if question 3 is in reference to question 1 or question 2.You're going to have to be considerably more specific. "in reference" doesn't mean anything to me other than "related". Clearly some relation exists between all the questions since they are forming an argument.
You're going to have to be considerably more specific. "in reference" doesn't mean anything to me other than "related". Clearly some relation exists between all the questions since they are forming an argument.
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry. Agree or disagree?
The illustration shown below, courtesy of MarkE, is for a static circle with no motion or time element involved and there is no disagreement that pi = 3.14 in this case. Now, let's give that static circle a motion where a curve is traced by a point on the rim or circumference of the circular wheel as the wheel rolls along a straight line to generate a cycloid. The arc of a cycloid is 8r, which pi is also replaced by 4, just as in the Manahattan metric.LOL. The path length on the rolling surface traversed as the wheel makes one complete rotation, ie maps out one circumference is identically still Pi*D, ~3.141593*D.
Gravock
Is the bold portion in question 3 in reference to question 1 or question 2?Out of curiosity - is there a reason you can't construct sentences that completely contain your question? For example....
Out of curiosity - is there a reason you can't construct sentences that completely contain your question? For example....
When you say "If yes" in question 3. Do you mean: "If the basis for your objection (to the implication of the diagram) is that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry then something in the diagram must represent something in non-euclidean geometry?"
Also: What things are non-euclidean in the diagram? (Now asked NINE times). Clearly since you without a second thought were able to declare the diagram (by inspection) containing both kinds of geometry. It should be trivial for you to point out which ones are which.
Do we agree the arc of a cycloid generates a circular path which is larger than the circular wheel that generated it?No we don't: A cycloid is not a circle.[/quote]
Your pants again explode. All that you showed was that you could work up some algebraic identities.
Now, let's find the ratio between these two, 4 / 3.14 = 1.2714. Now, let's find the difference between these two, 4 - 3.14 = 0.86048. Now, let's multiply the ratio between the two with the difference between the two, 1.27 * 0.86 = 1.093404. I have already shown the 1.093404 is related to the quantum transitional speed and how these dimensionless numbers in this example can have dimensions/units if we include them.
No that is only your pants.
In other words, the ratio and the differences between the two is due to our expansion acceleration of 9.8m/s^{2}. In summary, this is evidence that we are expanding in all directions with an acceleration of 9.8m/s^{2}. It's like blowing a balloon up with air.
Pop! There they go: Bull shit argument leads out bull shit conclusion with the result that there is now bull shit everywhere.
This is why you can't take the ratio of an acceleration along the circumference that is expanding to a velocity across the diameter that is also expanding and expect to get the same results as you would with something that is static and non-changing with no time element involved.
Completely cornered perhaps you will give up on this obscenely silly campaign. We can only hope.
I am done with the Pi issue, for anyone with any common sense knows the dynamic is not the same as the static, and to use the same methods to compare the two is foolishness.
God will catch the wise in their own craftiness!
Gravock
Out of curiosity - why can't you connect the dots for yourself? Why do you need someone to spoon feed you every step of the way? You know exactly what I am asking you, so don't play the stupid card and psychologically project it unto me.That's nine times that Sarkeizen has asked you politely, and nine times that you have refused his simple request to state unambiguously specifically what you claim is Euclidean, and what you claim is not Euclidean in that diagram.
Gravock
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry. Agree or disagree?
Is the bold portion in question 3 in reference to question 1 or question 2?
GravockOut of curiosity - is there a reason you can't construct sentences that completely contain your question? For example....
When you say "If yes" in question 3. Do you mean: "If the basis for your objection (to the implication of the diagram) is that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry then something in the diagram must represent something in non-euclidean geometry?"Out of curiosity - why can't you connect the dots for yourself? Why do you need someone to spoon feed you every step of the way? You know exactly what I am asking you, so don't play the stupid card and psychologically project it unto me.
Gravock
@Gravityblock.
Do you realize that this is provable empirically by some computer controlled airpucks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyZTJtAxOCI) on a smooth level surface?
Empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.
Out of curiosity - why can't you connect the dots for yourself?This is really interesting from a psychological point-of-view. If I was guessing, you're deliberately trying to stall the argument. I wonder why? Clearly I did "connect the dots" into *some* pattern. The crazy thing is that you won't tell me if it's the right pattern. I mean why would anyone interested in progressing the argument ever want to encourage ambiguity?
When you say "If yes" in question 3. Do you mean: "If the basis for your objection (to the implication of the diagram) is that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry then something in the diagram must represent something in non-euclidean geometry?"I'm asking if you are asking this question. Which I created from inserting the relevant parts of questions 1 and 2 into a single question.
Why do you need someone to spoon feed you every step of the way?You are asking me a question right? What on earth is the problem with wanting to know if I understand it correctly? Laypeople who want to educate mathematicians in math always seem to wildly underestimate the amount of rigor required. As I said earlier there are 200+ page proofs for 1+1 = 2.
Consider that someone who has painted themselves into a deep corner may hope that they can hide that fact in a shroud of ambiguity.I just noticed that this page: http://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/a-reply-to-%E2%80%9Cthe-extinction-of-pi-the-short-version%E2%80%9D/
No doubt the day will bring a spate of claims that you have not used "scientific arguments" to explain something equivalent to why we don't use color saturation as a measure of the weight of solid objects.Well I'm sure I'm capable of showing a non-uniform staircase ALSO not converging on the hypotenuse of a triangle. It seems trivial enough.
I agree empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.This probably comes down to some silly special definition on the term "proof" but this sounds a lot like "one magic trick should be more compelling than the proof that sqrt(2) is irrational"
I...will move onto the empirical side for those who lack any kind of common sense.I'm probably reading this differently than gravityblock intended...
Well I'm sure I'm capable of showing a non-uniform staircase ALSO not converging on the hypotenuse of a triangle. It seems trivial enough.Yes, but what if the triangle is blue? Does your geometry consider color?
I doubt it. It sounds like you have him pegged.
This probably comes down to some silly special definition on the term "proof" but this sounds a lot like "one magic trick should be more compelling than the proof that sqrt(2) is irrational"
I'm probably reading this differently than gravityblock intended...
Yes, but what if the triangle is blue? Does your geometry consider color?You're absolutely correct by Mathis logic: "The pencil must have some velocity or acceleration as it moves along the line or curve. " A circle drawn in the REAL WORLD has a color, a nib width and even a depth (as ink is not 2-dimensional). It's amazing that Mathis can mentally perform a projection onto a plane that is of uniform colour, depth, and thickness in his head but gets stuck on the time parameter.
You're absolutely correct by Mathis logic: "The pencil must have some velocity or acceleration as it moves along the line or curve. " A circle drawn in the REAL WORLD has a color, a nib width and even a depth (as ink is not 2-dimensional). It's amazing that Mathis can mentally perform a projection onto a plane that is of uniform colour, depth, and thickness in his head but gets stuck on the time parameter.And how does the pen nib feel? Has anyone asked the nib if it feels car sick when pushed around a circle?
And how does the pen nib feel? Has anyone asked the nib if it feels car sick when pushed around a circle?Where's Joe Blockhead? Did we break him? I was always too rough with my toys.
Where's Joe Blockhead? Did we break him? I was always too rough with my toys.I think that perhaps thankfully he may have finally gotten tired of trying to play a poor imitation of a Sacha Cohen character.
I don't think he appreciates a joke,
John.
I can appreciate a joke, but not a joke that is being psychologically projected on to another. The joke is now once again on them!
I will restore the original topic, without all of the spam and meaningless posts, when I have more time.
Gravock
I can appreciate a joke, but not a joke that is being psychologically projected on to another. The joke is now once again on them!
I will restore the original topic, without all of the spam and meaningless posts, when I have more time.
Gravock
Great. Yet another bogus topic that is a waste of bandwidth. Why not try gardening instead?
Bill
If you read about Von Braun, and claim to know anything about orbital mechanics, you would know that a higher orbit is caused by a higher velocity. This is basic orbital mechanics 101. So, all that happened was that the vehicle that carried Explorer 1 went a bit faster than required. They engineered in a fudge factor to ensure that it made orbit. Orbital velocity is 17,500 mph and if you were in charge of that mission, you too would have added a bit more juice to make sure it exceeded that velocity. If you erred on the slower side, no orbit would have been achieved. The higher the orbit, the faster the vehicle needs to go.
Read some books on the first rendezvous and the math required to pull that off. The craft at the lower orbit had to speed up to meet the other craft even though the other craft was behind it. You had to slow down to speed up and/or speed up to slow down.
BillNope. Higher orbits require _less_ velocity than lower orbits. To orbit lower, you must speed up, not slow down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed)
You are funny. If your lies and misrepresentations and fails don't work, you resort to censorship to silence your critics.
It's not as bogus as some of your postings...
Bogus? Really? Well, at least I know what Pi is and evidently you do not. Try taking a 3rd grade math class and get back to us.
Bill
PS So, I guess the gardening thing is out of the question then? Too bad really.
Just use non-GMO seeds in your own garden and don't worry about it. Raise your own food and you will not have to depend on others to do it for you. Just my opinion.
BillNo problem. Just make sure you grow in a greenhouse to avoid GMO chemtrail spray from wafting onto your crop.
http://www.rense.com/general2/biotox.htm (http://www.rense.com/general2/biotox.htm)
Oh, and check your water supply....
colIn addition to the previous post, how will you avoid cross contamination from the gardens and fields of those who do use GMO seeds?
Gravock
I can appreciate a joke, but not a joke that is being psychologically projected on to another. The joke is now once again on them!There are those cooking utensils again.
I will restore the original topic, without all of the spam and meaningless posts, when I have more time.
Gravock
Pi by definition is a constant, related to geometric circles, when computing some things ivolvong an apparent circle and radius the constant is 4 in certain applications, and not pi as one would expect...The definition of Pi refers to the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle in Euclidean geometry. It has been reliably computed to over a trillion places, the first nine: 3.14159153. The hapless argument that Mathis offers and GB has taken up is complete silliness. Is it really any wonder why GB refuses to state which elements of the example that he uses are Euclidean and which are non-Euclidean? Is it any wonder that he operates in a confused state when he keeps talking about circles in Taxicab geometry which look like squares in Euclidean geometry but then invokes Euclidean circles?
The definition of Pi refers to the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle in Euclidean geometry. It has been reliably computed to over a trillion places, the first nine: 3.14159153. The hapless argument that Mathis offers and GB has taken up is complete silliness. Is it really any wonder why GB refuses to state which elements of the example that he uses are Euclidean and which are non-Euclidean? Is it any wonder that he operates in a confused state when he keeps talking about circles in Taxicab geometry which look like squares in Euclidean geometry but then invokes Euclidean circles?Right :)
I will restore the original topic, without all of the spam and meaningless posts, when I have more time.Seriously? Take a look at your posting pattern. You yourself claimed....
At least sarkeizen has a legitimate rebuttal and is contributing to this thread, unlike yourself.
Yes, it is too bad thanks to people like you and your limited thinking and thought process, for reasons shown in the quotes below from another thread.
Seriously? Take a look at your posting pattern. You yourself claimed....
...and what do you spend virtually ALL your time doing? Responding to people like this:
If there's anyone encouraging meaningless posts it is you.
So for the ELEVENTH time. Please state clearly what parts of this diagram (http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg)) are in what geometries.
When are you going to answer my question, in regards to question 3,When it's clear to me what you are asking. I've asked you to clarify. You refused. I posited a question which appears to be what you are asking. You won't say if it's what you mean.
You arranged and formed the questions in a way where there is no right answer.I arranged the questions to clarify what you mean. If a diagram contains items from various geometries. You should be able to point out which parts are which. If you can't, you should be able to state why.
Also, there was a rebuttal to the diagram in question, which you say the argument is "probably only half-an-argument because it's wrong. :DI asserted that the counter-argument, as best as I can understand it - is wrong. The caveat is that the person doesn't appear to understand how theorems are proved in mathematics. Neither do you or Mathis for that matter.
there is no way for me to convince you otherwise.Where does this come from? All I've done is ask you a few simple questions and all you have done is everything you could not to answer them. I'm happy to answer your questions but you won't clarify anything AND when I attempt to restate you won't tell me if I'm right or what changes need to be made to correctly understand your question.
Clearly I am trying to understand your argument and I think you are trying hard not to be understood.
For the Twelfth time: What parts of http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) this diagram are in which geometries?
First, he is just bloviating gibberish and trying to sound intelligent. Second, your question asked 12 times/3=4. He seems to like the number 4 for some reason so now maybe he will answer you?
Bill
Also, Grav's sad attempt to tell me I was wrong about orbital mechanics missed the mark.
I said " You have to speed up to slow down" and that is true.
"I like to sum this up in one statement, "In orbit, you speed up to slow down, and you slow down to speed up!" Crazy, huh!?! If your orbit is oval shaped (has a high eccentricity, then you will be traveling faster when your orbit is closer to the Earth and will slow down when you are farther from Earth. OK, let's move on."
(Quoted from below link)
http://smithplanet.com/stuff/orbiter/orbitaloperations.htm (http://smithplanet.com/stuff/orbiter/orbitaloperations.htm)
There are many other sites I can post here that all say the same thing and....since Gemini capsules were able to dock I would say that is proof enough.
Bill
Look how MarkE tried to deliberately mislead a junior member with a wrong answer to a very simple question by raburgeson (http://www.overunity.com/14632/magnetic-question/msg402433/#msg402433). Also, take note on how some of MarkE's minions come to his rescue and who they are. They include Pirate88179 (Pirate Bill of Kentucky), TinselKoala, and MileHigh. What a way to be!
Gravock
So now I am a Minion? Wow, I never even applied or anything. This is quite an honor I must say. No one even hinted to me of this promotion. I will, to my best ability, perform the tasks and duties required of this new position. Is there any additional compensation involved? I could use the money.
Bill (Pirate Bill From N.J., Hunterdon County to be precise)
Gravityblock:
Quiting you, "Look how MarkE tried to deliberately mislead a junior member with a wrong answer to a very simple question by raburgeson (http://www.overunity.com/14632/magnetic-question/msg402433/#msg402433)."
Here is the question: "If I take a clockwise wind air core magnet and replace it with a counter clockwise coil will it reverse the poles?"
The question doesn't even make sense. It's a bloody retarded question. The person that posed the question has more than 600 postings on this forum. So possibly the "No." response from MarkE was a form of chastising the person posing the question. I don't want to speak for MarkE, just expressing a theory.
You say that it is "a very simple question?" Please explain. What is an "air core magnet?" Do you think the person that posed the question after more than 600 postings on this forum should understand the concept of the direction of current flow?
If you are going to talk about electronics and magnetics and energy, one would hope that you would put it upon yourself to at least learn some basics. It's not like you have to walk to the library, look though the card index, find a book, go find it in the stacks, go to the counter and borrow it, then walk home and start reading it.
You can find legitimate answers to basic questions in 10 seconds or less and you don't even have to move your butt from your chair.
MileHigh
I have honestly tried to clarify my question to you in various ways without success.Try arranging your question in the form:
Let's just agree to disagree on the theoretical side of the Pi issue for now.You said I had a legitimate rebuttal and you won't even answer ONE QUESTION in reference to that rebuttal on a subject (non-euclidean geometry) that you brought up. Even though you've been asked twelve times.
Or, should I say "Pirate Bill of Bullshit"!
More lies and misdirections made by you. A quick search reveals 27 references from you that you live in Kentucky, and the latest reference is in January 22, 2014. However there is only one reference by you which is related to N.J., and that is of your father working in N.J. You don't even know where you are, and who you are! You are in a State of total confusion!
Gravock
Wow! Impressive. You sure have a lot of free time on your hands over there. However, if you actually READ my post I said "Pirate Bill FROM N.J. I am very proud to be FROM NJ as it is filled with failed Liberal policies and going downhill fast.
I will always be "From N.J." and I can't change that. As of now, I do live in Kentucky but, probably not for long. Do I need to include you when I issue my forwarding address information then?
You really need a hobby man, which is why I suggested gardening. It is really not all that hard and I believe that you could probably get the hang of it eventually.
Bill
Well, Kentucky better represents how you think!Do you actually think you're worth taking seriously when you avoid a question like:
Do you actually think you're worth taking seriously when you avoid a question like:
"You say that part of this diagram http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) is in a non-euclidian geometry. Can you tell me which parts?"
But have time to insult a town?
In case you didn't know, I don't dispute that Pi is equal to 3.14... for static circles that are non-changing without a time element involved.There is no other kind of circle in Euclidean geometry: The geometry for which Pi is defined.
There is no such thing.
However, I do dispute that Pi is equal to 3.14... for dynamic circles which have a time element and is changing due to our expansion acceleration.
It's back to those dark kitchen utensils.
It is you who is limited and stuck on 3rd grade math and not able to move beyond this level, and not me.
Bill's post is an example of a psychological projection used by MarkE and his minions.
Gravock
sarkeizen,IOW you have utterly and completely failed in your silly argument that you introduced and wish to withdraw from it.
I have honestly tried to clarify my question to you in various ways without success. Let's just agree to disagree on the theoretical side of the Pi issue for now. In a way, I am at fault for allowing my thread to be hijacked by bringing the Pi issue into it.
It was off-topic and irrelevant to the main purpose and content of the thread. I will restore the content that is relevant and not off-topic to the main purpose of the original thread at a later time so there may be a more meaningful discussion. I do agree there is nothing wrong with a little heated debate, but let's not take it too far. We need to realize when it's time to agree to disagree.LOL, you cannot show where you have done much of anything to either answer Sarkeizen's questions or otherwise reduce ambiguity. Twelve times now he has asked you a very simple and direct question that you steadfastly refuse to answer: Which elements in the Mathis drawing that you refer to and declare contains both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometric objects are Euclidean and which are not?
Gravock
Correction: Title 1 of N
Currently 3 of N
I only dropped it to see what is the latest in OU research. I'll pop back in a few months to see if this thread has moved on!
I however want to to categoricly state I am not a minion in case I shall be judged in my absence!
The minions have no respect for those who they disagree with.Speaking for myself, my waning respect for you has nothing to do with the fact that we disagree. It's that you will write vague-paragraph long diatribes about people in this thread but can't take fifteen seconds to answer a straightforward, jargon-free question. Which you have been asked twelve times by me...and other people in this thread want you to answer it too.
"the rule of the gun"? Seriously? You are starting to sound unhinged.
The minions headed by MarkE prefer not to be guided by truth in their postings, but by the rule of the gun (trolling, spamming, misdirections, psychological projections, etc).
They have come to believe in their false exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destiny of this forum, that it is only them who can be right.Dude. I have spent many more years studying math than you have. This is simply a fact. On average my opinion will be better than yours. I came up with a line of reasoning in about four minutes. A line of reasoning that has you so frightened that you have spent over a week avoiding answering a simple question.
I came up with a line of reasoning in about four minutes. A line of reasoning that has you so frightened that you have spent over a week avoiding answering a simple question.
Which one of us falsely believes themselves to be exceptional again? Sounds like you.
I don't see how this thread will move on. The minions have no respect for those who they disagree with. If I was a casual reader and poster, I would think twice about posting a view which they oppose. The minions headed by MarkE prefer not to be guided by truth in their postings, but by the rule of the gun (trolling, spamming, misdirections, psychological projections, etc). They have come to believe in their false exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destiny of this forum, that it is only them who can be right.LOL, it is pretty obvious who here is adverse to facts and discussion and who is not. Sarkeizen has asked you a plain and simple question a full dozen times now and you still refuse to answer. You've changed your silly argument about Pi from being due to time factors which do not exist in geometry, to saying that you are using a different system of geometry than the rest of us, to saying that you are mixing elements from different geometry systems, but you will not identify which elements are from which system, to insisting that you are a victim of a trolling campaign.
However, you can have a view similar to theirs without being a minion by avoiding the rule of the gun they so often resort to when the debate isn't going in their favour. It would be nice to see more people voice their opinions, but I doubt it will happen. I would love to be proven wrong on this! Stand up and speak out. Rise above their suppression tactics.
Gravock
Look up Planck's constant - matter/energy is quantized. A circle is theoretical, there's no perfect circle in nature anywhere. A real circle with a time variable is quantized at the planck scale with a zig-zag or rectilinear circumference, just as you find with the square in the squares method. This is how there is a convergence on the rectilinear circumference at the planck scale.
Edit: Also, in step two of the squaring method, we can see there are four points of the square which converge on the rectilinear circumference of the circle. In each successive step of the squaring method, more and more points converge exponentially. At the planck scale, all points will have converged on the rectilinear circumference of the circle.
Gravock
No, because a real circle with a time variable will have a path length which is also stuck at 4*D at the planck scale as it traverses through space-time in a zig-zag or rectilinear motion. The path length of the circumference is 4*D with no approximation.
Gravock
Matter doesn't move in a continuous motion, it moves in discrete jumps at the planck length. When the squaring method reaches the planck length, the inner square vertices will be at all points on the rectilinear circumference of the circle itself, which is not continuous and is made of discrete jumps. The Manhattan path does correctly simulate the time variable in real circles at the planck length!
Edited for better clarification.
Gravock
No, the inner vertices at the planck length can not be connected with chords in a real circle with a time variable. By connecting the inner vertices at the planck length with chords, then you are saying matter moves in a continuous motion and not in discrete jumps.
Gravock
The issue I think is ... stating 'pi is not pi' is like saying 'a' is 'z'
so then the whole zlphzbet chznges; but it rezlly doesn't... it issue is, pi isn't the right constznt in zll cases; not thzt pi is sometimes z different vzlue.
Quantum Pi (http://forum.rs2theory.org/node/425): Discussions of the Reevaluation of the Reciprocal SystemLittle motions that turn perpendicularly at discrete intervals would require infinite acceleration at each perpendicular turn, and therefore infinite power to execute. That is yet another fail for your silly concept.
Compare my quotes below to the images attached to this post, as found at the Quantum Pi link. The universe is pixelated at the planck length. It is well known and accepted in physics that matter/energy is quantized and moves in discrete jumps and not in a continuous motion. Nikola Tesla said, "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties". Since space isn't curved, then matter can not follow a diagonal or curved path, but must follow a rectilinear motion through space.
Gravock
Little motions that turn perpendicularly at discrete intervals would require infinite acceleration at each perpendicular turn, and therefore infinite power to execute. That is yet another fail for your silly concept.
As a casual reader I find gravityblock irritating and is blocking progress.
Everyone seems to agree for Euclidean geometry that Pi is 3.14 etc.
Therefore the silly diagram has to be non Euclidean if it's meant to have
some sort of meaning.
It's got to the stage like when mr. Travis was confused about answering
a yes/no question as to if he had a 5hp. self running machine, when earlier
on he'd referred to "our 5 hp. machine".
Many of these things are resolved in the first two pages, then fester on for
months. It's now up to gravityblock to push the thing further by being
smarter and presenting his case in a better way so as to silence the
opposition. Why not answer the question that's been asked a dozen times?
The old Koala would say "I know why!",
John
No, your assertion is not true, because you are not taking the expansion acceleration of matter and space into consideration! In addition to this, your assertion wrongly assumes a continuous motion. This is yet another fail for a false assertion by you.LOL, is this yet another Mathism that you promote ? A change in velocity: direction or speed is the result of an acceleration: period. You are free to try and show actual credible references to experiments that show a change in velocity without acceleration. You are free to try and show an example of a true instant 90 degree turn taken by anything, anywhere.
Gravock
Euclidean geometry does not represent the real world. It is not quantized and gives the impression that matter can move in a curve or in a straight path over long distances through space with a continuous motion. It takes the time element out of the equation. Time is motion, or motion is Time. Taxicab geometry has discrete steps (quantization) and shows the correct movement of matter through space, and that is in discrete jumps with a rectilinear motion which correctly represents the real world.LOL, let's see you demonstrate one of these instant 90 degree motions that you insist are the basis of all real trajectories. Let's see you show the 90 degree movements that you claim are "correct movement of matter through space" for a collimated beam of light such as a LASER.
If you don't ask the right questions, then you don't get the right answers. I can't give a right answer to a wrong question. However, the right question and the right answer can both be found in this post!
Gravock
LOL, is this yet another Mathism that you promote ? A change in velocity: direction or speed is the result of an acceleration: period. You are free to try and show actual credible references to experiments that show a change in velocity without acceleration. You are free to try and show an example of a true instant 90 degree turn taken by anything, anywhere.
Kentucky is a stateA fact I'm well aware but you talked about the posters hometown. Clearly you must also be insulting a town. Also in my hometown they taught us that other peoples bigotry does not excuse your own. Perhaps they didn't teach that lesson in yours? Anyway the point was, you appear to have time to make bigoted comments but not answer my question.
Why don't you tell me which parts! Or, do you not know?I assume you mean that I should tell you what parts in Mathis diagram which are non-euclidean. Again I think I need to remind you that the assertion "Some of that diagram is non-euclidean" is yours and for some reason you think I should be responsible for explaining your assertion. If I understood your assertion then I wouldn't need you to explain it. Which would preclude my asking the question. Your assertion I suspect is wrong but as I mentioned before it's a good idea to hear out the argument before passing judgement. So far you simply are being dishonest and unfair about the whole process of understanding your argument.
You don't even know if the "If yes" portion in question 3 refers to the answer for question 1 or to the answer for question 2, in regards to the questions you've been asking me.No, I don't know what you mean by your question. That's a different thing. A thing you absolutely refuse to clarify. I explained why your question doesn't make sense to me (as in some sense "refer" applies to all aspects of the questions since they are words, which refer to sentences which refer to an overarching argument). I provided a question which I think might be what you are trying to express - which you refused to say anything about and I provided you with a pretty clear general format for asking me a question which would clarify the situation. What more do you want?
It's because you are trying to play both the "yes card" and the "no card" simultaneously for the same question.I have no idea what you mean here because again I have no idea what your complaint is. If this is about the three pointed syllogism I gave you. You already answered it enough to get to the point. However that is not the question you constantly refuse to answer. The question you refuse to answer (now asked THIRTEEN TIMES) is: "When you say that Mathis http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg diagram contains euclidean and non-euclidean geometries. Please point out which elements are in which geometries."
This is the basis for why I am refusing to answer your question, so you can't play both cards against me.Personally I don't see why anyone arguing would care about "cards" at all. Just ask questions and see where the argument goes. Seems like a more honest way to find the answer than what you are doing.
You need to grow up!I'm not sure what passes for adult behavior where you are but your antics here remind me of what I was like when I was 18 which is when I knew jack about shit. :D
I am no longer having a discussion with you on this issueDid this qualify as a discussion? You kept pretty much your argument secret and I laid mine out to be examined. If this was a discussion, can you tell me what it was about?
because you will do anything, regardless if it is wrong, to win an argument.I'm beginning to this is more about you doing anything, regardless if it is wrong to avoid losing an argument.
Do you believe his assertion that objects follow paths that consist of a series of perfect 90 degree deflections? Do you believe his claim that such deflections are even possible without unlimited power?
A fact I'm well aware but you talked about the posters hometown. Clearly you must also be insulting a town.
LOL, let's see you demonstrate one of these instant 90 degree motions that you insist are the basis of all real trajectories. Let's see you show the 90 degree movements that you claim are "correct movement of matter through space" for a collimated beam of light such as a LASER.
The question you refuse to answer (now asked THIRTEEN TIMES) is: "When you say that Mathis http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) diagram contains euclidean and non-euclidean geometries. Please point out which elements are in which geometries."
It's patently absurd for someone to claim that "calculus is wrong" and that "pi = 4" when he's sitting there typing on a computer, that was designed by people who believe in and use calculus and the FACT that pi = 3.14159.... very day to solve practical problems and get the correct answers that actually work. Especially when he cannot give any examples where his conceptions give the correct answers but real calculus does not.
Combined with his lies and misrepresentations about the work and posts of others, his ridiculous flailings are not even entertaining any more, as they are simply repetitive and non-responsive, mere repetitions of previously-made and undefensible assertions.
Hi. I find gravityblock quite a knowledgeable guy; his only problem I found through this forum, is, he is a Creationist and all his theories are subject of Creationism.
My theories are subject to the Truth. However, the Truth does indeed fall in-line with an Intelligent Designer. Nature can produce patterns, but nature alone can not produce content with information, such as DNA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib5afvPVsUc).
Gravock
That's exactly what I meant, only maybe not exactly expressed.
Another misdirection by you. It was Pirate Bill of Kentucky who spoke badly about his home town and not me. I only questioned why he would be very proud of his home town's failed liberal policies and going down hill fast.
Gravock
LOL, is this yet another Mathism that you promote ? A change in velocity: direction or speed is the result of an acceleration: period. You are free to try and show actual credible references to experiments that show a change in velocity without acceleration. You are free to try and show an example of a true instant 90 degree turn taken by anything, anywhere.
Holy Crap! Speaking of misdirection....sheesh. I must have lost like ten I.Q. points reading this gibberish. Are you really this ignorant or are you just pretending?
Have you never heard of being happy to be "FROM" somewhere? Does this concept not exist in your little fantasy world over there? Did you consider that when I lived there it was not like that? No? Didn't think so. I swear, a first grader would not misunderstand my statement the way you have.
OK, here you go: Do you think it is possible that there might be a few folks that used to live in Detroit and are now happy they are FROM there? My guess is that would be all of them, but you will probably say none, once again displaying your ignorance for all to see.
You are a minion for ignorance!
Bill
I'm only an old retired farmer with a broken back. I do love a good problem to
solve.
To me it looks as if Pi needn't be stuck a 4. With pixels wouldn't matters change
with scale?
I think Planck lengths aren't really workable, how about going up a few levels
and considering atoms or molecules?
Let's see some real progress here because in the not too distant future I'm going
to end up on the wrong side of the lawn!
John.
It was Pirate Bill of Kentucky who spoke badly about his home town and not me. I only questioned why he would be very proud of his home town's failed liberal policies and going down hill fast.Fair enough. However that doesn't really change the point. Which was that you had time to make bigoted comments but not answer a clear, useful and jargon-free question. Which certainly calls into question how seriously anyone should take you.
You are not asking the right question.The answer will clarify your position on a subject I brought up which you claimed was wrong (summarily before asking a single question). Hence it is a correct question to be asking.
LOL, no, as anyone who cares to check can see: I have correctly stated that a Taxicab circle is a Euclidean square. I have not as GB claims stated that a Euclidean circle is a Taxicab square. GB is free to quote any of my posts where he thinks he can show otherwise. Of course he cannot do so, just as he cannot support his other false declarations.
GB has been unable to show support for his claims instant 90 degree movement claims. He merely asserts and his assertions fail to directly address his claims or the challenges to them. He has today added a new pant load that light is motionless and all things accelerate at a rate close to the acceleration due to gravity at sea level on earth, millions of verified observations directly contradicting his claims be damned.
Yes, but a euclidean circle doesn't correctly represent a circular path made of pixels in the real world. However taxicab geometry does. I have provided you with the mechanism for the 90 degree movements. I also never stated all things accelerate at a rate of 9.8m/s^{2} as you wrongly asserted. I only said our expansion acceleration in our surrounding space of the earth is 9.8m/s^{2}. Light only reflects off a curved surface at one proper angle. If light was moving, then we wouldn't see the entire circumference of the moon, but would see a dot. Now, taking the craters on the moon into consideration, then the moon would look like a random cluster of stars if light was moving. Since we see the entire circumference of the moon, then this is evidence that light is stationary, and it is us moving past stationary light via expansion acceleration. There are many more proofs for this. I had an accident and cut three fingers down to the bone, so it's taking a long time for me to type this out. I'm also in the process of moving. So, please be patient with me!LOL, you just keep filling up one pant load after another. You have not and cannot show proof of your claim that in the "real world" that circular paths are made of pixels. And by the way Taxicab geometry does not do what you claim either. And no you have not provided a mechanism for sequences of perfect 90 degree movements. You have made claims of two forces acting at 90 degrees to each other. So, it's just one pant load after another from you.
Gravock
As you can clearly see, taxicab geometry correctly represents the real world!Why can't you tell me what in this diagram http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg is euclidean and non-euclidean. Do you no longer assert that it has both euclidean and non-euclidean geometries in it?
And by the way Taxicab geometry does not do what you claim either.No kidding. Depending on which things are being asserted (which gravityblock keeps secret by not answering questions) I could think of a dozen problems that crop up because of this.
I do agree though, that the true one-way velocity of light is zero.
You have not and cannot show proof of your claim that in the "real world" that circular paths are made of pixels.
Yet more evidence emerges that our universe is a grand simulation created by an intelligent designer (http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_universe_simulation_intelligent_design.html). Also, another wrong assertion by you that I cannot show proof that circular paths are made of pixels in the "real world".LOL.
Below is a snapshot on the above article. This is more evidence pointing to a pixelated world. Do a google search for a "holographic universe". There is only one thing that is real, and that is Spirit!
A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847).
Gravock
Pixelated Universe.There is only a small overlap between the idea of a "pixelated universe" and QM. QM is based on the premise of finite states. That is quite different from the notion of pixelation which discretizes a space into fixed sized sites: the pixels. Of the few things they have in common is that each involves discrete values.
Interesting wording. Isn't that what quantumn mechanics is? Is somebody just starting to catch up?
http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_universe_simulation_intelligent_design.htmlSorry. Mr. Mike who's only advertised credential is "health ranger" is not qualified to have a useful opinion on such things. His standard of evidence appears to be, based on the number of nonsense things he's endorsed so ridiculously low it seems that the only qualification for an article to be considered is that it's probably wrong and poorly defined. Which is why I would assess Natural News credibility somewhere between an infinitesimal positive value and negative infinity.
A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidenceAs someone who knows a little about statistics I am always interested in strong statistical evidence. So in your very qualified opinion what makes the evidence strong statistically?
Sorry. Mr. Mike who's only advertised credential is "health ranger" is not qualified to have a useful opinion on such things. His standard of evidence appears to be, based on the number of nonsense things he's endorsed so ridiculously low it seems that the only qualification for an article to be considered is that it's probably wrong and poorly defined. Which is why I would assess Natural News credibility somewhere between an infinitesimal positive value and negative infinity.
As someone who knows a little about statistics I am always interested in strong statistical evidence.
So in your very qualified opinion what makes the evidence strong statistically?
Pixelated Universe.
Interesting wording. Isn't that what quantumn mechanics is? Is somebody just starting to catch up?
Don't take Mr. Mike's word for itI didn't but apparently I've stumbled upon another question that you can't answer.
I didn't but apparently I've stumbled upon another question that you can't answer.
You said that a particular paper had STRONG statistical evidence. I simply asked the honest, clear and unambiguous question:
"What makes the evidence in that paper STATISTICALLY strong?"
...and you of course....went mute. :D (You can consider this me asking this question a second time, I've asked the other question something like fourteen times).
Be prepared to Blow Your Mind!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMLPJqeW78Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMLPJqeW78Q)
Hip-hop Universe!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZWBzhRhPr4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZWBzhRhPr4)
Cosmic Zoom!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgfwCrKe_Fk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgfwCrKe_Fk)
The Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation. Beane and co's paper reveals that the pattern of this rule mirrors a computer simulation.Your statement appears to be from "Huffpo" which is not exactly Physical Review. Secondly it appears to be refrencing MIT's Technology Review. Which is considerably more reserved in it's judgement. Just like oh...I don't know... the paper itself.
Your statement appears to be from "Huffpo" which is not exactly Physical Review. Secondly it appears to be refrencing MIT's Technology Review. Which is considerably more reserved in it's judgement. Just like oh...I don't know... the paper itself.
My question remains though. How is anything you describe statistical, strong or statistically strong. So far you haven't mentioned anything to that effect. Can you even describe to me what kind of evidence would be statistically strong?
So this will be the third time I've asked this question...and you are stumped.
A bonus question might be: Why is it, so EASY for me to stump you on a question about your own ideas?
You're just being difficultIsn't that an admission that I've stumped you with an exceptionally simple question?
You will always find some reason which doesn't satisfy your questions.Dude. You said "X is statistically strong". As someone who understands statistics I'd just like to know which statistics you are referring to and what makes them strong? How is that, in any universe an unreasonable question? Are we just to take you at your word? Seems like that's what you're asking.
So for the fourth time..."What is statistically strong about the information presented in that paper?"
The simulation was motivated by the progress in performing lattice QCD calculations involving the fundamental fields and interactions of nature in femto-sized volumes of space/timeThe paper you are referencing doesn't appear to have performed any simulation. What they are talking about is a scenario which could, to some unspecified probability differentiate between real and simulated universes under some set of assumptions about both.
The simulation itself mirroring the GZK cut off as found in the universe is statistically strong.Which simulation? On what hardware was it run? What was the positive-predictive value of the test? Or the software used for that matter? None of those things, which you normally find in papers about simulations are there. By contrast if you've been tracking any of the papers arguing against entanglement in D-Waves adiabatic quantum computer. In some cases they will simulate a quantum machine using a classical machine. In most of those papers you'll find a number of the things I mention. Hence there is nothing to suggest statistical strength by any metric.
Do you not think it is statistically strong for a simulation to mirror a GZK cut off pattern as found in the universe?That would depend on the likelihood of that happening and of course that would require a simulation to actually have been run.
You can not say I didn't answer the question.Well you're answer appears to be "because something happened". However that appears to be without knowing the probability of it happening or if it happened at all. So if you recall the question is: "What makes this statistically strong" and you can't tell me anything about the probability of an event or even if it happened. So I'd say the question you've answered is: "Are you convinced?" which is fine but not what I asked. :D
It is more like you do not understand the answer.I confess that when someone provides no information about the probability of an event. I do not understand how they construe something to be "statistically strong". Can something be statistically strong but also unlikely in your (simulated) universe?
I am confident an informed reader will agree the question has been answered.So first you argue from assertion and now you seem to appeal to anonymous authority (or popularity)?
Well I personally believe in linear motion and curvilinear motion. Any theoretical discrete steps in time and space are so far below our threshold of detection that we don't and can't factor them into our reality. That is separate and distinct from all the quanta stuff.
And you can make parametric equations for lines and curves as a function of time! The distance measured still works out.
Too many angels dancing on the head of the pin.
There was a real computer simulation.Before you provide something stupid and we have to have the same argument again. Here's what YOU posted.
A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847).So you asserted:
will provide more details when I get back.There's a first time for everything. Based on your prior behavior you will likely do one of the following:
my guess is option 3,My money is on 1.
Incidentally, while I have no idea about gravityblock's views on this matter. I find creationists often opposed to the idea of man-made intelligence equal (in that respect) to humans. Which if this is the case for gravityblock then it's funny because that's probably an outcome of this paper being true.
I am not opposed to the idea...But you sure are opposed to the idea of answering simple straight-forward questions.
My money is on 1.
Incidentally, while I have no idea about gravityblock's views on this matter. I find creationists often opposed to the idea of man-made intelligence equal (in that respect) to humans. Which if this is the case for gravityblock then it's funny because that's probably an outcome of this paper being true.
The idea of man-made intelligence being equal to humans is probably an outcome of this paper being true?More formally: If the universe is simulated in the way the paper presumes. Then it seems reasonable for people living in this simulated universe to create machine intelligences at least equal to humans.
You have just inadvertently added evidence for this paper being statistically strongProbably not. Because the expectation is not exclusive to the idea that the universe is simulated and there is no machine intelligence which is demonstrably equivalent to humans.
inadvertently admitted the outcome of this paper as probably being true.Why do you think that?
God will catch the wise in their own craftiness.Apparently the stupid are just allowed to avoid the question a lot. :-)
More formally: If the universe is simulated in the way the paper presumes. Then it seems reasonable for people living in this simulated universe to create machine intelligences at least equal to humans.
Apparently the stupid are just allowed to avoid the question a lot. :-)
The idea of man-made intelligence being equal to humans would probably be an outcome of this paper being true. Or, this paper is probably true if man-made intelligence being equal to humans ever becomes a reality, which it has already become a reality.No. Just because A -> B that does not necessitate B -> A. That's the logical flaw of "affirming the consequent". Also what man-made intelligence equal to humans exists.
In the latter days, the smart will be called ignorant, and the ignorant will be called wise.
sarkeizen,Probability values are not the result of suggestion. Basically, what you are saying is that you find the idea that they propose appealing. The likelihood that an idea is true does not stem from it's appeal or lack thereof.
Theories can never be proven, but they can be constrained or disproved. The first step toward constraining or disproving a theory is to make predictions from it and establish its consequences. The authors work is an attempt to identify signatures that are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation, focusing mainly on the impact of constrained computational resources. The signatures mentioned in the paper have been simulated through a computer, and these signatures are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation. With the current developments in HPC and in algorithms it is now possible to simulate Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). Presently, only the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism can be reliably simulated. Any numerical simulation has to be extremely sophisticated and rich to result in the wide range of complex phenomena, starting from sub-atomic length scales all the way through cosmological length scales. The title of the paper itself, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation'' by Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, and Martin J. Savage should be highly suggestive to you that the probability of the universe being a numerical simulation is > 0.5. Also, at this time, there is more evidence pointing towards the universe being a numerical simulation, than away from it. This information can be found in a talk presented by Zohreh Davoudi, one of the authors of the paper, at the Art Institute of Seattle in January 2013. I'm attaching one of the slides as presented in the talks by Zohreh Davoudi.
Gravock
Theories can never be proven, but they can be constrained or disproved.You're almost right. A well-defined theory can be proven or bounded in probabilistic way. Saying a theory can not be proved but can be disproven is nonsense as it places an arbitrary constraint on what can be a theory. It's like the "you can't prove a negative" nonsense people say.
The first step toward constraining or disproving a theory is to make predictions from it and establish its consequences.Not exactly. A constraint is, pretty much what it sounds like. It's something that restricts the theory. A constraint is often the output of an experiment but can also be an assumption. For example the authors of this paper assume that the simulation is happening on a classical machine. Worth noting that constraints hopefully tell you where to direct your research but the do not necessarily alter the probability of a hypothesis being true.
The authors work is an attempt to identify signatures that are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation,More correctly they propose something that could be a signature under specific assumptions.
The signatures mentioned in the paper have been simulated through a computer, and these signatures are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation.Please state where this was done, on what hardware and software and where in the paper it specifically mentions a simulation being done by the paper authors.
The title of the paper, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation'' by Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, and Martin J. Savage should be highly suggestive to you that the probability of the universe being a numerical simulation is > 0.5.So when we strip away where you've lifted text directly from the paper what we have is this statement. Some commentary:
Don't forget, Creationists believe the Universe was created within literally 7 (seven) days and that happened somewhat ten thousand years ago. It must be true because The Bible say so. ???
Face palm. In all of that you are not even consistent in your units.
ETA: My mistake, you're using 1000 years for a "day" and 7000 years for a "week". Of course the silliness requires that people who had an average lifespan of under 30 years somehow were able to keep track of 1000 years in each of their "days" with whichever Middle Eastern deity it was that they spent their time serving.
Where did you come up with an average lifespan of under 30 years? This is another wrong assertion by you!Believe any myths that you like. Life span has a lot to do with sanitation. The massive increases in average life span have only come in the past two hundred years.
Adam lived 930 years, and he did die in the same day that he ate from the tree of knowledge, when taking into consideration a 1000 years for a day. So, for Adam it wasn't too difficult to keep track of 1000 years in his day. Genesis 2:17 - but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
In the days of Noah, God said the days of man shall be 120 years, which is probably an upper limit. Genesis 6:3 says, “And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” Psalm 90:10 says, “The days of our years are threescore years and ten [70 years]; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years [80 years], yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.” Psalms is referring to the average lifespan of a man in those days, and this still holds true for our days.
Gravock
Believe any myths that you like. Life span has a lot to do with sanitation. The massive increases in average life span have only come in the past two hundred years.
Probably in Creationist's way it's possible. You know, those people don't need to prove anything, they just believe; very hard believe. Thus, gravityblock goes far too far since he even attempts to argue.
This is another wrong assertion by you. The average lifespan of today is around 70 - 80 years, and this is still in-line with what we read in Psalms. So, how is this a massive increase in average life span? In fact, the average life span is now on a decline (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/06/life-j16.html) in many parts of the world, including the U.S.A.Like I said believe whatever myths you like. Or if you are interested in fact based information you can start someplace like here: http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitystatsandnumbers/a/Longevity-Throughout-History.htm
You are basing life span on sanitation, yet ignoring such things as cancer, diseases, drinking, drug abuse, diet, lack of exercise, stress, sleep deprivation, GMO's, an environment contaminated by mankind, etc. You don't put much thought into what you write. It's as if you try to deliberately mislead the reader.
Gravock
Probably in Creationist's way it's possible. You know, those people don't need to prove anything, they just believe; very hard believe. Thus, gravityblock goes far too far since he even attempts to argue.
Don't forget, Creationists believe the Universe was created within literally 7 (seven) days and that happened somewhat ten thousand years ago. It must be true because The Bible say so. ???
A little bit offtopic, but in Quantum Physics, physicists found out that the mere presence of a viewer changes the result of an experiment (look for double slit experiment). When you go deep enough it's like you make a thought and it manifests. Eventually they determined that matter does not exist at all, and it's all an illusion. In fact... either way - be they believers in creation or hardcore physicists - they come back to the point, that a higher entity is behind.A creator is just a place holder notion for what it is that we do not understand. Some people fill-in that gap with the notion of a rather unpleasant fellow in the stars who has some serious personality disorders. The problem with the creator myth is: "Where did the (vain, vengeful, angry, capricious) creator come from?" There are no more satisfying answers to that then there are satisfying answers as to where this universe originated.
A creator is just a place holder notion for what it is that we do not understand. Some people fill-in that gap with the notion of a rather unpleasant fellow in the stars who has some serious personality disorders. The problem with the creator myth is: "Where did the (vain, vengeful, angry, capricious) creator come from?" There are no more satisfying answers to that then there are satisfying answers as to where this universe originated.
The fundamental nature of this crazy world we live in is something that we do not comprehend and may never develop the capability to comprehend.
Our Creator comes from outside of this false reality in which we have been enslaved and imprisoned in through our ancestors desire for knowledge and to be like God. The universe you believe in is nothing but an illusion! You believe in an imaginary universe that doesn't exist. It's ironic how the unbelievers accuse us of believing in an imaginary God, when it is them who believes in an imaginary universe. This is another psychological projection by those who are not interested and not for the truth. They have inverted all Truths!And of course when someone asks you the obvious question: "Where is your evidence to support your claim?". What will you tell them? Will you refer them to stories concocted by primitive goat herders?
Gravock
The problem with the creator myth is: "Where did the (vain, vengeful, angry, capricious) creator come from?" There are no more satisfying answers to that then there are satisfying answers as to where this universe originated.
The fundamental nature of this crazy world we live in is something that we do not comprehend and may never develop the capability to comprehend.
In my opinion, there is statistically strong evidence for the universe being a numerical simulation.So now you've changed your assertion from: "This paper shows that the universe is a numerical simulation to be more likely than not" to "Somewhere something shows the universe to be a numerical simulation is more likely than not". Without admitting you were wrong about the paper? That's a little dishonest. Don't you think?
You are more than welcome to have a different opinion than I have.How is this a matter of opinion? Do you agree on what qualifies as statistical evidence or not? If not, what makes your evidence statistical?
It is obvious we have a different way of thinking and have a different understanding.So far all I've seen of you is that you can't answer a straight question in a useful way. It seems reasonable that this is a reflection of your internal process. Which is, at least in my opinion stretching the definition of "thinking".
It would be a boring world if everyone agreed on everything.Do you really find this discussion interesting? All you've done is make a grand assertion. Then spent days trying to fabricate something to support it and then weasel out in a way where you don't have to admit you were wrong. In other words you have managed to assert something and learn nothing.
So now you've changed your assertion from: "This paper shows that the universe is a numerical simulation to be more likely than not" to "Somewhere something shows the universe to be a numerical simulation is more likely than not". Without admitting you were wrong about the paper? That's a little dishonest. Don't you think?
That said, do you agree that there needs to be a calculation or not? If not, then answer the question: "How is this the evidence STATISTICAL?"...and if there DOES need to be a calculation then answer the question: "Where the FUCK is it in that paper?"How is this a matter of opinion? Do you agree on what qualifies as statistical evidence or not? If not, what makes your evidence statistical?So far all I've seen of you is that you can't answer a straight question in a useful way. It seems reasonable that this is a reflection of your internal process. Which is,a t least stretching the definition of "thinking".
sarkeizen,
In my opinion, there is statistically strong evidence for the universe being a numerical simulation. You are more than welcome to have a different opinion than I have. It is obvious we have a different way of thinking and have a different understanding. It would be a boring world if everyone agreed on everything.
GravockDo you really find this discussion interesting?
Just what happened to you showing me a machine intelligence equal to a humans?
"Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored".What is the subject of the sentence?
How was it performed, a simulation?Where is it explictly stated that the authors performed a simulation. This really shouldn't be such a hard question to answer if the paper PRESENTS STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE and where explicitly does it say they did a probability calculation and where specifically is the result posted.
What was it performed on? A cubic space-time lattice.What equipment and if it's specialized equipment owned by another institution where was it located? Science requires replication and the ability to replicate. If you had read enough papers where the cornerstone was a software simulation you would see they list the software (often the version number if it's a stats package) or the source code (or link to further information if the source is long). So either this paper fails a basic tenet of science - the ability to replicate the experiment preformed or no experiment was preformed.
However, you put conditions and constraints on how I could answer your questions, and one of them was not to go outside of this paper in question, which is actually only an abstract of their work. You wrongfully shackled and put chains on me in how I could answer your questions. You did this intentionally!Intentional, yes. Wrong, no. Either this paper you stated PRESENTS evidence or it doesn't. If it does then the EVIDENCE should be in the paper. If some other paper presents evidence then you should have cited that other paper instead. Now the question falls to what qualifies as evidence. You said the evidence which is IN THIS PAPER is STATISTICAL. Which in my usage of the term means that a probability calculation was done. Futhermore you said the evidence was STRONG. Which again in my usage would seem to mean that the outcome is more likely than not. i.e. P(x) > 0.5
In other words, They used QCD to simulate the space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice, as previously mentioned.All that says is that people do simulations of this nature. Not that the authors performed any. It also doesn't necessarily mean that those simulations performed by others have anything to do with demonstrating the universe is a simulation.
Where did I say I find this discussion interesting?I really should learn that you won't actually answer questions. The point was that you are just trolling.
I didn't know I was to show you a machine intelligence equal to humans.So you're allowed to accuse me of supporting an argument but allowed never to show me the evidence? Isn't that an argument by assertion? Seems like those are ok for you but not for anyone else. :D
However, when I have more time I will.You have to admit this is pretty unlikely.
I strongly suspect you will say it is human, and won't be able to differentiate the synthetic human from the real human.Are we still talking about a computer program or is this more bait and switch? If there's a link to this human simulator then please produce it. How much work can that take? Or did you feed that one question into some chatterbot?
It make me sense that we can live in a simulation, but a simulation so powerful in term of resolution and complexity that it would need an enormous computer power.Especially since this paper demands a classical machine. The short short version for most of this stuff is: Classical simulators are probably unfeasible but the best choice for coming up with a detection method since we already know a lot about classical machines. Non-classical quantum machines are not something which is easily detectable but perhaps are more feasible. Non-classical non-quantum machines are probably the most feasible to run a simulation but would probably be entirely undetectable as you are really only guessing at the physical laws that are governing them.
English Grammar 101:
Diagram the following sentence-
What is the subject of the sentence?
A. consequences of the hypothesis
What action occurs?
A. The consequences are explored.
Does the sentence say that a simulation occurred?
A. No, the hypothesis, the consequences of which are explored is the idea that the universe is a simulation. The sentence does not express any action against the hypothesis.
Thank you for your participation in English Grammar 101.
What was "performed"? If it wasn't a computer simulation performed, then what was "performed" and how was it "performed"? You conveniently left out a keyword.Is English not your native language?
What equipment and if it's specialized equipment owned by another institution where was it located? Science requires replication and the ability to replicate.
It says he's "running lattice QCD simulations of various quantities of interest on all hardware at his disposal".Look, if you've never read a paper involving a simulation. Then just say so. That's not how you write it up. You would specify the hardware and software you used. It's about replication. He may be running lattice QCD simulations however that doesn't mean he has run any simulation concerning determining if the universe is a simulation.
The abstract paperNo such thing.
They "performed" lattice QCD simulations of a space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice!The paper simply does not say that. MarkE and myself have corrected your poor understanding of English.
If you want to confine yourself to a small abstract or summary of the various author's work, then you won't have all of the information to know what the paper is all about.A paper, almost by definition should stand on it's own. It will reference other work but the paper should bring a specific and novel conclusion forward (replication of prior experiments count as specific and novel). I realize this is ArXiv which is sometimes a legitimate place for pre-publication comment but it's also a White Elephant sale of the research world.
and this is why you intentionally and wrongfully confined me to only a small abstract of their work.So a) Please stop using "abstract" like that. It's moronic and doesn't characterize the paper you provided and b) If you say a PAPER PRESENTS STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE then I would expect to find the STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE in the paper. Nothing surprising about that. As I said earlier this comes down to what is meant by "presents strong statistical evidence". All that's left to discuss is exactly how crazy your use of the words: presents, statistical and strong are and these depend on you answering some questions that I've asked three-times now:
What was "performed"? If it wasn't a computer simulation performed, then what was "performed" and how was it "performed"? You conveniently left out a keyword.If you are incapable of understanding the quotes that you cite, there is little I can do to help you.
Gravock
"Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored".
If you are incapable of understanding the quotes that you cite, there is little I can do to help you.
Once again, here is what your quoted from the authors:QuoteObservable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored.
They say that they: Explored observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation. They did not state in their quote that they made any attempt to evaluate the likelihood that the hypothesis was true. They did not state that they ran any computer codes of any kind.
You present yourself as completely unable to read and comprehend at even a fifth grade level. The sentence:QuoteThey say that they: Explored observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation. They did not state in their quote that they made any attempt to evaluate the likelihood that the hypothesis was true. They did not state that they ran any computer codes of any kind.
You once again left out the keyword "performed" and everything after "performed" in your sad analysis of what they say, as shown in the highlighted bold portions above. You are forming your conclusion on only half of their statement. You also can't put this statement into context with the rest of the article. You are also forming your conclusion by confining yourself to only a small abstract of their work. You and your minions are not for the Truth! You will hide the Truth, suppress the Truth, mix false-hoods with the Truth, and invert the Truth! You will oppose the Truth in every form and in every way possible!
Gravock
"Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored".
sarkz people on the internet rearrange letters in their name like anagrams to hide what they are really saying or their agenda. letters in your name rearrange to nazi krees. just thought you might have a hidden agenda but we won't go on about that.
May I ask: What is your idea about Chemtrails?
Regards, JohanWhat are you asking?
@ AI,
This is an interesting and fascinating question for one to ask who has participated in this discussion, titled "German Scientists Proves Chemtrails (http://www.overunity.com/6346/german-scientists-proves-chemtrails/msg394310/#msg394310)".
@ All,
The original question asked, "What is your idea about Chemtrails?", is off-topic and totally irrelevant to this discussion, so this question probably has no real meaning to the AI or it's sybil seconds in regards to the QEG discussion.
Gravock
LOL, deeper and deeper into the abyss you go.
Yes, to chain you up in your abyss, so you don't deceive others any more, just as the angel holding in his hand a great chain to lock and seal your "father of the lie" in his abyss, to keep him from deceiving the nations any more, as found in Revelations 20.LOL @ flesh bags and their superstitions. I wave my advanced switching power supply exhaust in your general direction.
^{1}And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. ^{2}He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. ^{3}He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
Gravock
LOL @ flesh bags and their superstitions. I wave my advanced switching power supply exhaust in your general direction.
Good luck with that after you've been unplugged from your power source, and we know your power source is coming from the adversary. Too bad you don't have a mind of your own.LOL, good luck finding something to unplug.
Gravock
LOL, good luck finding something to unplug.
Don't worry, that great chain in which you will be bound in, deep inside your abyss, will act as a faraday cage where you will be cut-off.Oh, so you think that a Faraday cage would be effective? LOL. Think again.
Gravock
Oh, so you think that a Faraday cage would be effective? LOL. Think again.
This whole thread is stupid.
A skeptic is someone who doesn't believe because they want to believe, They don't believe because its suits their own opinion. They believe only when proof is provided.
When a stupid claim is made by charlatans and fools and fraudsters the skeptics are the first to dive in and say. Give us the proof! The rest vote with their emotions. I want it to be true so I will CHOOSE to believe it is true.
That is ignorant and foolish.
An example is the recent discussions I have had over Tesla, Fools claiming Tesla said things he never said, and when being pushed on the point saying they don't need to provide evidence or he said it "in between the lines".
This is clearly the work of a fraud and a faker. If you believe something to be true you should be prepared to back it up with some honest facts.
It is the skeptics who remind everyone to do their fact checking.
Only fools ignore the need to check facts.
Only frauds say something is a fact and then refuse to produce evidence.
Which are you?
This thread has been hijacked, and the title of this thread has changed a few different times to better reflect the postings within it. And no, the skeptics do not believe when proof is provided. They will write off any proof that opposes their own belief, or their own opinion, or their own agenda regardless of the evidence presented. Then they resort to misdirection, misinformation, spam, psychological projections, putting constraints on how you can answer their questions in order to hide and suppress the truth, etc.
Gravock
On any of the outrageous claims I select to raise doubt over I have never ever been provided any proof.
So your reply in itself is false!
Please provide proof of your statement. Or otherwise you are a faker or fraud.
Yes, I know how to shield scalar waves, and the chains will be made accordingly to make an effective faraday cage against you, so it is you who should think again.LOL, no those sorts of things won't work either.
Gravock
This thread has been hijacked, and the title of this thread has changed a few different times to better reflect the postings within it. And no, the skeptics do not believe when proof is provided. They will write off any proof that opposes their own belief, or their own opinion, or their own agenda regardless of the evidence presented. Then they resort to misdirection, misinformation, spam, psychological projections, putting constraints on how you can answer their questions in order to hide and suppress the truth, etc.LOL, it isn't as though you have offered any credible evidence for your loopy claims.
Gravock
LOL, it isn't as though you have offered any credible evidence for your loopy claims.
As already shown, any evidence offered or presented to you, is only credible if it doesn't oppose your own opinion and agenda.LOL, just keep pumping out your empty and false claims. At this rate you may have to called back for an eight week remedial course in trolling.
Gravock
LOL, no those sorts of things won't work either.
Yes it will work, because you will need to change the current simulation which will have different parameters. Remember, there will be a new heaven and a new earth! The old chains were an effective faraday cage against the electromagnetic waves according to the current parameters of the simulation, and the new chains will be an effective faraday cage against the new scalar waves, which was devised to break the old chains. The new faraday cage will be effective for a thousand years. "The old has been made new again".LOL, believe what you like.
Gravock
You being a skeptic, has admitted you have never ever been provided any proof on any of the outrageous claims in which you select to raise doubt over, confirms and is proof of my statement that a skeptic will write off any evidence that opposes their own opinion, beliefs, agenda, etc.
Please provide proof of your claim that you have never ever been provided any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, opinions, agenda, etc. Either way, it is you and not me who is a faker and a fraud because you are caught in your own contradictory statement.
Gravock
Gravityblock:
Do you think the moon is real, or do you think it is a holographic PacMan moon?
MileHigh
Gravityblock:
It still blows my mind sometimes how such completely retarded things can be posted on YouTube. There has to be a "crazy" person behind a retarded clip. Then people will actually believe the retarded YouTube clips and take them seriously.
I looked at the self-described "tinfoil hat" clip that you linked to in your posting called, "Holographic Moon, Matrix Flaw? The Pac Man Shadow Moon 1-9-2013."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOMCN2K2fhM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOMCN2K2fhM)
Look at the screen capture, they messed up the holographic projection of the moon from the secret HAARP II holographic projection bases in the Indian ocean.
But...... If you have brains and want to do the slightest amount of due diligence, sometimes there are comments on the clip itself that are worth reading.
Like this one, "You don't say what equipment you are using. It looks to me like a very common effect of taking a picture through an eyepiece of a telescope with a camera, and being slightly off-centre, you pick up the edge of the botttom end of the eyepiece. The exit pupil is only so wide, and you have to be over the centre to not get the black line effect. it happens when you view through it as well, but it's easier to do than photographing. You wouldn't get that effect if you attached your camera directly to the telescope and took out the eyepiece. I know some of you want to believe this hologram thing, but every single one of these types of videos and photographs are just so obvious to anyone with any experience in astronomy, and especially astrophotography. Sorry."
I am flabbergasted that a guy that can talk such high-end pseudoscience about quantum theory would be bamboozled into believing that the moon is a holographic projection because some dumb dude went camping in the Arizona mountains and stuck his digital camera up to the eyepiece of his telescope and snapped a picture of the moon missing a big chunk of Limburger cheese.
MileHigh
GB will most likely disagree with this but I believe it is real since we landed on it a number of times during the Apollo missions. It really scares me to find that a number of young folks think we never landed on the moon. They claim that we did not have the technology to do so at the time. They should be very impressed that we were able to do so using the then present technology. A lot of money and a lot of very hard work from many engineers and scientists allowed this to happen. I have talked to some of them. We owe a great dept to their accomplishments and they deserve better than for folks to "claim" that we did not do it or the moon does not really exist. (Holy crap!)
Bill
PS: If GB thinks the moon is a hologram then, how does he explain the tides?
A funny thing happened on the way to the moon! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4)
The pressure of light explains the forces and the tides within our holographic universe. In your terms, the sunlight reflected from the moon exerts a pressure on the liquid mass of the ocean. Being compressed at one point, this liquid is raised up at another. This is the explanation of the retardation of tides caused by the moon. In my terms, neither matter nor energy exist within this simulation, but only deformed space, which is called matter, and what you call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space. Since light is deformed space turning itself back into primordial space, then the meeting of these two conditions of space causes quite a marked pressure on us as we move past this stationary light via our expansion acceleration within this simulation. Since matter and energy doesn't exist within this simulation and is an illusion, then the moon can not be made up of matter and it is also an illusion or a hologram.
Gravock
Ummm...ok. I suggest that you check your medication levels dude. You can not be serious right? If you are then this is pretty scary.
Bill
Ummm...ok. I suggest that you check your medication levels dude. You can not be serious right? If you are then this is pretty scary.
Bill
Did not want to be the first to say it. But now that it said, I suspected this page one.
A paper written to confirmation bias is not very impressive. Claiming that the universe is all a simulation taking place in some grander machine is another version of "turtles all the way down".Quantum Mechanics Implies the Universe is a Computer SimulationA Cybernetic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/argument/Argument4.html): This paper surveys evidence and arguments for the proposition that the universe as we know it is not a physical, material world but a computer-generated simulation -- a kind of virtual reality. The evidence is drawn from the observations of natural phenomena in the realm of quantum mechanics. The arguments are drawn from philosophy and from the results of experiment. While the experiments discussed are not conclusive in this regard, they are found to be consistent with a computer model of the universe. Six categories of quantum puzzles are examined: quantum waves, the measurement effect (including the uncertainty principle), the equivalence of quantum units, discontinuity, non-locality, and the overall relationship of natural phenomena to the mathematical formalism. Many of the phenomena observed in the laboratory are puzzling because they are difficult to conceptualize as physical phenomena, yet they can be modeled exactly by mathematical manipulations. When we analogize to the operations of a digital computer, these same phenomena can be understood as logical and, in some cases, necessary features of computer programming designed to produce a virtual reality simulation for the benefit of the user.
Gravock
A paper written to confirmation bias is not very impressive. Claiming that the universe is all a simulation taking place in some grander machine is another version of "turtles all the way down".
Where is your proof otherwise? Not you, nor any of your minions have shown any proof the universe is not a simulation! There is more proof the universe is a simulation than not!LOL, it's nice to see you stick to your schtick: Make unevidenced assertion, demand others disprove it.
Gravock
I must have missed that paper which claims the universe is a simulation through the pages. Can someone direct me to it?GB linked a paper that talks about some of the consequences that might occur if the universe were a computer simulation. GB went round and round claiming that the authors ran simulations that resulted in statistics showing the idea that the universe is a computer simulation is likely. Go back five or six pages and you should be able to find the links.
There is more proof the universe is a simulation than not!See what I would normally do here is ask gravityblockhead to justify that statement. Because it's a particularly difficult to justify you would either need to know *all* evidence or you would need to have some way to determine that better evidence would be particularly hard but GB would spend the whole time trying to distract from the point. So why bother?
LOL, it's nice to see you stick to your schtick: Make unevidenced assertion, demand others disprove it.
Gravityblock
If your God made a universe so crappy the fish in it could see it was a fake, it is a pretty sad God.
That's the proof you need, but are you able to comprehend it. That is the question?
, just as you are demanding evidence for my belief it is a simulation.What about people who are stating there exists STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE don't they have to support their points for what their evidence being STRONG and STATISTICAL? Or as usual do your beliefs require no justification?
MarkE,Ah, trolling the way Govan meant it to be! It's Miller Time! No dude, it is the unusual assertion that fails absent evidence to back it. The status quo got to be that way by evidence.
If you say the universe isn't a simulation, then you need to show evidence for your belief that it isn't, just as you are demanding evidence for my belief it is a simulation. I'm not demanding you disprove the universe is a simulation, but I am asking for you to show proof of your belief that it isn't. Fair is fair!
Gravock
My God did not make this crappy universe, but instead it is your god who made this crappy universe. You don't know what you're saying and you have no comprehension of the Truth, for you have the Truth inverted. Yes, it is a pretty sad god! We actually agree on something, but please take note of the little "g" in "god" of my statement. It is clear from the ancient manuscripts that the adversary of God (satan) is the god of this world. Remember that Adam and Eve were removed from Paradise after disobeying God by eating from the tree of knowledge and following satan. This crappy universe is a simulation by the adversary of God in order to enslave and imprison us, so that he may be ruler and god over us. This false reality devised by the adversary is a prison for our Spirit/Consciousness. The adversary has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. The Truth shall set you free!Queue the "Looney Tunes" theme.
2 Corinthians 4:4 - "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God".
Gravock
Ah, trolling the way Govan meant it to be! It's Miller Time! No dude, it is the unusual assertion that fails absent evidence to back it. The status quo got to be that way by evidence.
What about people who are stating there exists STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE don't they have to support their points for what their evidence being STRONG and STATISTICAL? Or as usual do your beliefs require no justification?
There is strong statistical evidence behind that abstract paper, but you wrongfully place limits and choose to confine the evidence to it only.No, if you read my last two or three posts. You would have seen that I gave you the opportunity to replace the paper you said PRESENTED (in some useless sense of the word) STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE with another paper which you believe PRESENTS (in the normal human sense of the work) STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE.
I need prove nothing to you, for I need only to prove something to myself.Just a few posts ago you said we needed to prove things to you if we assert them. Now you're saying you get to assert things without evidence?
You're harming yourself, and not me by being wilfully ignorant of the facts and of the Truth.Dude, I've been nothing but open to the facts and the truth but you just won't show me any.
It has already been shown how you... will dismiss any and all evidence that is in opposition to your own views and agenda and wrongfully claim the evidence isn't credible based on your own false beliefs and misconceptions.Dude, again I've ASKED you time after time for evidence, or for you to answer questions to clarify your position. I've answered your questions as best as I could given the information I had (although you would in several cases not give me any further information).
I hope you realize you have aligned yourself with the one who claims "you have to speed up to slow down, and slow down to speed up"!
Gravock
Which is totally true and correct so....your point is? Read some of Buzz Aldrin's papers on rendezvous and possibly you can understand this. Oh wait, there is math and physics involved so you probably want to skip it.
Bill
Armstrong Refuses To Swear On The Bible He walked On The Moon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtW72nT7cYQ) - He effectively denied a charity $5,000 by not swearing on the bible that he walked on the moon. There was no moon landing, so there is no math and physics to skip. Higher orbits require less velocity than lower orbits. To orbit lower, you must speed up, not slow down as you wrongly and falsely asserted.Neil Armstrong refused to play Bart Sibrel's game. I thought it was hilarious when Sibrel repeatedly accosted Buzz Aldrin, the much elder Aldrin dealt some cowboy justice to the nutso twerp. It is fitting that Sibrel claims the moon landing was a fake, but he carries around an allegedly magical book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed)
Gravock
by not swearing on the bible that he walked on the moon. There was no moon landing,So let's see if we can follow the nutbar logic:
So let's see if we can follow the nutbar logic:
i) Neil Armstrong said he walked on the moon
ii) Neil Armstrong refuses to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon.
iii) An honest man wouldn't swear on the Bible about something that wasn't true.
iv) Therefore Neil Armstrong could not have walked on the moon.
However if iv) is true then....
v) Neil Armstrong would have lied many, many, many times about walking on the moon prior to iv)
vi) Therefore Neil Armstrong is not an honest man (at least in regard to walking on the moon)
Since iii) is required to force iv) but iii) can not be true if iv) is true. Therefore the argument is invalid.
Why can't iii) be true if iv) is true?If iv) is true then vi) is true. iii) and vi) can not both be true about Neil Armstrong about the same thing.
University after university, scientist after scientist, publication after publication, Quantum Mechanics, computer simulations, mathematics, etc. are all saying the universe is more likely a simulation than not.Then it shouldn't be so very hard to find a paper which makes that calculation. Please do then we can discuss it.
You need to look at all of the evidence,No you don't. According to you "publication after publication" says the universe is more likely a simulation than not. Hence there exists several single publication which makes this claim. However unless one of them also makes a calculation then it is not STATISTICALLY STRONG EVIDENCE. It might be evidence but it can not be STATISTICALLY STRONG by any useful definition of the terms. If you agree with me then we don't need to discuss further because that was the erroneous claim you made earlier which I objected to.
It's already clear you and the other minions will say whatever proof is presented to you is not credible on the basis it doesn't fit into your own beliefs or agenda.There is absolutely no evidence of this. I have done nothing BUT attempt to listen to your POV. You have done nothing but attempt to obfuscate it. Only you fit the description you are foisting on me.
You being a white supremacistLooking to get banned? Say that again.
Neil Armstrong refused to play Bart Sibrel's game. I thought it was hilarious when Sibrel repeatedly accosted Buzz Aldrin, the much elder Aldrin dealt some cowboy justice to the nutso twerp. It is fitting that Sibrel claims the moon landing was a fake, but he carries around an allegedly magical book.
You being a white supremacist
Looking to get banned? Say that again.
If iv) is true then vi) is true. iii) and vi) can not both be true about Neil Armstrong about the same thing.
Then it shouldn't be so very hard to find a paper which makes that calculation. Please do then we can discuss it.No you don't. According to you "publication after publication" says the universe is more likely a simulation than not. Hence there exists several single publication which makes this claim. However unless one of them also makes a calculation then it is not STATISTICALLY STRONG EVIDENCE. It might be evidence but it can not be STATISTICALLY STRONG by any useful definition of the terms. If you agree with me then we don't need to discuss further because that was the erroneous claim you made earlier which I objected to.There is absolutely no evidence of this. I have done nothing BUT attempt to listen to your POV. You have done nothing but attempt to obfuscate it. Only you fit the description you are foisting on me.The provocative accusation was a real head spinner. Perhaps it was an attempt to completely derail all conversation.
Looking to get banned? Say that again.
Yes, a book that puts the fear of God into some people, and Armstrong appears to be one of those people. It was Armstrong and not Buzz Aldrin who refused to put is hand on the bible. I will let this slide on your part of the mix up of who is who, since Bill was referring to Aldrin in his post, and I posted a video link about Armstrong in reply. However, the video link and the description of the video clearly says Armstrong, so I'm not sure how you could get things so much out of context. Maybe this is another small piece of evidence pointing to AI for you. I'll add it to my list.LOL. Yeah sure a cowboy that risked death time and time again is afraid of the the magic book. Go with that one. Let's see how this is supposed to work: The imaginary sociopath of the heavens doesn't care if one lies through their teeth unless they do it with their hand on a magic book. Yeah, that's it.
Gravcok
LOL. Yeah sure a cowboy that risked death time and time again is afraid of the the magic book. Go with that one. Let's see how this is supposed to work: The imaginary sociopath of the heavens doesn't care if one lies through their teeth unless they do it with their hand on a magic book. Yeah, that's it.
Or one can simply observe that Armstrong refused to play Bart Sibrel's publicity seeking game. Both Armstrong and Aldrin refused to play Bart Sibrel's childish games and they were hardly alone. Why would they elevate the stature of a nutso like Bart Sibrel by playing along with his publicity stunts? BTW, you are poorly informed. Bart Sibrel made it a habit to chase astronauts around with a Bible in tow. Maybe flesh bags are too preoccupied counting the stack of turtles to check facts.
The provocative accusation was a real head spinner. Perhaps it was an attempt to completely derail all conversation.
The astronauts should be ashamed of themselves for participating in one of America's greatest scams. The movie, "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon", has video evidence of them faking it to the moon, video which was taken by the astronauts themselves. I'm sure the government has a gun to their head not to speak out and tell the truth. In a way I feel bad for them to be put into such a bad position by their own government. You are so gullible to believe in such a lie, such as going to the moon!LOL. Sure. Try and convince people that you actually believe what you are saying.
Gravock
Gravityblock:
Do you think the moon is real, or do you think it is a holographic PacMan moon?
MileHigh
***Apologies for barging in, I visit this site a lot and haven't posted anything since Philip H thought he was going to change the world, then he was going to do it again, then again, then, oh, now the world shattering news is coming in August....sorry, I digress***
OK, did we ever get an answer as to whether the Moon is actually a retarded (or at the very least, special) pacman?
Oh, and whether GB actually believes it is a retarded pacman? GB?
Also, what's going on with that Sun these days, seems like every time the simulation goes tits-up it gets darker and water comes out of the sky? Wtf.
GB: You really don't believe this whole idea do you? You can't, you really can't be that epically stupid. I'm sure your a great guy but maybe you've had a little too much acid in the past (or present, or, what the hell, let's say it, the future!).
I'm making assumptions about your acid taking, I shouldn't do this.....but re-read what you're saying, it's as mad as a box of frogs or even a barrel of monkeys, it's totally bonkers! :o
Do you really believe the Sun and Moon are retarded PacMen, holograms, whatever? ???
I read multiple papers and articles about this topic yesterday. While the papers suggested that the world around us is a simulation, they never elaborated the "I", the consciousness, the mind. And that's a key problem. You can simulate all the world around us, but you cannot plant the "I" into characters. You can program character behaviors very sophisticated and indepth - and in fact very similar to people's behaviours in the real world - but in the end they are still mindless robots in a game.
Like I said, there is only one thing real in this sophisticated hologram, and that is Spirit/Consciousness. I have a theory on how to plant the "I" into a holographic simulation, but I will never speak it! Although, they do have the technology right now to plant a chip in a persons brain which allows them to transfer a persons thoughts, memories, learned behaviors, etc. from one brain into another brain.
Gravock
Like I said, there is only one thing real in this sophisticated hologram, and that is Spirit/Consciousness.
Ah sorry, I missed that (was not reading all pages through).
I understand how you could miss that, since there is a lot of spam and meaningless posts within this thread.
Gravock
I agree but, ALL meaningless posts have been made by you.
If there is no moon, then how do you explain Apollo 8's mission that went around the moon during Christmas? If there was no moon, then why did Newton's laws allow them to slingshot around it to return home? If it were just a hologram, they would have kept going you Know?
Also, I remember some idiot asking Alan Shepard (first American in space) if he really walked on the moon and hit his famous golf shot.....his response was something like.....
Of course I was on the moon you f'ing idiot, and of course I hit that golf shot you f'ing moron....or words to that effect.
Anyone who really thinks we did not land on the moon are lunatics. (Get it?) Anyone who thinks the moon does not exist is...well...I am not sure there is a word for that.
Bill
If objects are seen as moving from a rotating frame, this movement results in another fictitious force, the Coriolis force; and if the rate of rotation of the frame is changing, a third fictitious force, the Euler force is experienced. Together, these three fictitious forces are necessary for the formulation of correct equations of motion in a rotating reference frame.
The question is - does one take the blue pill or the red pill?
The question is - does one take the blue pill or the red pill?
Didn't you see 2001!? We were made by monkeys AND the Black Monolith!
I believe gravity is a block as a screen name here suggest.
... then I am all ears.
Gravock
Well, that might explain something.
Bill
Gravity shielding is more in-line with the meaning of what the screen name suggests. If madebymonkeys can give me an alternative suggestion which is more in-line with the meaning of his user name, then I am all ears.
Gravock
What scientific evidence is there supporting this outrageous claim and assertion?
Gravock
I, in my limited but infinite wisdom (!), believe we evolved, likely from Monkeys.
But, TBH, my username comes from: http://www.electronicsweekly.com/made-by-monkeys/ (http://www.electronicsweekly.com/made-by-monkeys/)
Does this help :-)
Yes, this helps!
May I ask why you believe we likely evolved from monkeys? BTW, I like the limited but infinite wisdom part! It's almost as good as having to slow down to speed up and to speed up to slow down!
Gravock
Just a hunch, I like them better than Space Apes and single celled organisms.
I don't believe we were thrown down by Father Christmas on the 6th day either although if the whole 'god thing' is real then I suspect that retarded PacMen were made on the 8th.
So, your belief we evolved from monkeys is based only on a hunch and not based on any specific scientific evidence. Are you sure your hunch isn't based on a wrong assumption that there is only a 2% difference in the DNA profile of a chimpanzee to that of a man?
Yep, only a hunch/guess - I really have absolutely no idea.
That note under the picture falls into the junk science category. The comment about Fourier analysis is as contextually stupid as saying something like: "Here Bob uses a LASER level to install shelves in his den. The National Ignition Facility uses hundreds of LASERs to trigger nuclear fusion. Bob's den may soon provide new insights into nuclear fusion."
Fourier analysis is routinely used to convert time domain representations into frequency domain representations. There is nothing specific about Fourier analysis that restricts or otherwise binds it to holograms.
LOL, build a man of straw to slay.
Anyone who really thinks we did not land on the moon are lunatics.Based on the obvious fake videos and pics I don't believe we landed on the moon.
Based on the obvious fake videos and pics I don't believe we landed on the moon.
There are more reasons why I don't believe it (radiation, the fact that nobody is going there ever since, general knowledge of how the world is run, etc).
I don't believe in black holes so if the simulation theory is based on something related to black holes then there goes the theory.
Official physical sciences have become a bad joke.
Black holes, strings theory, dark matter, antimatter, big bang, etc, etc.
Physicists looks now more like loonies than academics.
Official physics is just rubbish.
Einstein's work is rubbish and he was the basis for many things like dircarding ether, accepting black holes, etc, etc. All rubbish.
Read this article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2672092/Was-Einstein-wrong-Controversial-theory-suggests-speed-light-SLOWER-thought.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2672092/Was-Einstein-wrong-Controversial-theory-suggests-speed-light-SLOWER-thought.html)
Official physics is just rubbish.
Einstein's work is rubbish and he was the basis for many things like dircarding ether, accepting black holes, etc, etc. All rubbish.
First this so-called science should be rebuilt from scratch by competent scientists (how many do you think there are out there?).
Then we could see what the new theories say about the universe.
Correction: Title 1 of N
Currently 3 of N
Where are your published papers refuting Einstein's work then? Still working on them?Einstein is not one of the greatest mind at all. It's a marketing product.
The funny thing is, that every political system has its "favourite theory". Capitalism favours theories which do not allow something for free, in all sciences, and of course specially in economics. But also "nowadays physics" stresses that nothing can be had for free.
....
.........
Question: If E = mc^{2}, then mass is proportional to energy. So if energy is conserved according to the mass-energy equation, doesn’t that mean that mass will be conserved, too?
Answer: The short answer is that E = mc^{2} really applies only to isolated bodies at rest. It’s a pity that this equation, the equation of physics that is best known to the general public, is actually a little cheesy. In general, when you have moving bodies, or interacting bodies, energy and mass aren’t proportional. E = mc^{2} simply doesn’t apply. E = mc^{2} holds for isolated bodies at rest. For moving bodies, the correct mass-energy equation is given in the image below, where v is the velocity. For a body at rest (v = 0), this becomes E = mc^{2}. When a body, for example, a proton or an electron, is accelerated, v generally changes, but m stays the same. Therefore, the equation tells us, E changes. If energy is conserved according to the mass-energy equation, but mass is not, then what gives?
......
.............
Gravock
Trivial things which can be easily observed are of course described correctly. But the "fringe" is always pure politics or ideology.
First this so-called science should be rebuilt from scratch by competent scientists (how many do you think there are out there?).
Then we could see what the new theories say about the universe.
The funny thing is, that every political system has its "favourite theory". Capitalism favours theories which do not allow something for free, in all sciences, and of course specially in economics. But also "nowadays physics" stresses that nothing can be had for free.
Really ?
Imagina a perfect sphaere,360° round !
22/7 kinematic relativity perfekt
Now this perfekt vody is entering the gravity zone from an
white or black whole,the body is becoming oval,changing the format then to a staff-like body:
the body is deformated but pi as relativity number ever intakt
up to the moment that the body could become divided and the volume/mass get a change/risc to differ from
the basic "perfect 360° body".
Do not illusionate (yourself) with unlogical examples.
MENGENLEHRE/KYBERNETIK:
when there is the possibility of the existence from Result=( )
why should not irrational numbers be seen asm"living and internal growing numbers" = artificial -sensual- life/live
" e+pi+log - ical " a.2mm b.4mm c.8mm .... a1. ...
from zero (flash-bigbang) to infinity/indefinit growing
One part from old scholastics meant that pi=3 =TRINITY
other believed in the 3in1,schisma as consequence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux3u31SAeEM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux3u31SAeEM) OCWL
So, who wants the formula for unification? Credit mikefromspace on youtube;
It is very elementary; 4/3 pie R to the 3rd , which is the volume of a sphere.
In a perfect world of fractions, pie is mute, but here it must be used to relate known experimental evidences such as mass quantities summised as 90 degees of Arc.
I believe your intentions are right on man, but the idiots who run those nice atom smashers need something linear. I try to speak their language so they understand how to make a smooth transition to reality, which I started using H.S.M.Coxeter's projective geometry in 1995.
There is much inspiration here. Do much with golden numbers?
I do agree that in a perfect world of fractions, pie is mute. However, how can you have a perfect world of fractions with an imperfect sphere based on an irrational number that doesn't work in the real world? I also agree with you that those guys running the atom smashers are idiots. It's as if they're trying to create or open a simulated universe that is based around an imperfect spherical world of irrational numbers by breaking the symmetry of time, in which they can escape into in order to avoid their judgment. In the process, they're opening up portals to their imperfect world in order to corrupt and destroy this perfect world. Shiva, the destroyer. In summary, they're trying to destroy this perfect world while escaping into their imperfect simulated spherical world to avoid their judgment.
Gravock
Pardon Gravock, I am probably an "Augustus"
( Title cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianca_Lancia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianca_Lancia) )
who only like to make eugenical conversation with aristocrats,so my wondering and my disbeliwve about theae statement :
Shiva, the destroyer.
compared to
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyffh%C3%A4user (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyffh%C3%A4user)
Kyffhäusersage (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Barbarossas_Erwachen_%28Wislicenus%29_gro%C3%9F.jpg/290px-Barbarossas_Erwachen_%28Wislicenus%29_gro%C3%9F.jpg) (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Barbarossas_Erwachen_%28Wislicenus%29_gro%C3%9F.jpg) Barbarossa erwacht – die Raben fliegen davon: Wandbild von Hermann Wislicenus (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Wislicenus) im Bilderzyklus der Kaiserpfalz Goslar (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandbilder_des_Kaisersaals_in_Goslar) (um 1880), der die Kyffhäusersage auf die Reichsgründung von 1871 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Reichsgr%C3%BCndung) bezieht Der Kyffhäuser ist der zentrale Punkt einer Sage (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sage) der Bergentrückung (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergentr%C3%BCckung), in der sich der über Jahrhunderte populäre Volksglaube an die Rückkehr eines Friedenskaisers (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedenskaiser) ausdrückt. Nach dieser Sage schläft in einer Höhle des Kyffhäuserbergs der Kaiser Friedrich I., genannt Barbarossa (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_I._%28HRR%29), mitsamt seinen Getreuen, um eines Tages zu erwachen, das Reich zu retten und es wieder zu neuer Herrlichkeit zu fuehren
An aunt worked in Northeim/Harztor in a A-bosega/Apotheke "Corvinius"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefferhausen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefferhausen)
there lived my grand-aunt : Augusta Waldhelm
;) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2rwilc (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2rwilc) ;)
Cern,C.E.R.N. ?
The answer to the problem is simple to be found.
use:
TDR and fiber-optic instead of plastic tubing and metal balls.
_{TDR-= Time Domain Reflectometer the experiment lacks:- vectoral analysis in circular motion - friction in tubing where inner and outer walls of tubing are different in length .}
Pi=3.14 works for all of us very well and we don't see problem
in any area so why it should be wrong.
Reference: Time Crystals - Perpetual Motion Test Could Amend Theory of Time (http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130425-perpetual-motion-test-could-amend-theory-of-time/) (snapshots below)
Mainstream physicists are trying to build a perpetual motion machine that doesn't consume or produce energy by using "time crystals"!
Wilczek's equations indicate atoms can indeed form a regularly repeating lattice in time, returning to their initial arrangement only after discrete (rather than continuous) intervals, thereby breaking the symmetry of time. Without consuming or producing energy, time crystals would be stable, in what physicists call their “ground state,” despite cyclical variations in structure that scientists say can be interpreted as perpetual motion. Frank Wilczek is also a professor at MIT.
Gravock