Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Ancient & Forbidden Knowledge / False History

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 15-05-2017, 02:57 PM   #1
les_paul_robot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: KT-95
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 236 (138 Posts)
Default pi = 4.0, not 3.14?

So I read this and it claims when it comes to distance travelled in a circle, it comes out to being 4x the diameter http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf
__________________
An end to need
And the politics of greed
With love.


Tears for Fears, "Sowing The Seeds Of Love"
les_paul_robot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 12:18 AM   #2
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,957 (2,161 Posts)
Default

I've watched this whole (9min video) ..

Phi is defined as the ratio of diameter to circumference of a circle , so there is no doubt phi is 3.1414 ... we can measure this ourselves , and prove it beyond all doubt.

Why does the author think that rolling a ball in a tube is a way to measure Phi ?

It's not ... as the (very good) comments on this video pointed out there are other factors involved , the path of the circular ball is longer , running on the outer most inside surface of the tube ... but also the ball taking the circular path slows down more, because the centrifugal force pushes the ball into the soft material of the tube more than the straight path which only has gravity acting....

The explanation given in the video (@6:20) doesn't make sense ..

Not clear if the author is stupid or just being controversial ...

So if the experiment was repeated with glass tube , and the true path of the ball (outer inside dia.) was measured , you should get the circular path as phi not 4.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 02:10 AM   #3
les_paul_robot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: KT-95
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 236 (138 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
I've watched this whole (9min video) ..

Phi is defined as the ratio of diameter to circumference of a circle , so there is no doubt phi is 3.1414 ... we can measure this ourselves , and prove it beyond all doubt.
We call it Pi. And geometrically he wasn't arguing it isn't. Only in circular motion. (Phi is 1.618 and a different ratio.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
Why does the author think that rolling a ball in a tube is a way to measure Phi ?
A simple way to put an object into circular motion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
there are other factors involved , the path of the circular ball is longer , running on the outer most inside surface of the tube ...
this is addressed and they've explained the dimensions of the tube.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
but also the ball taking the circular path slows down more, because the centrifugal force pushes the ball into the soft material of the tube more than the straight path which only has gravity acting....
the frictional difference would be negligible. A sphere can't somehow have more of a contact area within a tube. It's a sphere, not a bike tyre.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
The explanation given in the video (@6:20) doesn't make sense ..
I had to look at it a few times. I think he's saying the distance travelled is the length of the arc: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._animated_.gif
from the site
Quote:
the arc of a cycloid is also 8r. That is, in the cycloid, pi is replaced by 4, just as in the Manhattan metric. I don't know why I didn't think to include this before, since it is so obvious. We should have always asked more persistently why the arc of the cycloid is 8r while the circumference is 2*pi*r. As a matter of kinematics, it makes no sense. The same point draws both, so why the 21% miss? I will be told that it is because with the circumference, the circle is not moving along an x-axis, but with the cycloid, it is. It is the difference between a rolling circle and a non-rolling circle. It is this lateral movement that adds the 21%. But whoever is telling me this is missing a very important point: in the kinematic circle I am talking about, the circle is also rolling. If you are in an orbit, for instance, the circle is not moving laterally, but a point on the circle is moving. The circle is rolling in place, and it is moving exactly like the point in the cycloid. Therefore, we see it is not the lateral motion that adds the 21%, it is the rolling alone. A static circle and a circle drawn by motion are not the same. The number pi works only on the given static circle, in which there is no motion, no time, and no drawing. Any real-world circle drawn in time by a real object cannot be described with pi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
So if the experiment was repeated with glass tube , and the true path of the ball (outer inside dia.) was measured , you should get the circular path as phi not 4.
maybe someone can try
__________________
An end to need
And the politics of greed
With love.


Tears for Fears, "Sowing The Seeds Of Love"

Last edited by les_paul_robot; 16-05-2017 at 02:13 AM.
les_paul_robot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 02:20 AM   #4
les_paul_robot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: KT-95
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 236 (138 Posts)
Default

see also https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Length_of_Arc_of_Cycloid
__________________
An end to need
And the politics of greed
With love.


Tears for Fears, "Sowing The Seeds Of Love"
les_paul_robot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 02:36 AM   #5
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,957 (2,161 Posts)
Default

Some confusion over transliteration PIE (which I wrote as phi) =3.1414

the constant pronounced FIE = 1.618 ....

His explanation at 6mins makes no sense at all. The path of the ball is clearly circular ... not an a 'cycloid' .. he doesn't give a good explanation ,trying to confuse the viewer with mathematics.

If he were to measure the velocity at the end of the circle it would be slower , a ball rolling on a surface with 'give' will lose more energy than a hard surface . And how much it loses will depend how hard it is pushed into the surface (gravity +any centrifugal force)

Last edited by oz93666; 16-05-2017 at 02:39 AM.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 02:46 AM   #6
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,957 (2,161 Posts)
Default

I forgot to say my comments relate to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhuv...ature=youtu.be which came from your link ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by les_paul_robot View Post
This is ridiculous ... he's trying to convince people the ball is moving in cycloid when you can see by the evidence of your own eyes it's circular

Convincing people black is white!!!
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 07:00 AM   #7
eddieb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 342 (189 Posts)
Default A clarification!

Pi = 3.14159... Ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.

Phi = 1.618.... The Golden Ratio

Fie = Used to express disgust or outrage.

Pie = Pie is a baked dish.
__________________
The Nameless War. The book they said would never be written.
Author: CAPTAIN A.H.M. RAMSAY.
It's a small book, but it says so much!
eddieb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 08:33 AM   #8
thermion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,322
Likes: 922 (603 Posts)
Default

Oh no, not another dark secret TPTB have been hiding for millennia that has been exposed on the DI forum. Where will this end...?
Likes: (1)
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 08:34 AM   #9
sambrokyl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 1,078 (611 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
Some confusion over transliteration PIE (which I wrote as phi) =3.1414

the constant pronounced FIE = 1.618 ....

His explanation at 6mins makes no sense at all. The path of the ball is clearly circular ... not an a 'cycloid' .. he doesn't give a good explanation ,trying to confuse the viewer with mathematics.

If he were to measure the velocity at the end of the circle it would be slower , a ball rolling on a surface with 'give' will lose more energy than a hard surface . And how much it loses will depend how hard it is pushed into the surface (gravity +any centrifugal force)
Yeah I tried watching this, it made no sense to me either. The things he is trying to say are different are constants in nature. Pi is still Pi even when a hoop is rolling down a hill.
sambrokyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 08:39 AM   #10
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,957 (2,161 Posts)
Default further clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by eddieb View Post
Pi = 3.14159... Ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.

Phi = 1.618.... The Golden Ratio

Fie = Used to express disgust or outrage.

Pie = Pie is a baked dish.
There is no Correct way to transliterate these greek letters into English , the one which gets the sound right must be best , so pie is best for 3.1414

It's like Kabbalah ... the only true spelling is with four hebrew letters ... in english it's been written as Qabalah ...kaballah ...cabalah there is no right way.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 09:29 AM   #11
tom bombadil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: At home. In London. In the hub of it all.
Posts: 4,455
Likes: 904 (465 Posts)
Default

Oh no!

Could this be an attempt at messing with the minds of those that do understand?

It could be another flat earth, Mandela effect type bullshit to muddle the minds of the muggles.
tom bombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2017, 02:23 PM   #12
les_paul_robot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: KT-95
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 236 (138 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom bombadil View Post
Oh no!

Could this be an attempt at messing with the minds of those that do understand?

It could be another flat earth, Mandela effect type bullshit to muddle the minds of the muggles.
No, cos you could do an experiment yourself.
__________________
An end to need
And the politics of greed
With love.


Tears for Fears, "Sowing The Seeds Of Love"
les_paul_robot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2017, 04:56 PM   #13
therabidbadger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 222
Likes: 124 (70 Posts)
Default

This is really interesting to me, the key point he seems to miss is that you can't compare linear and angular velocity like he does here. The reason the ball takes longer on the circular path is due to the difference in angular and linear velocity, the latter being measured for both balls at the start. However, when one ball starts the circular path it is no longer linear velocity it becomes angular. Velocity is a vector, it has magnitude (speed) and direction. Any change in velocity is acceleration. Since direction is part of velocity the constant change of direction experienced by the ball taking the circular path is a change in velocity, i.e. acceleration. With circular motion around a central point (i.e. center of the circular tube) this acceleration is always towards the center of the circle. The offset to this acceleration due to change of direction is a reduction in the magnitude of the vector, i.e. its speed.

In a nutshell, as others have intuited, the speed of the ball on the circular path is lower than that of the ball on the linear path. The linear ball has constant speed and direction whilst the circular ball has a constant change in direction which causes a reduction in speed. Nothing to do with friction, longer path lengths etc, purely down to velocity being a vector!

A good example of this is when you drive around a bend in the road - you accelerate into the bend to maintain a constant speed as additional acceleration is required for the change of direction. If you don't accelerate into the bend you experience the car slowing down noticeably as you go around the curved path.

Meanwhile the link to Cycloids doesn't really make sense, it's a completely different movement - in a cycloid the point being traced on the rim of a wheel effectively travels in a stretched semi circle, which is where the 8r must come from (i.e. a stretched circle will have a bigger diameter than 6.28r and 8 seems about right looking at it).

Having said all that I still think its an interesting experiment, well constructed and designed. It's really interesting how the reduction of speed for the circular ball is just enough for the linear ball to travel a distance of 8r. I can understand why this would raise the possibility of a link with cycloids, but I just can't see what that link would be.

Last edited by therabidbadger; 18-05-2017 at 05:00 PM.
therabidbadger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2017, 12:20 AM   #14
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,957 (2,161 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by therabidbadger View Post
This is really interesting to me, the key point he seems to miss is that you can't compare linear and angular velocity like he does here. The reason the ball takes longer on the circular path is due to the difference in angular and linear velocity, the latter being measured for both balls at the start. However, when one ball starts the circular path it is no longer linear velocity it becomes angular. Velocity is a vector, it has magnitude (speed) and direction. Any change in velocity is acceleration. Since direction is part of velocity the constant change of direction experienced by the ball taking the circular path is a change in velocity, i.e. acceleration. With circular motion around a central point (i.e. center of the circular tube) this acceleration is always towards the center of the circle. The offset to this acceleration due to change of direction is a reduction in the magnitude of the vector, i.e. its speed.
.
This is definitely wrong ... the only way speed can reduce for a circular path is due to friction!

If the tube was made of rigid material then the reduction in velocity would be insignificant.

Miles mathis comes to exactly the same conclusion ...just watch the first minute and a half.... "the obvious thing is that the strait tube has a lot less friction because there will be no centrifugal force pushing the ball into the surface , and creating more friction ..."


Last edited by oz93666; 19-05-2017 at 12:28 AM.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2017, 08:26 PM   #15
therabidbadger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 222
Likes: 124 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
This is definitely wrong ... the only way speed can reduce for a circular path is due to friction!

If the tube was made of rigid material then the reduction in velocity would be insignificant.

Miles mathis comes to exactly the same conclusion ...just watch the first minute and a half.... "the obvious thing is that the strait tube has a lot less friction because there will be no centrifugal force pushing the ball into the surface , and creating more friction ..."

This guy isn't Miles Mathis, he's disagreeing with what Miles says and debunks his pi = 4 theory - He's called Gary Mosher, look https://myspace.com/inmendham/photos
therabidbadger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2017, 04:02 PM   #16
getagrip
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 17,875
Likes: 5,091 (2,677 Posts)
Default

A big thank you to the member who sent me some links. ( You know who you are )

This one is an interesting read concerning this very topic and the man himself:

Quote:
Someone recently sent me a link to a really terrific crank. This guy really takes the cake. Seriously, no joke, this guy is the most grandiose crank that I've ever seen, and I doubt that it's possible to top him. He claims, among other things, to have:
1. Demonstrated that every mathematician since (and including) Euclid was wrong;
2. Corrected the problems with relativity;
3. Turned relativity into a unification theory by proving that magnetism is part of the relativistic gravitational field;
4. Shown that all of gravitational/orbital dynamics is completely, utterly wrong; and, last but not least:
5. proved that the one true correct value of \(pi\) is exactly 4.

I'm going to focus on the last one - because it's the simplest illustration of both his own comical insanity, of the fundamental error underlying all of his rubbish.

Let's start at the beginning, with his introduction:
Continue reading here

I'm not even going to pretend that I understood it all but I'm sure there are many on here who will.

Miles Mathis: Debunked or Proven correct? You decide
getagrip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2017, 08:02 PM   #17
hister67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Neath, Wales
Posts: 5,506
Likes: 1,277 (853 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getagrip View Post
Miles Mathis: Debunked or Proven correct? You decide
Who me?...bugger off I can't handle that sort of responsibility...and I ain't even gonna look at pi...too close to psy for my liking...
I shall just shake a stick at it and be done with
__________________
It has been said that there are three types of people:

1. Those who make things happen. 2. Those who watch things happen, and 3. Those who wonder what happened.
Likes: (1)
hister67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2017, 09:27 PM   #18
therabidbadger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 222
Likes: 124 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getagrip View Post
A big thank you to the member who sent me some links. ( You know who you are )

This one is an interesting read concerning this very topic and the man himself:


Continue reading here

I'm not even going to pretend that I understood it all but I'm sure there are many on here who will.

Miles Mathis: Debunked or Proven correct? You decide
I agree with what he says here, it feels like a deliberate attempt to confuse. Mathis has taken something very simple and tried to over-complicate it in order to con his audience that pi = 4.
therabidbadger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2017, 10:35 PM   #19
hister67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Neath, Wales
Posts: 5,506
Likes: 1,277 (853 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by therabidbadger View Post
it feels like a deliberate attempt to confuse..
Sadly I agree...mathemagic is well and truely tested to stand up for what it is...
It always works..thats where 'they' get their workings from...1+1=CONTROL
No problem with basic math btw...It's when you see a light and analyse it's true colour, that's when you see that formulae shines like a fair ground attraction and shows up 'their' own true colours...roll up.. roll up
__________________
It has been said that there are three types of people:

1. Those who make things happen. 2. Those who watch things happen, and 3. Those who wonder what happened.
hister67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
mathematics, physics, pie, science

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:31 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.