On Mar 17, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Nicholas Leippe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Levi Pearson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Seriously, pi is 4? Do you understand that if this guy was actually right, >> we wouldn't be able to build a proper bicycle, much less a computer or a >> nuclear reactor. > > He only derives pi as 4 for kinematic scenarios, not static. No, he doesn't. That essay is just a pile of misguided and faulty reasoning couched in surprisingly well-written prose. Pi is never 4, even in kinematic But not everything that looks on the surface like a valid mathematical derivation actually is. > Furthermore, he explains why engineers have mostly succeeded despite > some faulty equations, and shows how NASA's data confirm his changes > to orbital equations. (eg, the pioneer anomaly becomes fully solved). Again, no. I didn't bother to read his 'corrections' because there is no need to. Scientists have solved the Pioneer anomaly on their own, as they usually do, and it did not require any changes to orbital equations. The orbital equations of real physics have been shown to be correct within our ability to measure. No 'fudge factors' necessary. He is a crank. Let his stuff alone and move on. Real math and science are way more interesting. --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
