[Sicarius]

The Tamarack Mines Experiments completely contradict the Cavendish Experiments. 

[Bookish Neptune]

Im not going to lie, the only reason I'm here is because of that rapper B.O.B. is posting nonsense about flat earth on Twitter.  Intrigued, i looked into the "science" of this and it makes even less sense to me than a round earth model. A flat earth model violates every aspect of dynamics and physics that humans have a law for.. Maybe somebody can make sense of it for me before i enter my troll mobile..

It's only confusing to you at this point in time. You've spent hardly any time investigating FE.

You were brought to this level of thinking due to a rapper name B.o.B.

Guess what? I never heard of him.

So he plays no role into my equations. However he does yours. You immediately came to the conclusion of "non-sense". That is a rather quick assumption without proper investigation.

RE is a theory and FE is a theory. If any man claims to know one way or the other he is a fool in my eyes.

But to assert that ones thinking is "non-sense" without proper investigation, even more foolish...

Did you have a question?

Oh yea you want someone to make sense of this nonsense? That's what you are asking?

What color is the sky? Blue?

Well what color is it at night? Clear?

Perspective and perception. That is what makes sense to me in an otherwise senseless world.

[Icaruss]

And you guys have absolutely no grounding for this criticism, as you can't adequately explain UA except by saying "it's probably dark energy or something". At least the graviton, even though it has not been observed, fits into a well-established explanatory framework that has been rigorously tested in other respects.

Dark energy fits into a well-established framework.

Can you show this using an experiment? I like saying things too, but they don't mean much unless we can add evidence to the claims we're making. I personally think gravity fits well into our flat earth theory since we are standing on a large Earth that's keeping us 'stuck' to it.

[rabinoz]

The Cavendish Experiment has been shown to be flawed and has fallen into disrepute among learned circles. When we get to the sensitive scale the tools are measuring at, the other forces, such as the electro-static force, are more powerful than the force of 'gravity'. There are no controls in the experiment to rule out such important variables.
See: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

I know I am very late commenting on this, but I could not refrain myself!

I do find it strange how something like the Universal Gravitational constant can be measured hundreds of time and get highly repeatable results. Yes, I know it appears to have an as yet unexplained 5.9 year variation.  This currently a "hot research topic".

Yet, with all this corroboration you take the word of one person, Miles Mathis, to debunk it - a bit blinkered I think.  Especially when your darling Miles Mathis also wrote a paper "The Extinction of π" (in http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html), where he proves that in "dynamic" situations π = 4!

I think I will believe poor old Cavendish and the hundreds of other experiments.  This paper has a list of measurements up to 2010: https://xenophilius.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/gravitational-constant-variations-in-gravitational-constant-g/.

Cavendish	1798	6.74x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2
Current value	combined to 2004	6.6742x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2

Poor maligned Cavendish did not do so badly!

[Tom Bishop]

Mathematical proofs can be made for many concepts, such as .9999... = 1, for instance. Depending on how terms are precisely defined, pi is indeed 4. Mathis argues that his interpretation should me more correct than the traditional one.

[Tom Bishop]

I think I will believe poor old Cavendish and the hundreds of other experiments.  This paper has a list of measurements up to 2010: https://xenophilius.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/gravitational-constant-variations-in-gravitational-constant-g/.

Cavendish	1798	6.74x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2
Current value	combined to 2004	6.6742x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2

Poor maligned Cavendish did not do so badly!

Also, from your link:

The new values using the best laboratory equipment to-date disagreed wildly to the point that many are doubting about the constancy of this parameter and some are even postulating entirely new forces to explain these gravitational anomalies.

[rabinoz]

Mathematical proofs can be made for many concepts, such as .9999... = 1, for instance. Depending on how terms are precisely defined, pi is indeed 4. Mathis argues that his interpretation should me more correct than the traditional one.

Mathis argues that his interpretation should me more correct than the traditional one.
Yes he might and 99.99% (I exaggerate - about 50% of people couldn't care less) of people would say that makes him just a bit way out!

but hey, everyone to his opinion.

You really do spout nonsense!  So the circumference of a circle is 4xdiameter! 

And as soon as I get time I will prove that I can be just as ridiculous,
and prove that on the flat earth pi is actually not 3.14159265358979.... (forgot the rest - old age) but 2.0000000.

[Tom Bishop]

Mathematical proofs can be made for many concepts, such as .9999... = 1, for instance. Depending on how terms are precisely defined, pi is indeed 4. Mathis argues that his interpretation should me more correct than the traditional one.

Mathis argues that his interpretation should me more correct than the traditional one.
Yes he might and 99.99% (I exaggerate - about 50% of people couldn't care less) of people would say that makes him just a bit way out!

but hey, everyone to his opinion.

You really do spout nonsense!  So the circumference of a circle is 4xdiameter! 

And as soon as I get time I will prove that I can be just as ridiculous,
and prove that on the flat earth pi is actually not 3.14159265358979.... (Aforgot the rest - old age) but 2.0000000.

Anyone who knows anything about math knows that it is possible to make a mathematical proof for many things. There are proofs that pi is transcendental, that pi is irrational, pi is rational, and so on.

The proof that pi = 4 is indeed sound, depending on how some math concepts are interpreted. It really comes down to how the words diameter and circumference are precisely defined, what they really mean, and whether they are comparable concepts, which Mathis discusses in his paper.

[sandokhan]

Dark energy fits into a well-established framework.

This is the reason why the defending of the FET should be left to those who have done their homework: they should also be allowed to modify the faq.

Relativity and dark energy are RE concepts: a bizarre way to try to defend FE.

There is no such thing as dark energy:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4417.msg86532#msg86532

[rubberbands]

Anyone who knows anything about math knows that it is possible to make a mathematical proof for many things. There are proofs that pi is transcendental, that pi is irrational, pi is rational, and so on.

oh my god this is so false it's incredible. There is no proof that pi is rational, because pi is irrational. I only gave the pi = 4 thing a cursory look because frankly that's all it deserves, but his "short version" looks awfully like the "proof" described in this lovely video. Basically, the figure Mathis creates "approaches the area of a circle without actually being a circle".

It looks like Mathis has done a lot of math to get to this result, much more than is described in the video, but ultimately even if he has come up with something interesting, calling it pi is just disingenuous. And I have no idea where you got the idea that mathematicians can prove that pi is rational. That is so utterly false I don't know where to begin -- at least if you're using the word "rational" in the way it's typically understood (and if you're not, that isn't something you can just brush off. If you're using words that have standard definitions in a nonstandard way and you aren't clear about that, it is your responsibility to make that clear, and if any misunderstandings arise, they are entirely your fault).

The principle of noncontradiction is not just the cornerstone of mathematics, it's the cornerstone of essentially all logic. Tons of mathematical proofs are done "by contradiction" -- you assume something, and if that assumption leads you to a result you know to be false (like 1 = 0), then your assumption must have been false. If two mathematical proofs produce contradictory results, one of them is wrong -- (at least) one of them is not actually a proof. That's it. End of story.

[Woody]

Call me a simpleton or what ever, but:

D=10  What is the circumference 40 or 31.4?

I am just asking since I do not see how the value of pi can be changed to 4 and it still be pi.  If changing the value gives me the wrong answer of the circumference of a circle what use is pi=4?

[Benjired]

Mathematical proofs can be made for many concepts, such as .9999... = 1, for instance. Depending on how terms are precisely defined, pi is indeed 4. Mathis argues that his interpretation should me more correct than the traditional one.

I've never heard anyone use a value of 4 for pi.  EVER.  Please show me a mathematical proof that concludes that Pi is 4.

[Munky]

better yet show us mathematical proof that the earth is flat.

[Pete Svarrior]

I've never heard anyone use a value of 4 for pi.  EVER.

You have much to learn.

Please show me a mathematical proof that concludes that Pi is 4.

Not that I actually agree with this, but:

[rubberbands]

SexWarrior, that is precisely the type of "proof" that the video I linked above shows to be false. Essentially, when you repeat that to infinity, you don't get a circle, you get an infinitely-sided polygon with really scrunched up sides. (I *think* Miles Mathis's proof of basically the same, but he does a whole lot more math to get there.)

This may seem too obvious to even state, but I'm going to anyway: if you do a bunch of math and you come up with the result pi=4, you're not talking about pi anymore -- you're talking about four. There's a chance that you've proven something interesting in the process, but if you make the statement "pi = 4" as anything more than an attention-grabber that you later clarify, you're being intentionally misleading at best or are downright lying at worst.

[rabinoz]

Call me a simpleton or what ever, but:

D=10  What is the circumference 40 or 31.4?

I am just asking since I do not see how the value of pi can be changed to 4 and it still be pi.  If changing the value gives me the wrong answer of the circumference of a circle what use is pi=4?

Just ask Tom Bishop! He clearly knows all things.

[Tom Bishop]

SexWarrior, that is precisely the type of "proof" that the video I linked above shows to be false. Essentially, when you repeat that to infinity, you don't get a circle, you get an infinitely-sided polygon with really scrunched up sides. (I *think* Miles Mathis's proof of basically the same, but he does a whole lot more math to get there.)

Except that circles do not actually exist in this universe, since the universe is quantized, space ultimately existing as discrete plank length units.

[rabinoz]

SexWarrior, that is precisely the type of "proof" that the video I linked above shows to be false. Essentially, when you repeat that to infinity, you don't get a circle, you get an infinitely-sided polygon with really scrunched up sides. (I *think* Miles Mathis's proof of basically the same, but he does a whole lot more math to get there.)

Except that circles do not actually exist in this universe, since the universe is quantized, space ultimately existing as discrete plank length units.

Does every discussion with you have to end in absurdity yes, in the limit "circles do not actually exist in this universe", but in any practical situation they certainly do. And, in for example the calculating length of the equator, the equator is an imaginary line anyway, so I will choose to measure it (figuratively speaking) with a 1 km long plank!

Your measurements might be in "plank length units"!  Is that a 2 m plank, though I usually use a 3 m plank for painting.
For very tiny measurements the Planck Length (1.6 x 10^-35 m) might be more appropriate.
I does seem strange that you seem familiar with the Planck Length which is defined as

when you presumably deny gravitation and hence the presumably the graviatational constant G.

But, more seriously!  I do think you just trying de-rail any argument with comments like that.
Taken on a small enough scale the perimeter of any object takes an almost fractal nature and has an unlimited size.

When doing practical measurements, and that is what I am interested in even if you are not, we select an appropriate resolution.

[confused]

Given that the pseudo force known as gravity does not exist, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

Interesting. What force do you folks believe is responsible for weight?

edit: nvmd, found the wiki article

[rabinoz]

Poor maligned Cavendish did not do so badly!

Also, from your link:

The new values using the best laboratory equipment to-date disagreed wildly to the point that many are doubting about the constancy of this parameter and some are even postulating entirely new forces to explain these gravitational anomalies.

I really should have pounced on this earlier, you quote "disagreed wildly to the point that many are doubting about the constancy".
I did quote from that paper, not because I (not that I count for much on this!) or the "scientific community" agree on the conclusions that self styled " Engineer Xavier Borg" of Blaze Labs Research, comes to, but it is one of the best lists I have seen for all major experiments (up till the year 2000) to determine G.

The expression "disagreed wildly" does need to be read in context. He gives a list of the results of 61 experiments to determine G.  The largest deviation was for one done in 1878, which differed from the present figure by some 3.3%. To modern scientists looking for errors of parts in 106 or 107, that is a dreadful  result, but not so bad when the difficulty of the experiment is realised! Even apart from the tiny forces being measured the value of G determined depends on: The product of two mass (which can be measured quite accurately and on the square of a distance  (which is harder to measure and depends on the precision of the spheres used), so any error is magnified. But, even allowing for the experimental error there does seem a (small to us, but not to the experimenters) periodicity to these differences.  That is what Xavier Borg tries to explain. To the "scientific community" this periodicty seems to be about 5.9 years, but Xavier Borg disagrees and claims it is (I think) actually related to the sidereal day. But, when you see a scientist claim "disagreed wildly" that is their interpretation of the sort of variation seen on the right:

from: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html