For the mathematicians PI doesn't exist??

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Do what ever makes you comfortable Craig.

Regarding my views on Mathis' work, go back an read my posts.

[snas (Stuart)]

Maybe I could accept a proof of a very minor inaccuracy in the calculation of the value of pi, unlikely as this would seem. But to say that C= 8r as compared to the slightly more accepted version of C = 2.pi.r or C = (approx) 6.28r, well, that just seems like a major error that has gone unnoticed for many centuries.

As for suggesting that the length AB is equal to the length of the arc AC; I think it was Steffen who suggested the use of a piece of string to prove/disprove. So I got a piece of string (as if my own eyes could not clearly tell me that this equation was blatantly incorrect) and, what do you know?
AB is significantly longer than arc AC.

So therefore it has to be quite apparent that any further calculations from that point must be incorrect.

It appear that Mr Mathis has his mathis wrong and that he has fulfilled at least one of the IIS criteria for pseudoscience; that of I am right and everyone else is wrong.

Cheers

Stuart

[CraigS]

G'Day Stuart !

Amazing isn't it ?

I snooped around a bit to try and understand where this guy Mathis is coming from. Apparently, he's an artist (not too bad a one, either). His qualifications (yes .. he does have some) are mainly BAs from US universities. I think he's into philosophy as well (I guess that also explains his interest in mathematics/physics).

I also notice he's published a few books (as Alex has pointed out). I suppose he could publish cross word puzzles or something, to entertain the masses (as an alternative to entertaining pseudoscience).

Publishing books seems a good way to improve one's income beyond that generated by just selling artworks !

The problem is, that I think he may actually believe he is a player in the field of mathematics !! (If he does seriously think this, then he's lost the plot as well, eh ?)


Cheers & Rgds

[snas (Stuart)]

And furthermore!

If you take his diagram and repeat it you end up with a square containing the largest circle that it is possible to fit within that square. Even a cursory naked eye examination will reveal that the perimeter of the square is obviously greater than the perimeter of the circle. But that's not very scientific, so, for those who, like myself, last studied maths in high school in the year nineteen quifty quar (apologies for the Goon Show reference, but it kinda seems appropriate here ), we once more take the piece of string and run it around the perimeter of the square and then around that of the circle and, guess what, the perimeter of the square is greater than that of the circle.
Since the perimeter of the square does actually equal 8x radius of the circle, and since I as a non recent student of high school maths have very simply shown 8 x r > circumference of the circle, it would seem that Mr Mathis' equations are incorrect. And that proven without the use of elegant mathematical formulae that someone like Mr Mathis can use to confound people into believing his new maths.

Cheers

Stuart

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Yup, this is what's covered.... and why it's best familiarize yourself with all of the celestial mechanics papers.

Or yes get the book, it's easier this way since Miles has ordered the thesis in a more digestible manner. I wish i'd done this earlier.

I could back n fro here on IIS, but it'll just be pointless. The ideas need to be layed out from first principles, i do not have time to do this, and Miles has already done so.

Tickle your interest: http://milesmathis.com/ellip.html

I'll loan you my book when i'm done with it, or yeah i think it's 9 bucks for the e-copy.

All experiments and observations have confirmed that Kepler's equations are correct and that the shape of the orbit is indeed an ellipse, as he told us.

Since Mathis agrees Kepler's equations are correct and that Kepler uses pi=3.1416.... then clearly pi <> 4 as Mathis suggests for a "kinematic" event.

Now for the refutation of Mathis' ideas on orbital ellipses.

Mathis needs to introduce an E/M repulsive force in order to get an elliptical orbit to "work" is more a reflection in gaps in his own knowledge and understanding of the dynamics of an elliptical orbit than any issues with Newtionian physics.
The reality is that Newtonian theory for orbits is simple and straighforward and doesn't require a repulsive force.
This will be made abundantly clear.

Because there is no mechanism to impart tangential velocity by a gravitational field. Both Newton and Einstein agreed on this. Einstein’s tensor calculus shows unambiguously that there is no force at a perpendicular to the field, and Einstein stated it in plain words. How could there be? The force field is generated from the center of the field, and there is no possible way to generate a perpendicular force from the center of a spherical or elliptical gravitational field.

This is only partially true. The gravitational field doesn't act perpendicular on an object. Where as gravity is an external force, a force acting along the tangent doesn't have to be external as Mathis suggests.
For example the occupants in a car will experience a centrifugal force when the car goes around a bend. The centrifugal force is a reaction force to the inward acting centripetal force. The centripetal force is not external but is created as a result of the non straight line motion of the car.
In an elliptical orbit a tangent force exists due to the angular velocity being variable. If the angular velocity became constant, the tangent force vanishes and the orbit becomes circular.

If we take the two most important differentials, those at perihelion and aphelion, and compare them, we find something astonishing. The tangential velocities due to innate motion are equal, meaning that the velocity tangent to the ellipse is the same in both places. But the accelerations are vastly different, due to the gravitational field. And yet the ellipse shows the same curvature at both places. The ellipse is a symmetrical shape, just like the circle.

This is not correct. The tangential velocity of a planet at perihelion is greater than that at aphelion.

Tangential velocity = Radius X Angular velocity.

If the angular velocity was constant, the tangential velocity at perhelion would in fact be less than the tangential velocity at aphelion as the radius has a minimum value at perihelion. What happens is that the angular velocity increases at a faster rate as perihelion is approached.

The relationship between angular velocity and radius is given by the equation (Radius)^2 X Angular velocity = Constant.

If you half the radius, the angular velocity will increase 4-fold.
The tangential velocity reaches a maximum value at perihelion.

To make the ellipse work, you have to vary not only the orbital velocity, but also the tangential velocity. To get the correct shape and curvature to the orbit, you have to vary the object's innate motion. But the object's innate motion cannot vary. The object is not self-propelled. It cannot cause forces upon itself, for the convenience of theorists or diagrams. Celestial bodies have one innate motion, and only one, and it cannot vary.

Mathis describes orbital velocity as the vector sum of tangential velocity and centripetal acceleration. This is total nonsense as you cannot add velocity and acceleration as their dimensional units are different.

The tangential acceleration is mathematically derived as a consequence of a non constant angular velocity. The tangential force follows from this.

This eliminates the need of introducing external contrived factors such as a repulsive E/M force.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

So, I'm desperately trying to get something of some value out of Mathis' work, (assuming his objective is to create an alternative set of principles), but ….

.. Steven … from your previous post, it seems that he violates his own principle foundations in his subsequent statements. That is, his own alternative version of all this is, in itself, not even internally consistent.

Throughout his work, he refers to his other 'proofs' to build upon his previous work, so I can only explain his work as some kind of attempt at rebuilding dynamic classical physics from the ground up. To do this, I would've thought you have to be, at the very least, consistent and honest to yourself, or the foundations you lay out to start with ..??

I'm desperately searching for something of value in Mathis' work apart from being kind of like a poorly made physics test … that can even be disproven using string !!

Does anyone have any suggestions .??… just so I can restore some of my, (perhaps), misplaced trust in human beings ?

It seems that even Alex has abandoned me in my 'quest' to get where this guy is coming from ...



Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

So, I'm desperately trying to get something of some value out of Mathis' work, (assuming his objective is to create an alternative set of principles), but ….

His motives are highly questionable.

Did you read the splurge at the bottom of the article.

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.

Good grief am I engaging in a conspiracy theory?

Steven … from your previous post, it seems that he violates his own principle foundations in his subsequent statements. That is, his own alternative version of all this is, in itself, not even internally consistent.

A perfect example of pseudoscience being logically inconsistant or perhaps in this case a scam.

Regards

Steven

[Rick Petrie]

Strange theory on how straight lines can equate to circular measurements?
How to make the impossible possible! Interesting assumptions though.

[The_Cat (Jeremy)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

So, I'm desperately trying to get something of some value out of Mathis' work, (assuming his objective is to create an alternative set of principles), but ….
....

...

Throughout his work, he refers to his other 'proofs' to build upon his previous work, so I can only explain his work as some kind of attempt at rebuilding dynamic classical physics from the ground up. To do this, I would've thought you have to be, at the very least, consistent and honest to yourself, or the foundations you lay out to start with ..??

I'm desperately searching for something of value in Mathis' work apart from being kind of like a poorly made physics test … that can even be disproven using string !!

Does anyone have any suggestions .??… just so I can restore some of my, (perhaps), misplaced trust in human beings ?
...

Cheers

Does anyone have any suggestions .??

Yes:

The first thing that Mathis should do is learn some maths, some Euclidean geometry would be nice for a start. Then some very elementary calculus then define the problem then write a mathematically consistent proof

That is all.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by The_Cat

The first thing that Mathis should do is learn some maths.....

That is all.

Not quite...
The same suggestion should apply for his admirers as well.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

Not quite...
The same suggestion should apply for his admirers as well.

And where might they be found ???


Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Thanks for your comments Rob.

If you use Mathis' geometrical step construction you will in fact find the sum of the lengths of the hypotenuses of the sub triangles is a constant value irrespective of the number of sub triangles used. You will never approach the length of the arc as the number of subtriangles approaches infinity.

http://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/...sion%E2%80%9D/

The second disproof of Mathis' ideas is particularly elegant.

Regards

Steven

http://sagacityssentinel.wordpress.com/

[Barrykgerdes]

Of course Pi does not exist. Except as a letter in the Greek alphabet. Mathmatitions and statisticians have been trying to find it for years. Some have even spent years trying to calculate it to umpteen million decimal places only to find it still needs umpteen more (ad infinitum).

We just need to accept what we are told and get on with using it as before. Forget about the egotists trying to make a name for themselves. It gives perfectly usable results:sh rug:!

Barry

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

Of course Pi does not exist. Except as a letter in the Greek alphabet. Mathmatitions and statisticians have been trying to find it for years. Some have even spent years trying to calculate it to umpteen million decimal places only to find it still needs umpteen more (ad infinitum).

We just need to accept what we are told and get on with using it as before. Forget about the egotists trying to make a name for themselves. It gives perfectly usable results:sh rug:!

Barry

Saying that pi does not exist because it requires an infinite decimal expansion is on a par with saying sqrt(2) doesn't exist because it requires an infinite decimal expansion. They just happen to be irrational numbers and as was long ago proved by Cantor, such numbers vastly outnumber the rational ones, ie those that have a finite decimal expansion. I realise some of these statements my appear a bit vague, but I'm trying to be brief. Have a look here if you want the real version.

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Just for the fun of it, you might try using Mathis "logic" to prove that any straight line is longer than itself by an arbitrary large amount. Start with a straight line, make it the base of an isosceles triangle, flip the peak of the triangle about the halfway point to have two base-to-base triangles on the line, repeat with these etc etc. If you've followed the fallacy in Mathis' argument, you will quickly see where this is leading.
Geoff

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by ghsmith45

Saying that pi does not exist because it requires an infinite decimal expansion is on a par with saying sqrt(2) doesn't exist because it requires an infinite decimal expansion. They just happen to be irrational numbers and as was long ago proved by Cantor, such numbers vastly outnumber the rational ones, ie those that have a finite decimal expansion. I realise some of these statements my appear a bit vague, but I'm trying to be brief. Have a look here if you want the real version.

Yes Geoff
The fact that these mathmatical functions are irrational is all I am refering to. We could not do very much maths or science without using these functions as they have been defined. This thread has been going on for some time because someone trying to make a name for himself has come up with a theory? that Pi does not exist. So to stir the pot I took the "doesn't exist side" with a tongue in the cheek reason.

Barry

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

Yes Geoff
So to stir the pot I took the "doesn't exist side" with a tongue in the cheek reason.

Barry

Yes, I have also been known to do that.
Geoff

[sjastro]

Alex,

I am going to throw this one right back at you.

Explain where Mathis came up with the orbital equation v=(2*PI*r)/t.
While it looks logical, try differentiating the equation with respect to time and provide a physical interpretation of the resulting acceleration.

How is it possible this acceleration leads to a stable circular orbit?

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Yes .. I'm with Steven.

There are flaws in Mathis' logic everywhere.

There's reading effort needed to find them.

I'd rather spend time reading something (slightly) more reputable.

School teachers at least, get paid for correcting students' work.

Cheers

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Alex,

I am going to throw this one right back at you.

Explain where Mathis came up with the orbital equation v=(2*PI*r)/t.
While it looks logical, try differentiating the equation with respect to time and provide a physical interpretation of the resulting acceleration.

How is it possible this acceleration leads to a stable circular orbit?

Regards

Steven

He is using a linear formula for speed and then thinks it represents circular motion. He most probably did not get past year 4 maths.

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_motion

You should always take the limit to the Planck Length never zero as that leads to absurdities like infinity.

my 2C

Bert