The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

Experiment that shows while Pi as a distance is 3.14, Pi as a distance/time is 4.


Gravock

[stivep]

The answer to the problem is simple to  be found.
use:
TDR and fiber-optic instead of  plastic tubing and metal balls.
<sub>TDR-= Time Domain Reflectometer

the experiment  lacks:
-  vectoral analysis  in circular motion   
-  friction in tubing
    where  inner and outer walls of tubing  are different in length .


__________________________________________________________________

Another  way to check it out is to use cryogenics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxror-fnOL4



_____________________________________
So why I don't use  it and provide the answer.?
At first  -
Pi=3.14 works for all of us very well and we  don't see problem</sub>
in any area so why  it should be wrong.

<sub>At second-
the possible gain of spending time on checking it is far more less attractive than
part of physic related to Zenneck Wave. 

The Pi experiment affects my time
but
The Zenneck wave revelation affects  everyone of you in any age, any gender and any time.
All is  needed is to let it be known.
And than what?
- well..
humanity can do with it  a lot of bad and ugly things,while we  keep thinking that it is so good for humanity ...</sub>


Wesley

[gravityblock]

The answer to the problem is simple to  be found.
use:
TDR and fiber-optic instead of  plastic tubing and metal balls.
<sub>TDR-= Time Domain Reflectometer

the experiment  lacks:
-  vectoral analysis  in circular motion   
-  friction in tubing
    where  inner and outer walls of tubing  are different in length .</sub>

First image below is light from a laser bouncing down an acrylic rod, illustrating the total internal reflection of light in a multi-mode optical fiber.   As you can see, the light from the laser isn't representing both forward motion and sideways motion at the same time, thus the light won't take a real circular path through the fiber-optic tube.

In the second image below, 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.  However, 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.  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 and taking the c-paths. The ball is taking the a and b paths.  The a and b-paths remain distinct and at right angles to one another. They never combine into a c-path.  In other words, we don't integrate a with b, we integrate a with time t and b with the same time t.  We have to track how a changes with time and the way b changes with time. That's how we include time in the problem.

Currently, when physicists or mathematicians try to solve this problem with calculus, they basically leave time out of it and track a against b. They integrate motion a with motion b to get motion c, which is the c-path.  Although the calculus they use to solve the problem is correct in itself, they are applying it wrongly.  Since all physics is applied math, you have to apply the math correctly.  If you apply the right math incorrectly, you will get the wrong answer.

The main opposing view of the experiment in the video is that the ball in the curve is feeling more friction. However, it is clear at a glance this is not the case. To start with, the ball in the curve would have to be feeling over 20% more friction than the straight ball. Again, the difference between 3.14 and 4 is not marginal.  It is huge.  There is no way to account for a difference that large with a difference in friction. Plus, if friction were the cause, the ball in the curve should be slowing down as it progresses around the curve.  Friction is of course cumulative, so we would expect a ball feeling an excess 21% of friction to be going slower in the fourth quadrant of the circle than in the first.  However, we see with our own eyes that isn't true. Steven marks all four quarter points in the circle, and the ball hits them all perfectly in sync with the straight ball. If the ball in the curve were feeling more friction, we would expect it to hit the ¾ mark and final mark noticeably late compared to the ¼ mark.  It doesn't. This indicates very strongly that neither friction nor any other cumulative effect in the curve is causing the difference. The ball in the curve is NOT slowing relative to the straight ball. This should look as curious to you as pi being 4.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Pi=3.14 works for all of us very well and we don't see problem
in any area so why it should be wrong.

But there are problems and have been for a long time, and insiders know that.  Both in rocket science and quantum mechanics, big problems have cropped up in the vicinity of pi.  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.  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.

This means that the old orbital math was always a variable short. It was incomplete. It didn't include time. Because it didn't include time, it couldn't represent the real world. It could only work in a book problem, where everything was happening at some imaginary instant. This ended up making all the math explode. In quantum mechanics there is a thing called renormalization. It is what they have to do to equations that have exploded. Basically, when you try to solve real-life problems with equations that don't properly include the time variable, your equations start spitting out zeroes and infinities. In quantum mechanics, this happens to all their equations, and they admit that. They admit it, but don't understand why.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Reference:  Time Crystals - Perpetual Motion Test Could Amend Theory of Time  (snapshots below)

Mainstream physicists are trying to build a perpetual motion machine that doesn't consume or produce energy by using "time crystals"!

Wilczek's equations indicate atoms can indeed form a regularly repeating lattice in time, returning to their initial arrangement only after discrete (rather than continuous) intervals, thereby breaking the symmetry of time.  Without consuming or producing energy, time crystals would be stable, in what physicists call their "ground state," despite cyclical variations in structure that scientists say can be interpreted as perpetual motion.  Frank Wilczek is also a professor at MIT.

Gravock

World's First Video of a Space-Time Crystal!

Gravock