Posted on 03/07/2023 7:52:30 AM PST by SunkenCiv
Self-medicating doesn’t make you immune, either. That’s the operative problem, apart from possible preexisting mental issues.
Not true. Pi has the value it does only in Euclidean geometry, that is geometry in a flat space. Pi can have different, non constant values in a curved space. As an example think of the surface of the earth. A circle is defined to be the set of all points equidistant from a center point. Pi is defined to be the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter (double the constant distance that defined the circle).
With those definitions in mind let’s define the North Pole as our center and all the points on the equator (which strictly speaking may not be equidistant on the earth since it is only approximately spherical, but I’m talking about an ideal true sphere here) are our circle. It should be clear that the circumference of this circle is equal to the circumference of the earth and that the radius is one fourth of the earth’s circumference. The diameter is thus half the circumference, so pi equals 2 for this circle.
Next consider the circle formed by the 60 degree north line of latitude centered again at the North Pole. Trigonometry can be used to show that the circumference of this circle is half that of the equator, and therefore half that of the earth. The distance from the North Pole to this circle is one twelfth of the earth’s circumference since we must traverse 30 degrees to get from 90N to 60N latitude and 360 degrees is the full circumference. Therefore the diameter of this circle is one sixth of the earth’s circumference. Pi is then the ratio of one half the earth’s circumference to one sixth of it, which means pi equals 3 for this circle.
In general a different value of pi will be found for any given circle on a spherical surface. The smaller the radius the closer the value will be to the value of pi we learn about in school. The larger the radius the bigger the deviation will be. It’s even possible to define a “circle” for which pi is zero. Just consider the circle consisting of all points at a distance of one half the earth’s circumference centered on the North Pole. Obviously that “circle has only one point - the South Pole. The “circumference” can be said to be zero based on a limit process (consider what happens as you take circles to be the 89 degree south parallel, then the 89.9 degree S, then 89.99 degree S, etc).
Who ever said knowledge is complete? It certainly wasn’t a scientist. The ability to look at new evidence and modify old understandings of the universe to form that new evidence is a feature of science not a shortcoming. All scientific understanding is subject to modification based on new findings.
That said, it is not that easy to overturn our basic understanding of how things work. It would take a monstrous amount of work to overturn something like general relativity or quantum mechanics. These theories have made correct predictions within their domains with a one hundred percent success rate. Any challenging theory would have to make the same predictions in all situations already tested plus novel predictions for untested situations that are different from what the existing theories predict.
That’s a tall order. Basically it means that you cannot expect to revolution physics by saying “The existing theory is wrong; my alternative is right”. None of the examples you posted are likely to overthrow existing theories. As an analogy, after the discovery of the planet Uranus, one of the first things astronomers naturally did was use Newtonian gravity to calculate the orbit of the newly discovered planet and compare it to the observed position. They found to their surprise that the planet wasn’t quite following the predicted orbit. Was this the end of Newton’s Law of Gravity? Not so fast: there was a factor that was not accounted for in the calculation, namely the presence of another previously unknown planet. The astronomers calculated what the mass and orbit of such a planet must be to account for the observed deviations and worked out where to point the telescope so they could see this hypothesized planet and lo and behold, the planet Neptune was found.
I suspect something similar might be the case regarding proton structure (although I have zero expertise in particle physics). It might turn out differently though. There is another analogy from astronomy, this time regarding the planet Mercury. The point at which Mercury makes its closest approach to the sun, known as its perihelion, does not occur at the same position in its orbit on each orbital cycle, but rather processes around the orbit. That is if we call the current perihelion point zero degrees on the orbit, the next perihelion does not occur at zero degrees, but at a fraction of a degree past zero. Newtonian gravity can explain this, but this precession is greater than predicted based on Newton’s laws and the known planets. Guided by the discovery of Neptune discussed above, astronomers naturally postulated a planet closer to the sun than Mercury that would account for the discrepancy. They pointed the telescope to the calculated spot and lo and behold - nothing; no Vulcan.
Well, they were obviously very puzzled by this. They thought that it might just be very difficult to see a planet that close to the sun and that it might just be too small to image. It took an Einstein-level genius - literally- to explain it. The precession of Mercury’s perihelion turned out to be perfectly explained by General Relativity based only on the new theory and the known planets.
No real science?
So why aren’t we still cave men or riding horses etc…
It’s silly.
How many tests of Einstein’s theory of general relativity have there been?
You know, I am looking back at posts and this 47 of yours I agree with.
My comment to you was regarding your 20.
Sorry, but no.
“No” what?
Self-medicating probably helps the nonsense and aggravates any underlying mental issues!
No, it is snake oil.
Art Bell stuff.
Scientology occult stuff.
Etc…
Like most ufo stuff.
This is certainly not Art Bell stuff.
BTW a closed mind kills science. Honest skepticism on the other hand is a requirement.
Weinstein is a skeptic. And he is a world-class physicist.
What is not snake oil in this?
What am I missing?
“Jack Parsons was the Scientology connection with JPL. When the family watched that documentary on Scientology a few (five? more?) years back, the mention of Jack Parsons startled me.”
There was a book length treatment on this on the internet 20 + years ago. I read it at least 5 times. It was about the Jack Parsons, L Ron Hubbard, Allister Crowley, black magic connections.
Hal Puthoff is 86. He is an original! I must have heard him on the Art Bell show a few times
I would suggest that you can't determine if what Weinstein and others are discussing is "snake oil" unless you know what that subject is.
All that said, on the surface, it would appear that the starting point of their discussion is the physics of things that Navy pilots have seen that seem to be outside of their (the pilots) understanding.
That doesn't sound like "snake oil," does it? Just a discussion.
I read the transcript. Looked up the two people.
I’m asking you to explain why and what of this you take seriously?
You can’t even experimentally verify the basic requirement for string theory to be possible: the existence of extra dimensions.
Einstein could get away with treating time as a “4th dimension”, since he was just representing it that way mathematically, not proposing that it actually was an additional spatial dimension. And he only got away with that because we can experience time, even if we have trouble explaining it, and because the math worked.
String theory can possibly claim their math works, but since we have no experience of 5th, 6th, 7th, etc, dimensions, and there is no way to verify them, it’s a dead end. At least until we mutate and develop organs that can “see” those dimensions.
As said, he's a skeptic who asks the right questions without injecting emotion (like you).
“Seems to me that the variable then in not Pi but rather R.”
Well, if “r” is variable, then it’s not a circle because it wouldn’t meet the definition. There might be some circumstances with exotic geometry where you could create a shape that satisfies the definition of a circle, but where the ratio of radius to circumference doesn’t match Pi, or isn’t constant. But I’m no expert on exotic geometry.
What you seem to be missing is direct observation of the discussion/video in question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.