Does Momentum or Motion Change Pi?

Thread Starter

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
In a static geometric circle, the circumference is 3.14 times the diameter. And we have assumed that pi is constant and that pi remains 3.14 with motion of rotation.

Could this be wrong? Is linear length equal to angular length? Is linear time equal to angular time? Are we comparing linear momentum to angular momentum in the correct manner? Can we compare linear velocity to angular velocity?

Do we even know the fundamentals?

Here is the experiment.


And here is an explanation. http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf

Does this surprise anyone? How would you explain this? Does motion square a circle?
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
8,510
A meaningless video designed to trick. PI is just a geometric ratio, it's always 3.14... What's important is COE, COM and all forces in an experiment. Do just a little study of ballistics (like bullet drops in earths gravity) to see how outlandishly foolish the video is.
 

Thread Starter

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
What this shows is that when linear momentum is converted to angular momentum, the velocity slows down about 20-21%. And does not lose momentum.

And if he had continued the tubing after the arc.......he would have seen that when it converted back to linear momentum....the velocity went back up 20-21%, and does not gain momentum. And after that, the second ball would follow the first at a constant distance. 4 diameters distance.

Pretty neat trick.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,398
The fact that X (linear momentum) and Y (angular momentum) do not have compatible units means that it is silly to even ask whether they are the same or talk about converting one to another -- the fact that both units use the word "momentum" in the label is irrelevant. This is like making a video talking about converting acre-feet to feet.
 

Thread Starter

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
I would like to have a camera about 1/2 inch behind or ahead of the arc ball passing thru the arc.

When the ball enters the arc.........doesn't the ball become under acceleration?

When the ball enters the arc.....does it just ride up 90 degrees on the outside edge and proceed around the arc?

Or does it rotate all around the inside diameter? First quarter 90 degrees. second quarter 180 degrees. third quarter 270 degrees. and 4th quarter, back to 0 degrees (the entrance)?

And therefore the true linear velocity and the true linear length did not change?

Could it be possible that the velocity, ball size/mass and tube diameter are matched so a full spiral can be produced. And without a spiral inside tube...........we would not see this effect?
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
The tube track has an available 360 degree bank. If we replaced that tube arc with an open U track and banked it at 90 degrees, would we get the same effect?

I ran across this the other morning on youtube while searching for something unrelated. The fellow that describes it in the pdf is un-familier to me. He explains it saying it's a shift in momentum direction. By adding a sideways vector. Whose force comes from the linear vector. ok....maybe.....but maybe not.

I was just looking for another possible explanation. Confining the track would help to understand and limit the solution.
 

Thread Starter

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
I don't suppose I could convince anyone that earth has a 360 degree bank also. And as earth responds to the angular momentum (which is acceleration), that it spirals as it revolves around the sun.

So the path of earth's orbit is not elliptical.....it's a helix. Think about how many things it explains. It explains perigee and apogee. It explains inclination.

Don't be afraid to explore new ideas. We need them.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
8,510
I don't suppose I could convince anyone that earth has a 360 degree bank also. And as earth responds to the angular momentum (which is acceleration), that it spirals as it revolves around the sun.

So the path of earth's orbit is not elliptical.....it's a helix. Think about how many things it explains. It explains perigee and apogee. It explains inclination.

Don't be afraid to explore new ideas. We need them.
No one has a problem with valid new ideas but most of us do have a problem with crackpot ideas. It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference with just a tiny bit of skeptical examination.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
8,510
You have strong faith.
I do have strong faith in the need of some humans to deceive others for sometimes strange and mystical reasons. At times it's just a simple Deception for kicks but other times it's a passionate Self-deception we are all guilty of at times.
 

Thread Starter

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
You have the advantage. I can not read minds nor motives.

What does one say to one who does not recognize a mystery?

What is your explanation?

Or is it a fake experiment?
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
8,510
Last edited:

Thread Starter

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
You are missing the whole point. This is to show that a dynamic/motional pi.......does not equal a static geometric pi.

If you use 3.14 for the equations.....the ball should exit the arc at 3.14 linear ball. The pdf mathematician says jpl had to use pi=4 to accurately predict arced rocket trajectories.

Go look just about anywhere, where pi is defined. Almost all show a rolling wheel on a surface equality.

This video contradicts this explanation. I believe it's because this experiment allows 3D motion, and the wheel and surface is limited to 2D.

In other words........2D motion pi = 3.14. 3D motion pi = 4.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
8,510
You are missing the whole point. This is to show that a dynamic/motional pi.......does not equal a static geometric pi.
I'm not missing the point. His original idea about computing pi=4 as a series of one dimensional X Y movements was wrong so any explanation using that is wrong.
 

Kermit2

Joined Feb 5, 2010
4,162
Pi is used in a large number, a very large number, of mathematical proofs and equations. Are they wrong too? You have some neat ideas about quantum mechanics that I consider worthy of exploration, but a change in the value of pi?
Not your best theory dude!

Seems to equal out just fine and always has with a value of 3.14.

Maybe Congress should make a law? And then reality will be criminal if it does not conform?
 

Thread Starter

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
Boy.......there is no curiosity here. My post is a series of questions about something I felt was curious. And I suggested several parameter changes to check some possible solutions.

If you look closely at my spiral solution........there is NO pi in this system. Because there is no circles in the system.

Time is not a component of space, time is the reference or scale for length.

A helix can shorten linear length, without changing time, by coiling the length. Time is constant and can not be changed. A helix can adjust the length/time ratio. And it can only shorten length.

And if one is not aware of a helix, one might think that length and time can change. But if you consider my solution....neither the time or the length or the speed changed between the two balls. Both paths were in equality at all times. The only thing that changed was direction. And it was done without loss.

Faraday, with his induction experiment proved that this universe is mechanical.

There is no magic..........one can always find the mechanical solution. And if you can't, it just means that you have not considered all the dynamics, OR considered all the confining limits.

And by the way.....no UNITS were harmed, killed or abused in the making of this video.
 
Last edited:
Top