Pi is 4, not 3.14

TAP – My explanation is added at the end, for what it’s worth.  First watch the youtube Dutch experiment which  appears to demonstrate that Pi is 4, it could be said.

SUMMARY OF ARTICLE –

This video appears to offer evidence that the circumference of the circle is exactly four diameters.  Conventional geometry fails to take account of time and motion.  It is calculated in a timeless non-existent world.  In the real world time exists, and that extra factor renders conventional geometry incorrect as regards the value of Pi.

http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf

A Simple Experiment
Proves π = 4
by Miles Mathis
For those of you who want to go right to it without reading anything, here is the link to the youtube video.
It is only a few minutes long and contains no math. It is just two balls rolling through two
tubes. It was made by one of my students Steven Oostdijk, who is Dutch. He lives in the Netherlands.
In the first part of the video he is showing the viewers that he is not me. On Amazon.com and other
places, he has been accused of being me. This is because he has defended my theories there and in
other forums. As my readers know, I avoid forums, since I have a low tolerance for arguing with trolls.
I have better things to do. But many of my readers have more patience than I do, and some of them
like to defend me from these people—which of course is fine with me. Steven has been one of the
most outspoken and longlasting of my defenders. He is also very good at it, since he is an engineer
himself. Because of that, some have accused him of actually being me under another name. He isn’t,
and this video proves that, among other more important things.

The video came about in this way: another student of mine, Jeff Cosman—who has been to several of
my conferences—devised a similar experiment using his children’s toys. But since it was on wooden
tracks and looked a bit naïve at a first glance, I didn’t want to post a link to it. It would have been too
easy to attack. So at my most recent conference this August, I suggested to my guys that they should
recreate the experiment with more precise instruments. One of them had told me he had access to a
machine shop and experiment lab, where things like this could be done at low or no cost. So he and a
couple of the other guys got started on the project after conference. A couple of days later Steven
emailed me and asked me how the conference went. I told him what I just told you, among other
things, and he asked me if he could take a stab at it as well, also having access to materials in his own
home. He said he thought he could get it done without leaving the garage. Which he pretty much did.
He had to leave the garage to get better light, but other than that it was all done at home. As for the
rest, he explains it in the video.
Both in rocket science and quantum mechanics, big problems have
cropped up in the vicinity of pi, although no one before me thought to queston
pi itself. In the space program, the engineers began seeing real-life failures of the equations from the beginning. In the late 1950s, the American program headed by Werner von Braun began admitting major equation failures.
Rockets simply weren’t where they were supposed to be, but
only when curved trajectories were involved. The first rockets to orbit the earth were late by huge amounts, indicating the equations were wrong by something over 20%. The Russians found the same problem.
In press releases, they indicated—and still indicate—the problem was with the propellants, but behind the scenes they pursued other possibilities. Just as they assign equation failures now to dark matter, in the 1960s they asked themselves if this rocket problem was caused by unknown ethers or forces of nature. As far as I know, they still haven’t solved it. It never occurred to them that
pi might be the problem. As it turns out, the failures in the rocket equations are exactly the same size as the gap between pi and 4.
A similar problem arose in quantum mechanics. Since quantum particles often move in orbits or
curved trajectories, the same sort of equation failures occurred there. The mainstream admits it has to
ditch classical geometry and resort to what is called the Manhattan metric to solve some quantum
problems. This is curious since in the Manhattan metric,
pi=4. Some have taken exception to my way of stating that. They say that
pi is 3.14… and can’t also be 4.
They say I should come up with another Greek letter, at the least. But
pi isn’t defined as 3.14.
Pi is defined as the ratio of the circumference and the diameter. I have proved that when motion is involved,
that ratio is 4. Therefore, it is correct to say that pi=4.
Others have said that even if I am right, it is just a quibble, since in most cases
pi will still be 3.14. But that simply isn’t true. In physics—and therefore in the real-world—almost all uses of
pi include motion. When pi is used in physical equations, 99% of the time those equations include a velocity of
some sort. Which is why I provocatively titled my original paper “The Extinction of Pi.” In a few
years, the number 3.14… will be a virtual relic. It will also be a joke, since it will be a reminder of
how wrong mainstream physics can be.
But most will probably still not understand why it is true, even after watching a video that shows it.
Steven glosses it in the video, but most viewers won’t find that helpful, I know. It doesn’t seem right
that just turning a tube into a circle would make it longer. It looks at first like when you lay the tube
out straight, it is pi diameters long, but when you curve it into a circle, it magically becomes 21%
longer. Well, it doesn’t really become longer, and we know that since we can straighten it back out and
it is still pi diameters long. But something about curving it changes it. It doesn’t change the length,
it changes the distance that has to be traveled.
TAP – How about it changes the speed of the ball by the same function?  That’s the simplest explanation.
The distance traveled in the curve can’t be measured by just measuring the straight length. When measuring the distance traveled along a straight line, you can just use the length. The length tells you the distance traveled. But with a curve, that is no longer true.
Again, why?
I am going to try to explain it in the simplest possible way. To move in a curve, you have to combine
two motions. You have to move forward and sideways at the same time, right? So let’s start with a
right triangle.
Let us say points A and B are on a circle, and you wish to travel from A to B. It seems like the simplest
thing to do would be to take the path c, since it is the most direct. You just cut straight across on the
hypotenuse. In fact, that is what the ancient Greeks assumed, and their original assumption has skewed
this problem ever since. It is still the assumption today. Mainstream physicists and mathematicians
still assume the circle is composed of a lot of little c-paths. They make the
c-paths very tiny and then sum them, giving them the circumference of the circle. But what I have shown is that they have cheated. You can’t take the path c, because it doesn’t correctly represent the forward motion and the
sideways motion we just talked about. Obviously, the path a represents the forward motion and the
path b represents the sideways motion. Therefore, no matter how tiny you make that triangle, you
have to keep the a and b paths.
You will say, “C’mon, that can’t be right! I can draw that triangle on the ground, and I can always walk
that c-path. There is nothing stopping me.” True, but if you are walking that
c-path, you aren’t walking a curve, are you? You are walking a straight line. And if you combine a lot of those
c-paths to try to create a circle, you aren’t really creating a circle. You are creating a polygon. Even if you make your circle out of thousands of those c-paths, in each little triangle you are still cutting the corner. If you cut
the corner, you aren’t representing forward motion and sideways motion at the same time in your fake
circle. So it isn’t really a circle.
You are not creating real circular motion.
You will say, “Even so, if I make those c-paths tiny enough, I will still get the right number for the
circumference of the circle. Everyone knows that.” In this case, what everyone “knows” is wrong. In
fact, if you cut all the corners in each little triangle, you end up getting a number for the circumference
that is way too small. It is 21% too small, which is a lot. It isn’t a marginal error, it is huge miss.
You may still not understand, and in my other papers I explain it at much greater lengths, doing more
math. But if you haven’t followed me here, you probably won’t follow me there. However, if you ask
why the ball in the circular tube is taking so long to get around, the simplest answer is because it isn’t
cutting the corners. It isn’t taking the c-paths. It is taking the a and b paths.
TAP – Next they need to measure the speed of the emerging balls.  Has the one going round the circle slowed relative to the one going straight, even a fraction?  
If it had, that would suggest more energy was being used up, going round the circle than rolling straight.  The slowing effect is not sudden, if there is one, but constant and minimal as the ball went around, so that the effect was hardly perceptible in the experiment.
 
The ball was probably slowing relatively to the straight rolling ball, as it cornered and went around, as cornering absorbs energy – think about cornering stresses while being in a car – which is why the ball travelled only PiD and not the 4D it would cover if allowed to run in a straight line.
 
Pi is therefore simply a measure of the greater energy needed to corner.  As the time taken to travel the two courses is exactly the same, 3.14 : 4 is the reduction in speed, as demonstrated here, being exactly the same as the reduction in distance.  It is not that the length of the circumference is any different than previously thought.  That hasn’t changed.  It seems a strange conclusion to come to when the simpler notion of reduced speed is such a simple explanation for the phenomena being observed.
 
The circling ball has enough energy to get round PiD in exactly the same time as the straight rolling ball rolls 4D – four full diameters.  That is all we saw.  It’s just that the same expenditure of energy in a circle moves the ball a little slower than it does when the ball is travelling in a straight line. 
The balls may emerge with different residual energies, i.e. speeds, but the experiment stopped too early to see that.
 
The effect of cornering can also be expressed as the forces felt by the body cornering as a number of Gs, multiples or fractions of the force of gravity.  The followers of The Electric Universe would express these G-forces as electro-magnetic forces.  Each ball would develop a plasma shield around itself as it picked up speed on the ramp, powering movement, giving off magnetic forces, like mini comets, and  interacting with other plasma shields.  
This is planetary science in miniature, as plasma is scalable. Where’s Walter Thornhill when I need him?  The Electric Universe should refer to this experiment and give its version.  
Call in on them at www.thunderbolts.info
Electricity could be the missing link in Mathis’ theory.

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.