**The LHCb partnership at CERN has announced the discovery of a new exotic particle of the tetraquark type. The finding marks a significant breakthrough in a nearly 20-year search, carried out in particle physics laboratories all over the world**

By Lorenzo Capriotti, Research Fellow in Particle Physics, University of Bologna and Harry Cliff, Particle Physicist, University of Cambridge

The LHCb partnership at CERN has announced the discovery of a new exotic particle known as a tetraquark. Although the article signed by more than 800 authors has not yet been peer-reviewed, it was presented at the conference. It also meets the usual statistical threshold for claiming the discovery of a new particle.

The finding marks a significant breakthrough in a nearly 20-year search, carried out in particle physics laboratories all over the world.

To understand what a fall track is and why the discovery is important, we have to go back in time to 1964, when particle physics was in the midst of a revolution. Two young radio astronomers in New Jersey have just discovered the strongest evidence ever for the Big Bang.

On the other side of the USA, at the California Institute of Technology, and on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, at CERN in Switzerland, two particle physicists published two independent papers on the same subject. Both dealt with the question of how to understand the huge number of new particles discovered in the last two decades.

Many physicists disagreed with the conclusion that the universe consists of so many elementary particles, what was called the "particle zoo". George Zweig from Lecture and Murray Gell-Mann from CERN came up with the same solution. What if all these different particles were really made of small, unknown building blocks, in the same way that the hundreds of strange elements in the periodic table are made of protons, neutrons and electrons? Zweig called these building blocks "aces", while Gal-Man chose the term we use today: "quarks".

We now know that there are six different types of quarks - top, bottom, magic, strange, up and down. These particles also have counterparts in the antimatter world that have the opposite charge. All quarks can bind together according to simple rules based on symmetry. A particle made of a quark and an antiquark that together form particles. When three quarks are bound together they form "thugs". The familiar protons and neutrons that make up the atomic nucleus are examples of baryons.

This classification scheme nicely described the particle garden in the sixties. However, even in his original paper, Gell-Mann realized that there could be other combinations of quarks. For example, two quarks and two antiquarks might stick together to form a "tetraquark", while four quarks and one antiquark would form a "pentaquark".

### exotic particles

In 2003, the Bell experiment at the KEK laboratory in Japan reported the observation of a new food, called X (3872), which showed "exotic" properties quite different from ordinary foods.

In the following years, several new exotic particles were discovered, and physicists began to realize that most of these particles could only be successfully explained if they were made of four quarks instead of two. In 2015, the LHCb experiment at CERN discovered the first pentapark particles made of five quarks.

All tetra quarks and penta quarks discovered so far contain two charm quarks, which are relatively heavy, and two or three light quarks - up, down or strange. This particular configuration is indeed the easiest to discover experimentally.

But the last particle discovered by LHCb, called X (6900), consists of four magic quarks. The new tetraquark, produced by high-energy proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, was observed through its decay into pairs of particles known as J / psi mesons, each made of a magic quark and a magic antiquark. This makes it particularly interesting because not only is it made up entirely of heavy quarks, but these are four quarks of the same kind – making it a unique example for testing our understanding of how quarks bind to each other.

For now, there are two different models that can explain how quarks bind together: They may be strongly bound, creating what we refer to as a compact tetraquark. Or it could be that the quarks are arranged as two particles, stuck together loosely resembling a "molecule".

Normal molecules are made of atoms bound together by the electromagnetic force, which acts between positively charged nuclei and negatively charged electrons. But the quarks in food or bullion are bound by another force, the "strong force". It's really fascinating that atoms and quarks, which follow very different rules, can both form very similar complex objects.

The new particle appears to be consistent with it being a compact tetra molecule rather than a dimeson molecule, which was the best explanation for previous discoveries. This makes the discovery unusual, as it will allow physicists to study this new side-by-side mechanism in detail. The discovery also hints at the existence of other large, compact tetra quarks.

### A window into the microcosm

The strong force acting between quarks obeys very complex rules - so complicated, in fact, that often the only way to calculate its effects is to use approximations and supercomputers.

The unique nature of the X (6900) will help to understand how to improve the accuracy of these approximations, so that in the future we can describe other and more complex mechanisms in physics that are beyond our reach today.

Since the discovery of X (3872), research on exotic particles has flourished, with hundreds of theoretical and experimental physicists working together to shed some light on this exciting new field. The discovery of the new binding pathway is a huge leap forward, and is an indication that there are still many new exotic particles out there waiting for someone to discover them.

**More of the topic in Hayadan:**

## 356 תגובות

Permafrost's Lemma:

Let us consider a group of circles in the Euclidean plane with a common center point and a common central angle whose lines, the rays, intersect all these circles.

If the circles are "scattered" in a plane and do not have a common center - we will first copy them to an arbitrary common center point using a compass and ruler(*).

The rays of the common angle cut a sector or "slice" from each circle belonging to the group and an arc from each circle belonging to the group.

All these "slices" are similar, but differ in a single parameter - the radius.

The difference between them is only scaling.

Due to the similarity, it immediately follows that the ratio between the different arcs on which the common central angle rests and the radii of the circles from which these arcs were respectively cut is constant.

This ratio is, according to its definition, the central angle, no matter how big it is, and it is common and the same for everyone.

Expanding the common angle and including it to the ratio of the full angle that extends from the center point means that the ratio between the radii of the circles and the corresponding circumferences is constant, and it does not matter at all what the ratio of this constant is.

(*) The ruler - for drawing straight lines only. Not to measure. There are no standard rulers in geometry.

What number does Blondie claim is perfect?

Israel Shapira! (elaborate number)

When (N^2 minus 1), prime you get a complex number 3 primes get 6, 7 prime get 28, 15 is not prime and therefore cannot be received (because by the very definition of a complex number it is necessary to add the divisors of 15) etc...

I will think about your riddle

But here's a riddle that you won't be able to solve with all the math in the world - even though it has a solution.

We have two rooms, whose clocks are synchronized between them. In each room a coin, a chess cube, and a camera.

1. At moment 0 in each room, we roll the die in room 1 and arrange the coin as we see fit so that it looks like a tree or a tile, and take a picture of the coin and the die together. This is picture 1 of room 1.

2. Same in room 2. This is photo 1 from room 2.

3. Repeat the process 100 times in each room. We received pictures 1-100 of each room.

4. We have 15 minutes in each room to finish all the pictures.

5. We send the photos to third party.

The goal, which is accompanied by a significant cash prize:

7. When comparing 2 photos with the same serial number, (3, 6, 12.... 100) if in both photos the number in the cube is even, we will have a 100% match on the side of the coin in the photo (wood or paper).

8. If comparing 2 pictures with the same serial number on one side the die shows an even number and on the other odd, we will get an average of 75% matches between the coins.

9. If comparing 2 pictures with the same serial number on both sides the die shows a detail, we will get an average of 25% matches between the coins.

We may use any means, coordinate codes between the rooms, and prepare as much as we want for the experiment, as long as we finish taking all the pictures within 15 minutes from time 0.

Now, we have no problem doing this if there is communication between the rooms.

But can we do this if the rooms are a light hour apart?

Very nice.

There are many number games, for example the phenomenon of the perfect numbers. These are numbers whose sum of the numbers dividing them is exactly equal to the number itself. The number 6, for example, is divisible by 1, 2, and 3, and 6=1+2+3. The numbers 28, 496 and 8128 are also perfect numbers. And here, it turns out that all perfect numbers obey the rule discovered by Euclid: every perfect number is a multiple of two numbers, one of which is a power of 2 and the other is the next power of 2 minus 1. For example:

6=2¹ x(2²-1)

28=2² x(2³-1)

496=24 x (25 -1)

x(27 -1) 8128=26

.

. .

. . .

-2216090) =2216090 x (2216091 -1) 2432181 )

This number is over 130,000 digits long! And he obeys Euclid!"

"And that's not all. It also turns out that all perfect numbers are a series of consecutive numbers:

6=1+2+3.

28=1+2+3+4+5+6+7.

496=1+2+3+4+5…+30+31.

8,128=1+2+3+4+5…+126+127.

Peace be upon Israel Shapira!

If you are dealing with Pythagoras (3,4,5) please look at the following series: (3,4,12,13) ,(3,4,12,84,85) , (3,4,12,84,3612,3613) ….. until infinity. Each series contains side lengths of a square with a sub-length of sides. The sums of the squares of the sides except the last equal to the square of the last side, possible for any -N sides. And the structure can be built even in spaces over 2 dimensions.

Please check. I hope I didn't type the numbers wrong.

Of course Yossi, I just repeated your riddle from a few years ago..

Remember the riddle with the negative fish?

Israel Shapira!

Triangle sides 12, 15, 20

N = -2

You get 12 to the power of 2- equal to the sum of (15 to the power of minus 2) + (20 to the power of 2-)

I define this triangle as an inverted triangle to a right triangle (5, 4, 3)

Please Eraf, maybe something like B and N?

which is said in the Bible.

Well, what is the state Ben Yehuda?

To Israel

The combination of the letters North is the name of what?

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/92395240-e367-4359-870e-b1046c689254.pdf

Be patient

According to natural knowledge, who is further north,

Turin Italy or Toronto Canada?

Natural news Alek..

Know your country

what is the country

In the puzzle before you, features are described that are all common to one and only country in the world. You must read the riddle in its entirety, and guess which country it is. If it seems to you that the set of features can fit more than one country, check the data again. You will argue that there is a point where the countries differ from each other, and only for one country do the data fit in full.

which country -

Has a Middle Eastern climate, sunny, fertile in the northern half and desert in the south?

A national water carrier conveys the waters of the north to the south?

lies on the western border of the continent and borders the 33rd latitude?

Stretching from north to south along the shore of the Great Sea in the west?

On its eastern border - the Dead Sea. In the east - the desert of Moab, the valley of death and the great volcanic fissure (whose initials are: SA) that stretches from north to south?

Its northern neighbor (whose name ends in "on") is known as the land of cedars, water and mountains.

At its northeastern border is a freshwater lake, and to the east of it is a high volcanic plateau.

To the southwest of the country, a large peninsula with the resort town of Nuaiba_____ (Beit Rafoya).

In the center of the country, by the sea, lies the largest volume in the country, and from there the coastal road leads north, to the large and beautiful bay city near Carmel.

which country-

Received its independence in 48, after the great war of that year.

From 49, a large migration to it began and within a few years its population tripled.

Most of its residents are immigrants and the children of immigrants, which for many years was the desire of non-Galim immigrants, who tried to qualify for it by an illegal route and called it the "Promised Land" and many of whom found themselves in displaced persons camps.

In which country is one of the main national holidays on Thursday in May?

.

.

.

Neural geometry in 60 seconds

file:///C:/Users/Home/Downloads/%D7%92%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94%20%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA%20%D7%91%2060%20%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA%20(4).pdf

1.007

"James Bondi" pie...

It arises as a result of connecting zero by zero.

That is, 0+0=1.007

New math, new geometry, mental illness… old….

To Israel

In connection with proving the maximum area for a square, compared to a rectangle with a given perimeter

Missing detail of the type of proof: in numbers? in words? in the paintings? In natural knowledge?

According to natural knowledge, the distinction is correct.

If we compare rectangles and squares, the square shape is the most efficient, in terms of the goal of enclosing a maximum area for a given perimeter.

This natural knowledge is supported by the following rule: the more symmetrical the shape, the more effective it is in terms of the stated purpose.

From this it follows that the shape of a closed round line is the most effective in terms of the said goal.

According to natural knowledge, the following distinction is also true.

The shortest distance between two trees has the shape of a straight line.

According to this natural knowledge, it is possible to establish Euclidean geometry, (and there is no need for 5 natural knowledge - the so-called axioms)

A. Asbar

right …..

and also:

Prove that in a rectangle with a given perimeter, the maximum area obtained is when the rectangle is a square.

Sorry, we understand that you have a hard time with the infinite, it is also possible in normal algebra.

The sides do not form a triangle, they are all on the same line.

20,21,41 and 1

Oh... I didn't read well...

4, 5, 6 and 1

In the meantime, until Princeton repeats the scope experiment that will win our nerves a Nobel Prize (Ig), how about my challenge?

You need to find a non-right triangle whose sides meet the condition:

4 different integers a,b,c so that

a^n +b^n=c^n

n is an integer that is not equal to 2.

Israel

Now we know where the missing screw is 😉

got upset

And you part your lips

Like every Belfan

without performing the experiment of the century

The scope experiment.

A wonderful new universe where the stars move in spiral orbits,

And its substance is created by combining amounts of passive energy and time.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/7512af65-e1e5-47ac-af36-b3654d2d790b.pdf

And it was that day

And it was on that day, when the representatives of the academy would repeat the scope experiment

And indeed they will recognize that a new geometry has come into the world

and that in this geometry pi varies between a minimum value of 3.1416 and a maximum value of 3.164

A new number will begin to star in the world of science, 1.007 and it is the number of the ratio between maximum pie and minimum pie

The ratio number 1.007 appears following a measurement in a geometric field, and thus the concept of physical geometry was created,

The geometry of closed circular lines is physical geometry.

hypothesis:

Visible and tangible physical geometry reveals to us a secret from physical reality, hidden and hidden from us.

The ratio number 1.007 will also appear in real physical reality.

From then on, a new number will accompany the world of science and it is 1.007

To reach the number 1.007 in the real physical reality, one must know the neural universe,

The two fundamental concepts in the Newtonian universe are matter and force

The two fundamental concepts in the Einsteinian universe are matter and energy

The two fundamental concepts in the neural universe are passive time and energy.

Israel

I think he can run for the US presidency. Then he will give an executive order and the matter will be closed.

Asbar is absolutely right. Enough talking! The time has come for action - the experiment must be repeated in a respected academic institution - and now!

The Technion, MIT, Harvard - take a number to be among the lucky ones who will have the right to perform the immortal scope experiment!

The right to speak to a problem member

And now the submachine gun friend will speak.

So many words have been written in this discussion, and each word is just a combination of letters.

What is the secret of human language?

It may be that the use of words will not solve the mystery of Pi, and only an action will solve the mystery of Pi.

What act? the act of measuring

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/92395240-e367-4359-870e-b1046c689254.pdf

How did you measure the circumference of a circle between 215 mm and 216 mm? with a wire?

aetzbar

The only conclusion anyone here has is that you are stupid. Liar, uneducated - but mostly stupid.

You are welcome to vote...

A research topic for newcomers to the discussion

The length of a closed circular line, and the length of its diameter, constitute a random combination of lengths.

A random combination of lengths can have a rational ratio number, or an irrational ratio number.

What is it similar to? to the pencil and toothpick placed on the table.

Here, too, a random combination of lengths appears, and their ratio number can be rational or irrational.

With such a combination of lengths, the mathematician is helpless, and does not know what to do.

The mathematician does not have a suitable calculation for joining random lengths, and is unable to find their ratio number.

In contrast, the physicist feels good with a random combination of lengths

He measures the length of the pencil, and gets a result between 215 mm and 216 mm

He measures the length of the toothpick, and gets a result between 69 mm and 70 mm

From these two results he calculates a ratio number between 3.1 and 3.2

The conclusion: a random combination of lengths of a closed circular line and the length of its diameter belong to the physicist who performs measurements, and do not belong to the mathematician who performs calculations.

Criticism is welcome

aetzbar

Your basic assumption is wrong. Too bad you're not ready to learn.

I am optimistic

aetzbar

If you are not willing to listen to others, what makes you think anyone will?

Ok, this is already really intriguing. You wrote in proof in black on white:

Diameter of circle is 120 mm – pi = 3.1417

Where is this number from? is it accurate About? What is the degree of accuracy and why? Why not 4, it's a beautiful round number

You have a formula for a number

You have specific numbers in the proof

But it is impossible to know if they are rational or not?

worrying..

I have great doubt about what you said.

At this stage the experiment deals with a ratio number that can be associated with a certain actual length of a closed circular line, and it is impossible to know if it is a rational or irrational ratio number.

Thanks for your comment

hey sad

An interesting result that follows from your new definition of pie is that you can quarter the circle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle

Maybe the academy won't recognize your new geometry - but you can join the list of people who solved the famous problem. Successfully!

to plant

The perimeter experiment is not wrong, but it is not necessary to prove the existence of a new geometry.

Why argue about the experiment, if there is no need for it.

The experiment is fantastic which allows for drama, but it is possible to reach the new geometry without drama.

Maybe this way is more convenient for you?

Any reasonable person will accept the three figures of a closed circular line

Actual length, unique uniform shape, and unique ratio number.

So who needs an experiment that provokes futile debates, when only a repeated experiment makes sense.

I have already said, if the Weizmann Institute repeats the scope experiment, it will be the great scientific show of the twenty-first century.

A. Asbar

Will I be able to ignore the experiment? Why because you are not comfortable?

Do you admit he is wrong?

A. I took the time to explain to you what was wrong with *your* experiment. You were completely ignored and now you want another reference. Basic etiquette. Take my efforts to help you seriously. You didn't even bother to google and learn. Then we'll see.

B. If you take *yourself* seriously and really invest a few clicks to search on Google you will probably make less baseless *claims*. Hint: ruler = measurement = experiment (wrong in your case)

And when you act arrogant and ignorant at the same time you do not inspire respect.

As long as you don't bother to treat yourself, you won't receive any treatment, and wherever you spread the "experiment" and the evidence proofs, you will receive the same treatment

No doubt about it

The fallacy of constant pie has persisted since the days of Archimedes to the present day

All mathematicians who came after Archimedes, believed in the idea of a constant pi.

In all universities they teach the wrong idea of a constant pie

And if that's the case, it's impossible for mathematicians to get an idea of a variable pie.

Indeed, my many years of experience indicate - they do not accept the variable pie idea.

A. Asbar

For miracles, Israel, Neta, and anonymous,

Ignore the scope experiment, there is no need for it.

This experiment comes to give a theatrical dimension to a scientific discovery, which can be reached simply,

All you need is a caliper, a ruler, and a pencil

If we draw closed circular lines with a caliper, we will easily reach the following information.

The first news

A closed circular line with a diameter of 2 cm has a uniform shape - but unique

A closed circular line with a diameter of 5 cm, has a unique uniform shape, and is not similar to the previous one.

A closed circular line with a diameter of 10 cm, has a unique uniform shape, and is not similar to the previous one.

The second news

There is a clear connection between the actual length of a closed circular line (shown with a number of cm), and its unique uniform shape.

The third news

Since the mathematical expression of a geometric shape is always a ratio number, the necessity is that each actual length of a closed circular line, has a unique ratio number.

The simple and preferred option is the number of the ratio between the circumference and the diameter.

Here it is, without the perimeter experiment, we arrived at a new geometry, which is the geometry of closed circular lines.

Each closed circular line has a unique real length, a unique uniform shape, and a unique ratio number

This new geometry is physical geometry, as it uses actual lengths of closed circular lines, shown with the amount of centimeters.

The scope experiment produced more news, such as the following rule

The shorter a closed circular line, the greater its ratio number.

The scope experiment also helped to determine the narrow range in which the aforementioned ratio numbers are found, between 3.1416 and 3.164

But as mentioned, even without the scope experiment it is possible to arrive at the amazing discovery of the variable pie, which is considered constant

For thousands of years, by the scientific community.

And if by this point you are not convinced, here is attached a geometrical proof of the variable pie idea.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/64740005-678c-4330-b23e-43a48f2f8163.pdf

And if you are still not convinced, you have no choice but to repeat the scope experiment.

If the Technion repeats the experiment, it will be a scientific theater show of the twenty-first century.

After the show, there will be a dramatic change in geometry and mathematics studies, and the scope experiment will take a place of honor in the Hall of Science.

A. Asbar

for your information

You can give up the scope experiment, and be content with this geometric proof.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/64740005-678c-4330-b23e-43a48f2f8163.pdf

For me, this geometric proof is enough

And what for you? is she enough

There is absolutely no way I will recommend anyone to do your "experiment". vice versa. If someone asks I will tell them that my *natural knowledge* says to stay away from it.

You use useless terms like "natural knowledge" that does not require proof. Natural knowledge means that "natural knowledge" is something without dawn. Natural knowledge means that you can say natural "knowledge" and then you can say whatever you want.

Natural knowledge tells me that you are from space. not needed beaten

You don't understand anything about math, logic, physics or experiments. Just repeating yourself like a broken record and not bothering to relate.

I have offered you simple ways to turn your "experiment" into something that is a little more like a scientific experiment.

*** You ignored *** my suggestions, because conducting a careful experiment will prove to you that you are permanently correct and you are wrong. And that's your biggest fear after spending decades on unfounded nonsense.

My natural knowing says that you will completely ignore my suggestions, and not try to improve *your* experiment because you are afraid of the truth.

My natural knowledge will advise everyone not to comment until you bother to search on Google and learn how to do experiments.

For the information of the heads of the universities

for your information

You can give up the scope experiment, and be content with this geometric proof.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/64740005-678c-4330-b23e-43a48f2f8163.pdf

For me, this geometric proof is enough

And what for you? she is enough

got upset

You claim that things are clear beyond doubt and that many years ago you knew by natural knowledge that the single pie axiom is not true.. Since this natural knowledge appeared, you have never doubted its correctness.

You also claim that there is a big difference between a circle and a multi-sided polygon enclosed within the same circle, from Mar'atz. The circuit changes when its slide image is projected, the MRC does not.

But what contradictory things. You can't tell if a circle isn't actually a quadrilateral if the number of sides is large enough - so maybe the quadrilateral doesn't change its properties when enlarged? On the other hand, you claim that polygons with a small number of sides do not change their properties when enlarged, so at what number of sides does the change begin?

I know that this simple argument will not make you stop asking for the scope experiment to be repeated, the purpose of your life. But I believe that you are not really interested in having it repeated because if you were really interested, you would spend a single hour conducting the experiment with a much larger number of laps. Such a YouTube will greatly strengthen your argument and can arouse interest among the parties you are interested in. The fact that you are not editing it (or maybe you already edited it and saw that the results contradict your life's work), shows that either you are not really interested in the results, or that you are not really diligent (which I find hard to believe in light of the much work you have already invested in the project).

So we were left with a non-believer - you simply don't believe in the enterprise of your life.

Lanissim, Israel, anonymous, Neta

In order for this discussion to have value, it is advisable to send a link to it

to the Weizmann Institute,

to the Technion's Faculty of Science and Technology Education,

to the Einstein Institute of Mathematics,

and ask for reference.

I hope they answer

A. Asbar

To anonymous

The Faculty of Education for Science and Technology - the Technion, produced a presentation dealing with the wonderful mathematical constant Pi.

This presentation claims that pie is constant, and how is it possible that the Technion will agree to repeat the scale experiments - which claims that pie changes.

https://edu.technion.ac.il/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2018/03/%D7%94%D7%91%D7%96%D7%A7-6-%D7%A4%D7%90%D7%99-%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%97-14.3.2018.pdf

aetzbar

Why won't you listen? I told you several times that I would be happy to show you why you are wrong.

To anonymous

Any respectable scientific institution is reluctant to repeat the scope experiment, because the results of the experiment would embarrass it greatly.

If this reluctance did not exist, surely they would repeat the experiment, if only to show that I presented a wrong idea of a variable pie,

After all, I wrote to every scientific institution and every university in Israel, and to many scientific institutions in the world.

They usually didn't respond to me, and this silence stems from said reluctance.

The video of the scope experiment is published on the Internet, and it can always be repeated.

This is the clear sign of a scientific discovery……that you can always repeat it, and accept the discovery.

A. Asbar

...he doesn't understand that the respected institutions don't treat him because, they have more important things to deal with... 🙂

And I don't understand what you got into with the previous formulation, if n is equal to 1, almost anything goes, doesn't it?

Israel

Do you really think he knows what power is? 🙂

"This new geometry will integrate with a new universe, different from the universes of Newton and Einstein."

Indeed, and our nerves already live in such a universe..

Laughs, upset, did you find the 4 numbers?

We will improve the challenge:

You need to find a non-right triangle whose sides meet the condition:

4 different integers a,b,c,n such that

a^n +b^n=c^n

n is not equal to 2.

But in Euclidean geometry, not neural, eh?

upset:

"A closed circular line is a physical line..."

A closed circular line is a straight line whose two ends meet. That is, a circle.

And you are ignorant and arrogant.

And the only thing you confirm is your stupidity.

I'm sorry

You are 3000 years behind the world…….

To anonymous

A closed circular line is a physical line without thickness that appears in reality.

Such a line appears clearly on the circumference of a half shekel coin, and its diameter can be measured with a micrometer.

The unique uniform shape of this closed circular line is seen in the poor.

Even in the circumference of a shekel coin, there appears a closed circular line with no thickness, and its diameter can be measured with a micrometer.

When you look at a shekel coin, you notice a unique uniform shape of a closed circular line.

A closed circular line is evident in its three figures

Each closed circular line has an actual length (amount of mm)

Each actual length of a closed circular line has a unique uniform shape

Each actual length of a closed circular line has a unique ratio number.

From these three data a new geometry arises, which will join the geometry of the straight line.

This new geometry will combine with a new universe, different from the universes of Newton and Einstein.

anonymous

I hope he doesn't have family or friends he tells these things to…..

He will confuse….

It seems to me that his situation is more complicated than the definition of "troll", miracles 🙂

Don't you see he's a troll?

די

Stop abusing the idiot liar.

Trump is at least funny….

"A closed circular line has an actual length" - FYI, Mr. Don't worry, this is the line that outlines the trajectory length of a certain thing (let's say, a particle).

Your "lines" represent "nothing".

I mean, the things you refer to and talk about are, in fact, nothing.

In short, in Israel

Pointless egg jumbles.

What do you want annoying?

You are able to find 4 different integers a,b,c,n so that

a^n +b^n=c^n

n is not equal to 2.

If so, bring it.

And he's right, it's definitely related to Perma.

And how do you know that Fermat's proof is by way of negation? She was never discovered.

Unless..

got upset

Israel does not speak Chinese.

Are there or aren't there like 4 numbers? If there are, bring them.

And a very small polygon with a billion sides curves almost as vigorously as the circle that encloses it.

And if a tiny segment of its circular line is very crooked, and does not resemble a straight line at all, then the same applies to the polygon as well.

Therefore, if the MRC does not change with magnification, then neither does the circle.

Israshar close Alek..

Israel Shapira responded:

July 22, 2020 at 22:10

"Perma claimed that there are no such numbers, but this is a claim of the "no" type that cannot be proven."

Is it clear beyond any doubt that there are no such numbers? Ferma claimed to have proved it and even wrote the proof in the margin of the book, Wales also claimed to have proved it.

So are there or are there no such numbers?

And what about the area of the square?

And what about the polygon? If it does not distort when enlarged, then what is the difference between a polygon with a billion sides and a circle?

try again.

Fermat claimed...there are no equations of the type aa + bbab = ggg

This is a claim of the "no" type that is accepted as soon as it appears, and it moves to the "always candidate for refutation" state

If a mathematician shows up with three numbers A B C that satisfy the equation Aaa + Bbab = Ggg, the claim goes from being disproved to being refuted.

Since to this day no mathematician has appeared with three such numbers, and the claim has not been disproved, this claim continues to be accepted in the state of MetL.

It is very strange that for 500 years mathematicians tried to prove Fermat's theorem, and very, very, very strange

that there is agreement among mathematicians that Wills proved Fermat's theorem.

Natural knowledge states:

A claim of the "no" type cannot be proven, and it goes into the state of non-existence, as soon as it appears.

And I asked....who is the mathematician who determined - that a square with a side length number of 1 - will have an area number of 1

And you asked about an elaborate multi-sided polygon, which deserves to be abbreviated as MRC

And I try to answer

A square with 1000 sides of length 1 mm remains a square whose circumference is a closed straight line.

A 1000000-sided 0.0001 mm long, XNUMX mm long, remains a XNUMX-sided, closed straight line.

A dynamic MRC.

A dynamic MMR is a MMR whose number of sides is increasing, and the length of its sides is decreasing.

The perimeter of a dynamic MRC will always be a closed straight chain line, and will never be a closed round line.

A closed circular line is evident in its three figures.

It has a unique actual length

It has a unique uniform shape

It has a unique ratio number.

A. Asbar

Oish, I will accumulate some pitfalls...

Evidence of the way of negation is already shown in high school...

Now Perma is also wrong...

In your ignorance you claimed that "Ferma claimed that there are no such numbers, "a claim of the type "there is no" cannot be proved"

To make it easier for you to use Google:

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/הוכחה_בדרך_השלילה

aetzbar

"Perma claimed that there are no such numbers, but this is a claim of the "no" type that cannot be proven."

This theorem was proved 25 years ago …..

"Perma claimed that there are no such numbers, but this is a claim of the "no" type that cannot be proven."

Is it clear beyond any doubt that there are no such numbers? Ferma claimed to have proved it and even wrote the proof in the margin of the book, Wales also claimed to have proved it.

So are there or are there no such numbers?

And what about the area of the square?

And what about the polygon? If it does not distort when enlarged, then what is the difference between a polygon with a billion sides and a circle?

try again.

To Israel

You asked

Now find me 4 different integers a,b,c,n such that

a^n +b^n=c^n

n is not equal to 2.

Fermat claimed that there are no such numbers, but this is a claim of the "no" type that cannot be proven.

aetzbar

You are right that the length of a matir will always be less than the length of the bow. But you know what else is true?

I have someone to introduce you to, his name is Blowing Water.

I think you will do well.

And another one, AP, is also full of decisive and permanent declarations that are clear beyond any doubt.

And we haven't mentioned Wookie, and N.C. And the other great educators of the site..

And what about an octagon, a polygon with a billion sides? A billion to the power of a billion? With the mickey mouse?

Let's start: it's clear beyond any doubt..

Solve the riddles I gave you, maybe a human will come out of you once..

A tiny square is similar to a giant square, and the same ratio number will appear in both

A tiny circle is not the same as a giant circle, and each will have a unique aspect ratio number.

Don't worry, you can also do the opposite, project a large circle in a focal lens so that it becomes small on the screen.

Then project back the small one with a magnifying lens. You got back the original circle.

If the circles are distorted then what about the mickey mouse? It also consists of circles.

And what about triangles? squares? Any polygon? Do they also convulse in the screening?

Draw a closed circular line with a diameter of 1 cm on a slide

Project his image on the wall and assume that you got a closed circular line with a diameter of 50 cm

And the result is clear beyond any doubt

The closed circular line in the slide has a unique uniform shape

The closed circular line appearing on the wall has a unique uniform shape

You can also draw on a slide, a closed circular line with a diameter of 2 cm, and another closed circular line with a diameter of 6 cm

Cut a small section from each line

Put the slide cutouts on top of each other, and try to get a fusion between the lines.

Convergence between these lines will never be achieved, as each line has a unique uniform shape.

and regarding the square with area 1,

Prove that in a rectangle with a given perimeter, the maximum area obtained is when the rectangle is a square.

This is a slide, take a slide, put a slide of Mickey Mouse, and project it on a screen so that it is magnified 1000 times, a million or a trillion times.

Did something change in Mickey?

So why would it change in the slide with a thumbnail of a circle with a string?

How do you know that all the relationships between the string and the bow will be preserved, after all the uniform shape of the line has changed.

Acadienus the first.

So the safe rule is not so safe, eh..

"The calculation of the mathematicians does not fit a tiny circle with a diameter of 0.0005 mm, because a tiny section of its circular line is very crooked, and does not resemble a straight line at all."

I have already shown you that if you enlarge the circle on a slide, it will miraculously become as large a circle as you wish and all the relationships between the string and the arc will be preserved.

Now find me 4 different integers a,b,c,n such that

a^n +b^n=c^n

n is not equal to 2.

A cool and funny research question

Who is the mathematician who determined - that a square with a side length number of 1 - will have an area number of 1

A. Asbar

To Israel, I have already answered you on the subject of the safe rule, here it is

How the safe rule appears and disappears.

To calculate the length of an arc in a circle with a given real diameter, , you need to know the value of pi belonging to this circle. In your method you will always use 3.14159, and the calculation is extremely simple.

Multiply the diameter of the circle by 3.14159 (and it doesn't matter if the diameter is as tiny as 0.07 mm, or 70 mm) then

You get the circumference of the circle in mm.

360 degrees are spread over the circumference, and since the number of degrees of the arc in question derives from the length of its string,

It is very easy to calculate the length of the arc.

And in short, if pi is known, the safe rule disappears, and one can easily calculate the length of a bow based on the length of the string.

And why did I claim the existence of the safe rule? Since once again we are back to the matter of pie -

How did the mathematicians know that this number 3.14159 corresponds to all circles, and it doesn't matter if it is a tiny circle with a diameter of 0.0005 mm or a huge circle with a diameter of 50000000000000000000

I guess the mathematicians believed that this number 3.14159 would fit all the circles., and this belief was handed down from generation to generation for thousands of years, and this is how it is taught in universities. (This is how they taught me, you and Nissim)

The mathematicians arrived at this number with the help of calculations based on the Pythagorean theorem, and the Pythagorean theorem is only valid for straight line segments.

From this it follows that the calculation of the mathematicians corresponds to a circle whose diameter is 50000000000000000000000000 mm

Because a tiny segment of its circular line, almost resembles a straight line.

A hard conclusion:

The calculation of the mathematicians does not fit a tiny circle with a diameter of 0.0005 mm, because a tiny section of its circular line is very crooked, and does not resemble a straight line at all.

This difficult conclusion has accompanied mathematics for thousands of years, and yet they continue to teach in universities that this number 3.14159 corresponds with certainty to all circles, to those whose diameter approaches zero mm, and to those whose diameter approaches infinity mm.

And here again the safe rule appears.

Mathematics has not presented a formula linking the actual length of a diameter to its pi number value.

From this it follows that the numerical value of pi belonging to a diameter of 70 mm is unknown, therefore it is impossible to calculate

the length of the bow, whose string length is 8 mm.

Following the circumference experiment, a formula appeared linking the actual length of the circle's diameter to its pi value.

With the appearance of this formula (again the safe rule disappeared) and it is possible to calculate the length of a bow based on the length of its string.

The circumference experiment disproved an ancient mathematical belief that the number 3.14159 corresponds to all circles.

The scope experiment dispossessed the circuits of mathematics and its calculations, and they moved to physics and its measurements.

The scope experiment is waiting for a respected scientific institution, which will gather courage and repeat the experiment.

A. Asbar

Nissim responded:

July 21, 2020 at 07:39

Israel

In the link, on page 17, there is an antenna amplifier for the long wave station in Colorado. Should help you.

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QEX_Next_Issue/2015/Nov-Dec_2015/Magliacane.pdf

י

"And compare yourself to Cavendish without a shred of justification."

Netta, to compare Cavendish to Asbar? I thought it was not your way to insult.

you are upset

Nervous, the wisest of all people, there is some question in nervous geometry that is bothering me and I would be happy if you could consider it.

If as you say, the three characteristics of a round line are:

It has a unique actual length

It has a unique uniform shape

and has a unique ratio number.

And you even brought the formula of that unique ratio number:

https://www.hayadan.org.il/cern-physicists-report-the-discovery-of-unique-new-particle-1207202/comment-page-2#comment-734008

And you even sketched his graph (an impressive sketch, I admit).

So why does the safe rule say: it is impossible to calculate the length of a bow based on the length of its string? After all, all the numbers are unique and therefore the result is single-valued, isn't it?

?

??

??! ??

I think there is nothing scientific in what you wrote.

"I hold the opinion"

"The shape of a line is grasped with a simple glance - you see and you know"

"will inevitably reach the following conclusions".

"Leads the researcher to the conclusion that (it is impossible)"

"These calculations are not appropriate"

"Identifiable with a simple glance."

In short, everything is just your opinion with zero basis.

And again you have returned to the arrogance of "new geometry" and comparing yourself to Cavendish without a shred of justification.

What about learning basic features of what a science experiment is? I even wrote you what to look for and what to ask.

You probably prefer to deal with baseless Swissness and blooming baseless theories in the air than to learn the basics that matriculation students in physics already know.

Go out and learn. I'm done wasting time on you. But wherever you write unsubstantiated things you will receive the refutation from me.

Famous experiments in the history of science

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94:%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94:_%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D

The scope experiment is an experiment in the field of tiny phenomena.

The Cavendish experiment is also an experiment in the field of tiny phenomena.

The Cavendish experiment entered the history of science, and it appears on Wikipedia.

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%99_%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A9

I'm sorry

Repeating stupidity does not change the fact that it is stupidity.

Half a thousandth of a millimeter?? Physicists tinker with the femtometer.

Enough being awkward 🙂

Research question

What is the fundamental concept of geometry?

I hold the opinion that a line is the fundamental concept of geometry.

A line has two clear data - actual length and shape.

The shape of a line is grasped with a simple glance - you see and you know.

The actual length of a line is expressed by measuring with (a ruler, caliper, micrometer, etc.)

The researcher of the closed circular lines will inevitably reach the following conclusions.

Each round line drawn with a caliper has a unique actual length, and a unique uniform shape.

Since the mathematical expression of a shape is a ratio number, we arrived at the three characteristics of a round line.

It has a unique actual length

It has a unique uniform shape

and has a unique ratio number.

The continuation of the research leads the researcher to the conclusion that it is (impossible) to apply mathematical calculations based on the Pythagorean theorem, to closed circular lines.

These calculations are only suitable for straight line segments, and are not suitable for circular line segments.

And what is left to do?

It turns out that closed circular lines without thickness appear in precise metal cylinders of the mechanical industry.

The diameter of these actual circular lines can be measured with an accuracy of half a thousandth of a mm

Their unique uniform shape can be recognized at a glance.

Thus began a physical study of closed circular lines, which yielded a new geometry.

The culmination of this research is the scope experiment.

A. Asbar

got upset

1: It is known that the distance is the length of the shortest route between two points.

2: You claim the point is nothing.

3: You claim that between two 'nothings' there is a real thing.

And if you read "Ku Israshar"

4: The real thing here is actually the distance itself, which is also the size that describes the difference between the two "nothings".

5: The size of the difference (the dashed line) between your two nothings is easily calculated as follows: nothing less nothing equals nothing.

6: In other words, the size of the chain line is zero.

In other words, you can make up as many nodes as you want in Euclidean space, but since their size is zero, this means that every time you try to prove their existence in physical space, you are bound to experience a fiasco.

...you thought only Chuck Norris knew how to divide by zero...

You made Mr. got upset

Mr. upset,

Why not take an example from a person like Israel Shapira?

Why can't you be like Israel? See it.

The man invested thousands of hours, invested all the money he earned in poker games (hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hundreds of thousands), in his experiments that may yet bring the blow to the scientists...

Mr. Don't worry, invest a little more.

Do not overlap. What are you, er**? (sorry, s**ts)

In companies

And good luck.

got upset

1: It is known that the distance is the length of the shortest route between two points.

2: You claim the point is nothing.

3: You claim that between two 'nothings' there is a real thing.

And if you read "Ku Israshar"

4: The real thing here is actually the distance itself, which is also the size that describes the difference between the two "nothings".

5: The size of the difference (the dashed line) between your two nothings is easily calculated as follows: nothing less nothing equals nothing.

6: In other words, the size of the chain line is zero.

In other words, you can make up as many nodes as you want in Euclidean space, but since their size is zero, this means that every time you try to prove their existence in physical space, you are bound to experience a fiasco.

...you thought only Chuck Norris knew how to divide by zero...

You made Mr. got upset

Mr. upset,

Why not take an example from a person like Israel Shapira?

Why can't you be like Israel? See it.

The man invested thousands of hours, invested all the money he earned in poker games (hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hundreds of thousands), in his experiments that may yet bring the blow to the scientists...

Mr. Don't worry, invest a little more.

Do not overlap. What are you, an Arab? (Sorry, Arabs)

In companies

And good luck.

Nte

I think that today we live in the age of "reputation". The problem is that there is endless information available to everyone, but some of it is just garbage. If you believe that vaccines cause autism, then you will find information that matches your belief.

Today, much more than in the past, when looking for information, you need to check the reputation of the source.

Neta, good luck, but it seems to me that you are a bit naive about the anger.

I offered him a simple improvement in connection with his experiment a long time ago - to double the number of rounds 100 times. This would be able to give a much clearer indication if there is something to the whole idea.

The proud and arrogant answer was: I am sure of success and there is no need to conduct the improved experiment.

Psychos all over the head, an extreme mirror image of all the educators and arrogant people who visit this site.

Of course I meant that my way is *not mocking*

I will add, my way is to make fun of others but you have brought the ridicule of others on you.

You built mountains of self-pride and arrogance of others without a hint of understanding.

Fortunately, both are fixable.

Return to modesty and learn the subjects.

Fortunately, we live in the information age. All the concepts I wrote to you are a few clicks away from you.

Read, learn and understand:

1. Why without a correct calculation of error the experiment (any experiment) has no value. And hence why your experiment as it is today has no value

2. How to correctly conduct an experiment (recording the conditions of the experiment + calculating the error of each condition + calculating the total error) and hence how to correctly conduct your experiment.

3. When you conduct the experiment correctly, you will understand for yourself what the conclusions of the experiment (corrected!!!)

4. Invited to publish the conclusions in Rish Gali.

I have a feeling that 4 won't happen, but that's okay because one doesn't publish unpleasant things in waves, no, certainly after such a long time that he stood behind them with his real name. It is human not to do 4. But I hope that you will at least do sections 1-3

Israel

Exactly what I thought... it's a shame he didn't finish 10 years of study....

But what he built is pretty impressive.

come on..

A man who writes "Many years ago I knew by natural knowledge that the single pie axiom was not true.. Since this natural knowledge appeared, I have never doubted its correctness" -

Sane?

The only thing I wonder about is myself that for a while I thought there might be something in his words, but I attributed it to the physical world that may not obey the world of geometry, as in the case of Riemann and Einstein's geometry..

aetzbar

The world is full of fools. I, and not only me, are laughing at you here. Don't you get it?

You are a dishonest, arrogant and uneducated person. If you weren't also stupid - you would be aware of it.

I offered to explain to you, but you chose to continue to belittle and lie. What exactly did you expect???

Atzbar, you are welcome to search on Google or ask matriculation students how to conduct an experiment, how to write down the conditions of the experiment and their errors, and how to calculate total error.

Successfully

for miracles

If you manage to refine your responses, only you will benefit from it.

You will feel better, calmer, and more confident

Successfully

"I didn't understand anything from sections 1, 2, 3"

This is exactly the problem 🙂 🙂 🙂

to plant

I did not understand anything from sections 1, 2, 3

But I thank you for your very response

Sorry, the comment disappeared, so in short:

1. Describe *all* the conditions of the experiment including units.

2. *every* size should come with an error plus.

3. Describe total error.

If you don't know how to ask matriculation students, first year students, teaching staff or Google because I won't spend time on it. The burden of proof on the claimant of the "groundbreaking" claims

Ahval (your new name)

I wrote you a calculation. I offered to explain to you why this is true, but you, in your stupid arrogance, chose to ignore it.

Now - eat sand from me. Go humiliate yourself at the Technion or the Weizmann Institute. They will also tell you, in the end, that you are an idiot.

Sorry, the comment disappeared, so in short:

1. Describe *all* the conditions of the experiment including units.

2. *every* size should come with an error plus.

3. Describe total error.

If you don't know how to ask matriculation students, first year students, teaching staff or Google because I won't spend time on it. The burden of proof on the claimant of the "groundbreaking" claims

Father, I sat down and wrote a full response about an experimental error. I'd love it if you showed up

Sorry I wrote you:

You need to accurately describe the exact conditions under which the experiment was conducted + an accurate description of all the errors in each of these sizes.

Key 1: If you are missing even *one* of the conditions of the experiment (detailed to you in quite a few responses) you will complete.

For example: the temperature. And don't ask me what the conditions are. The duty of conducting the careful experiment is on you, as a claimant.

Key 2: No size can appear without an accurate description of the error (and of course the units). For example, the temperature was measured with an accuracy of +- 0.5 degrees Celsius.

Key 3: (which somewhat resembles 2) the measurement result cannot appear without an accurate description of the total error of the experiment (which results from all the previous errors)

If you don't know how to calculate/check measurement errors/total error Google is your friend. Also, I'm sure they'll be happy to answer you:

A. Students doing matriculation in the laboratory.

B. Students doing a lab.

third. Teaching and academic assistants.

Because unlike baseless claims, the above questions have constructive purposes.

And no, I'm not going to waste time on it

Miracles

Please write a formula linking the diameter of a circle of 44 mm to a unique pi value corresponding to this circle.

aeztbar

You are a poor and uneducated liar. The formula is in front of your eyes - but it is clear to all of us that it is beyond your ability to understand and far beyond your level of education.

Netta responded:

July 21, 2020 at 19:23

aezbar will not answer you about the errors in the experiment because:

A. He does not understand that a *full* description of the sum of the errors is the A. B. of an experiment. *No experiment* is worth *anything* without a full description of all errors.

If he had gone to the lab in high school without mentioning all the errors, he would have lost points.

If he had submitted it to the first lab in the first semester without noting all the errors, it would not have been accepted as a lab report at all.

B. As long as he does not fully describe the measurement errors, he can think of himself as a martyr, the incomprehensible "harbinger of the revolution", who is not praised because he is not understood, afraid of the consequences and he is ahead of his time. Then one day an international institute will do its experiment in space and everyone will praise it.

If he describes his measurement errors, he will find that his "experiment" is so sloppy that it does not deserve to be called an experiment.

(If I measure an acceleration of gravity of 11 m/s/s +- 1, I have discovered a new phenomenon. If I measure an acceleration of gravity of 11 m/s/s +- 1.5, I have proven that Newton was right, although my experiment is not particularly high-quality)

If he describes his measurement errors he will find that he is - well - wrong. And more than that, he *proves* that Pai is permanent...

He will probably see that the error of his experiment *increases* (in the calculation of Pi) as the circle gets smaller, therefore basically every "measurement" of Pi gives the value of Pi up to an error that falls within the error range of that measurement.... In short, he will prove that he is wrong and therefore he will never answer you

Please specify exactly what needs to be done, so that the experiment meets all the standards of a scientific experiment.

I emphasize...what needs to be done (actions, actions, actions)

Yesim responded:

July 21, 2020 at 20:44

aetzbar

You don't have to watch the video - the formula is in front of your face.

Now - are you ready to turn back from the lie?

I have not seen a formula linking the actual length of a diameter (for example 137 mm) to a certain value of pi.

Nissim responded:

July 21, 2020 at 18:26

aetzbar

Are you ready to listen for once?

Nissim, Asbar is not here to listen, he is here to speak. that we will listen

You don't expect the inventor of the scope and the thinker of neural physics to argue as one of the human beings with the flightless commoners like him, do you?

He got his. We waste our time on his nonsense, and it doesn't matter what you show him, explain or prove, he neither listens nor is able to understand. He doesn't care what you say either, doesn't he remind you of the discussions that were here at the time with a bunch of absolute idiots?

Go ahead if it's entertaining, but don't expect your words to be taken seriously. The man is completely insane.

Nissim responded:

July 21, 2020 at 20:43

aetzbar

please:

I have not seen a formula linking the actual length of a diameter (for example 2.3 meters, 55 mm) to unique pie values.

Notice that he doesn't respond to me. You can understand why. I presented him with the same arguments in the past and he did not answer them either.

Sorry, correction.

Asbar is the owner of a groundbreaking innovative idea, a genius, a thinker, above his level, where are there other people like him? After all, as a weeping willow, he was upset.

(Is there a limit to stupidity?)

In short, a full description of the errors (which will not appear or be incorrect) will prove that

*** Constant pie *** (up to the measurement errors)

aetzbar

You don't have to watch the video - the formula is in front of your face.

Now - are you ready to turn back from the lie?

aetzbar

please:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJB4n-IzBE

Israel Shapira responded:

July 21, 2020 at 20:23

There is another possibility, the most likely.

Abar is not completely sane.

Anyone with a groundbreaking innovative idea is expected to receive such a response.

Instead of discussing the matter, we move on to discuss the interested party.

This is the easiest solution, and strange that you chose it.

A. Asbar

Nissim responded:

July 21, 2020 at 18:38

aetzbar

And if you are not imprisoned and ready to listen - then at least, please, stop lying:

"Mathematics has not presented a formula linking the actual length of a diameter to its pi number value." – It's just a lie.

Please show such a formula

There is another possibility, the most likely.

Abar is not completely sane.

aezbar will not answer you about the errors in the experiment because:

A. He does not understand that a *full* description of the sum of the errors is the A. B. of an experiment. *No experiment* is worth *anything* without a full description of all errors.

If he had gone to the lab in high school without mentioning all the errors, he would have lost points.

If he had submitted it to the first lab in the first semester without noting all the errors, it would not have been accepted as a lab report at all.

B. As long as he does not fully describe the measurement errors, he can think of himself as a martyr, the incomprehensible "harbinger of the revolution", who is not praised because he is not understood, afraid of the consequences and he is ahead of his time. Then one day an international institute will do its experiment in space and everyone will praise it.

If he describes his measurement errors, he will find that his "experiment" is so sloppy that it does not deserve to be called an experiment.

(If I measure an acceleration of gravity of 11 m/s/s +- 1, I have discovered a new phenomenon. If I measure an acceleration of gravity of 11 m/s/s +- 1.5, I have proven that Newton was right, although my experiment is not particularly high-quality)

If he describes his measurement errors he will find that he is - well - wrong. And more than that, he *proves* that Pai is permanent...

He will probably see that the error of his experiment *increases* (in the calculation of Pi) as the circle gets smaller, therefore basically every "measurement" of Pi gives the value of Pi up to an error that falls within the error range of that measurement.... In short, he will prove that he is wrong and therefore he will never answer you

aetzbar

And if you are not imprisoned and ready to listen - then at least, please, stop lying:

"Mathematics has not presented a formula linking the actual length of a diameter to its pi number value." – It's just a lie.

aetzbar

Are you ready to listen for once?

When they repeat the scope experiment, I have no doubt that we and the whole world will hear about it.

Good luck with the experiment that reminds me of the Perpetum experiments of old.

Nice, answer to the question

When they repeat the scope experiment, you will surely hear about it.

Good luck in your pursuit that reminds me of old time radio enthusiasts.

Miracles

Thanks for the link, I'll use it when the receiver arrives.

got upset

Reporter:

A closed circular line with a diameter of 70 mm is given

Between two points on the closed circular line, a string 8 mm long appears

Calculate the length of the circular arc between the two points.

I took the trouble to find the length of the arc for you, I thought it would calm you down but it turns out you wanted me to do it according to your geometry.

Your geometry has no scientific basis, you also admit that it is built on your faith and feelings.

I believe you have a basic and childish mistake: you look at small circles and see that they are more concave than large ones. It's hard for you to see that their strings are equally small.

Because of this mistake you have built a barbed wire of false assumptions and equally false physics. You can't see it because of a psychological problem which is nicely explained in the movie Wonders of Reason.

There is no point in arguing with you because you do not speak the same language as us. If you really want the academy to conduct your trial, why not contact them directly? We here can't or don't want to help you.

So either you start talking in the language of geometry taught in schools, or you bring solid evidence or an acceptable experiment for your theory.

Until then - sad sad sad nos nos nos..

Israel Shapira responded:

July 21, 2020 at 05:47

Each transistor receives stations even from a distance of 1000 km, the problem is to show the carrier wave in the scope.

I ordered a WWV radio receiver, they broadcast from Colorado. No problem receiving them, just display the wave.

Release Asbar, he will not listen to a word, he is mentally incapable of it. Whatever you say to him, he will repeat the mantra "The safe rule says: You cannot calculate the length of a bow by the length of its string". It doesn't matter that you show him that it is possible and you will also calculate and although even according to his crazy geometry it is possible to calculate.

You will not sit in the Litz seat.

Also in Abarbanal.

How the safe rule appears and disappears.

To calculate the length of an arc in a circle with a given real diameter, , you need to know the value of pi belonging to this circle. In your method you will always use 3.14159, and the calculation is extremely simple.

Multiply the diameter of the circle by 3.14159 (and it doesn't matter if the diameter is as tiny as 0.07 mm, or 70 mm) then

You get the circumference of the circle in mm.

360 degrees are spread over the circumference, and since the number of degrees of the arc in question derives from the length of its string,

It is very easy to calculate the length of the arc.

And in short, if pi is known, the safe rule disappears, and one can easily calculate the length of a bow based on the length of the string.

And why did I claim the existence of the safe rule? Since once again we are back to the matter of pie -

How did the mathematicians know that this number 3.14159 corresponds to all circles, and it doesn't matter if it is a tiny circle with a diameter of 0.0005 mm or a huge circle with a diameter of 50000000000000000000

I guess the mathematicians believed that this number 3.14159 would fit all the circles., and this belief was handed down from generation to generation for thousands of years, and this is how it is taught in universities. (This is how they taught me, you and Nissim)

The mathematicians arrived at this number with the help of calculations based on the Pythagorean theorem, and the Pythagorean theorem is only valid for straight line segments.

From this it follows that the calculation of the mathematicians corresponds to a circle whose diameter is 50000000000000000000000000 mm

Because a tiny segment of its circular line, almost resembles a straight line.

A hard conclusion:

The calculation of the mathematicians does not fit a tiny circle with a diameter of 0.0005 mm, because a tiny section of its circular line is very crooked, and does not resemble a straight line at all.

This difficult conclusion has accompanied mathematics for thousands of years, and yet they continue to teach in universities that this number 3.14159 corresponds with certainty to all circles, to those whose diameter approaches zero mm, and to those whose diameter approaches infinity mm.

And here again the safe rule appears.

Mathematics has not presented a formula linking the actual length of a diameter to its pi number value.

From this it follows that the numerical value of pi belonging to a diameter of 70 mm is unknown, therefore it is impossible to calculate

the length of the bow, whose string length is 8 mm.

Following the circumference experiment, a formula appeared linking the actual length of the circle's diameter to its pi value.

With the appearance of this formula (again the safe rule disappeared) and it is possible to calculate the length of a bow based on the length of its string.

The circumference experiment disproved an ancient mathematical belief that the number 3.14159 corresponds to all circles.

The scope experiment dispossessed the circuits of mathematics and its calculations, and they moved to physics and its measurements.

The scope experiment is waiting for a respected scientific institution, which will gather courage and repeat the experiment.

A. Asbar

Israel

In the link, on page 17, there is an antenna amplifier for the long wave station in Colorado. Should help you.

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QEX_Next_Issue/2015/Nov-Dec_2015/Magliacane.pdf

Not a modulator - modulated.

Penan nuts, aren't we?

Sky waves are fine, any waves are fine as long as I can see the carrier wave - the modulator - in the scope.

Israel

Yeah… not exactly an intelligent person…

The stations in Boulder are shortwave and longwave. You receive the short waves through sky waves and I don't know if that helps you.

Long waves know how to "hug the ground", but their frequency will make it difficult for you, I think. The station broadcasts at 60 kHz.

Each transistor receives stations even from a distance of 1000 km, the problem is to show the carrier wave in the scope.

I ordered a WWV radio receiver, they broadcast from Colorado. No problem receiving them, just display the wave.

Release Asbar, he will not listen to a word, he is mentally incapable of it. Whatever you say to him, he will repeat the mantra "The safe rule says: You cannot calculate the length of a bow by the length of its string". It doesn't matter that you show him that it is possible and you will also calculate and although even according to his crazy geometry it is possible to calculate.

You will not sit in the Litz seat.

Also in Abarbanal.

aetzbar

If you would like to learn, I will explain to you how it is still possible to calculate the length of a bow with the help of a string - without using pie.

But you must stop being arrogant and making up rules. It doesn't work like that 🙂

Don't you dare say again "it is known that..."

Israel

100 km is quite far. You will need a serious antenna and a very strong station. Shortwave stations use sky waves so you won't know the range.

Israel

Crystal radio is AM only. It's usually MW because these are very powerful stations. There are also SW, but their use is decreasing and it is hard to assume that there is a station near you

It doesn't matter what the frequency is as long as the station is at least 100 km away.

With a crystal radio there is no problem, you connect the scope directly to the receiver and that's how you see the carrier wave. I tried doing this on several radios, even assembled one myself. I can hear the station but I don't know where to find the connection point to see the wave.

Maybe Abar knows?

Israel

What frequency range are you interested in? Crystal radio is, as far as I know, for the AM domain.

Israel

What radio frequency do you want to receive?

Enough miracles, the man is not completely sane and is not able to defend himself, this is abuse.

aetzbar

Mathematics is not about quantification. Maybe we will call physics - "wheel of six"??

Please - finish high school before you talk to adults?

What do you think about a word in the Hebrew language for.. math

Mathematics - as gifts

Mathematician - Kamatan

Mathematician - as a gifted

Mathematicians - as gifts

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/d72ae594-dd7e-4ebe-abff-a675c67573f6.pdf

Not Vienna - Vilnius.

Let's have some more fun and move on to more serious things. How do I see the carrier wave from a distant radio station on an oscilloscope? I can do this with a crystal radio, but how about a normal radio with all its cast mold?

aetzbar

Enough with the lies. Not everyone is retarded.

Oh, now I understand.

So it's not impossible - I calculated and even brought you the result with an accuracy of up to 8 digits after the decimal point - but according to neural geometry this calculation is not valid..

I thought you meant maybe even in the world outside the closed department it is not possible to calculate, it's a shame you didn't mention it..

To Israel,

But the safe rule says: it is impossible to calculate the length of a bow based on the length of its string.

Therefore, you cannot calculate the length of the arc in front of the diameter, which is 70 meters long

You also cannot calculate the length of the arc in front of the string that is 8 mm long

If you knew the value of pi belonging to a diameter of 70 mm, the safe rule would disappear.

In order for you to know the value of a pie belonging to a diameter of 70 mm, you must be familiar with the perimeter experiment.

But the scope experiment has not yet been recognized, and the only value of pi that is used is 3.14159

Israel

The genius from Vienna claims that all infinity is wrong….. Newton is a liar, Einstein is a charlatan and only he understands….. the guy who doesn't know how to conduct a simple experiment 🙂

So what is meant by the sentence "if you manage to calculate the length of the arc in front of the 70 mm string"? If the string is actually the diameter, then the length of the arc is a semicircle, the product of the diameter in pi is divided by 2, right?

To Israel

Israel Shapira responded:

July 20, 2020 at 23:38

You didn't say the diameter is 70 mm

Of course I said, otherwise you wouldn't use radii of 35mm, for an isosceles triangle with a base of 8mm

aetzbar

I understand that you are an arrogant and uneducated ignoramus.

Everyone who reads your crap sees it.

Didn't you say the diameter is 70 mm?

for miracles

Don't you understand that you can't calculate the length of a bow based on the length of its string?

If you manage to calculate the length of the arc in front of the 70 mm string, you will be able to calculate the length of the arc in front of the 8 mm string

If you will be able to calculate the length of the arc in front of the 8 mm string, you will be able to calculate the length of the arc in front of the 70 mm string

We are discussing a classic problem of chicken and egg, or of pliers made of pliers

This is a problem that cannot be solved, because the safe rule applies to it.

The safe rule says: it is impossible to calculate the length of a bow, according to the length of its string.

aetzbar

A line integral from 0 to 180 degrees is considered for

(y=sqrt(r^2-x^2

And that will give us half the circle.

Is this acceptable to you?

So you claim that the length I gave - 8.01751769 mm - is not the length of the bow in front of the string which is 8 mm long? Can you explain why and at which stage of the 9 stages I gave a mistake was made?

And what do you mean the bow in front of the 70 mm string? Didn't you say it was the diameter? Multiply it by pi, you will get the circumference of the circle. Subtract the length of the previous arc and it is the arc you asked for.

Can you explain what you mean?

for miracles

Maybe you will help Israel? He tries to solve a chicken-and-egg problem, or a pair of pliers made of pliers.

If you have a hard time with a dot, as a collection of points perceived in the imagination, maybe you would prefer the continuous line?

Israel

Do you still have patience, or are you just kidding him? 🙂

got upset

It's a MTC and not a MTC. (Cartesian and not artificial).

but leave

Just a slight on my part...

By the way, you can put corn boxes instead of "Nakdan" - it will have the same effect.

But in order for this "pointer" to have a physical manifestation in physical reality - you must first prove the existence of "pointer" and not speak in ignorance.

Since you have nothing to refer to, then this "point" does not actually exist, and all the rest of your theory built on it is no less than a tower that is built in the air and has no grip on the ground of reality.

You failed to calculate the length of the bow, based on the length of its string

You have created an isosceles triangle where the length of each leg is 35 mm, and the length of the base is 8 mm

Therefore, the sine of half the angle opposite the base = 4 divided by 35 = 0.11428

Any calculator reveals that the sine of 6.56247 degrees = 0.114286

Therefore, the value of the angle in front of the base = approximately 13.1249 degrees.

Everything you wrote up to section 5 is inclusive, acceptable, correct and known.

And what is unknown?

The length of the bow in front of the string that is 8 mm long is unknown, and the length of the bow in front of the string that is 70 mm long is also unknown.

This is the safe rule - you cannot calculate the length of a bow based on the length of its string.

"You failed to present a calculation of the length of a bow based on the length of its string. (try again)".

Once again, with all the steps:

1. The string and the two radii form an isosceles triangle whose sides are: 8 mm, 35 mm, 35 mm.

2. Divide the triangle into two right triangles. The length of the permit is 35 mm and the side opposite the desired angle is 4 mm.

3. The ratio between the sides: 4/35 is equal to 0.11428571..

4. Brandeis tables: the angle is equal to 6.56242762 degrees.

5. Since this angle is only half of the angle in front of the string (we divided the triangle into 2) then the angle itself is double. 13.1248552 degrees.

6. Divide this angle by 360. We got 0.03645793

7. Multiply by pi 3.14159265. We will get 0.11453597.

8. Double with a diameter of 70 mm. We will get 8.01751769 mm.

9. The answer I gave earlier: 8.01752 mm

10. Capish?

I have no doubt that you understood why mathematics did not discover the secret of closed circular lines.

Mathematics dealt with a circular dot and a circular straight line, and never dealt with closed circular lines.

Nor could mathematics deal with closed circular lines.

Closed circular lines belong to physics and measurements, and do not belong to mathematics and calculations.

aetzbar

You're just dumb

The solid line puts mathematics in a big dilemma.

A line is the fundamental concept of geometry, and it has actual length and shape.

A point has no actual length, no actual width, and no shape.

The function of the point is to indicate a place in an artificial axis system (MZM) that has a horizontal X-axis and a vertical Y-axis.

Mathematics does not have an equation that describes a line, but there is an equation that describes a collection of points, in mcm

A collection of points in the MCM is created by an equation, and will be called a point.

Mathematics does not have an equation that describes a closed circular line, but it does have an equation that describes a circular point.

A circular dot is a collection of dots, which from far away looks "as if it were a closed round line"

If we approach a round point, we will recognize a collection of dense points, which are at a fixed distance from the point

In the center of a round dot.

A circular dot is created by the equation x^2 + y^2 =1

A round dot is not a round line, and the only possibility to bring a dot into the realm of lines is to imaginatively connect any two adjacent points with a straight line.

This creates a circular straight line, and there is no sign of closed circular lines.

It does not have the unique uniform shape of a closed circular line, and it does not have the distinction between the actual length of a closed circular line, and its unique uniform shape.

And to conclude: the mathematical approach to closed circular lines lost all their distinct signs, therefore mathematics failed to discover the secret of closed circular lines.

Math is left with a round straight line or a curved straight line, and has no access to round lines or curved lines.

There is a straight line that separates genius from stupidity...

Sorry,

There are specific points that differentiate between stupidity and genius.... Well no matter

A call to the Academy of Exact Sciences

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/117720bb-ade0-427e-96f8-1d8fa47cc07b.pdf

Infi and analytic geometry do not correspond to lines, but to points (a collection of points)

If you enjoy mocking, remember that mockery is the last refuge of the ignorant.

You failed to display a calculation of the length of a bow based on the length of its string. (try again)

I am waiting for a scientific institution to repeat the scope experiment, and such a wait is really required for a groundbreaking innovative idea.

Come on Nice, 2 in the morning, good night.

Come on, really, aren't you tired of making fun of yourself?

Why should the Technion or any institution treat you at all if you don't take into account what they tell you and you don't conduct the scope experiment in a thorough way, not carelessly like the experiment you showed us on YouTube?

I believe I have the answer, and as I mentioned it comes from the world of psychology.

So that's it between us, have you ever studied infinitesimal calculus? Analytic geometry? Physics above high school level?

Because if not - and you seem to have no basic knowledge of the issues you deal with - then why do you pretend to educate us and literally reinvent the wheel?

We here just enjoy messing around with you, the ultimate kid, but even that has a limit. At first I thought there might be some content in your ramblings, that you showed experimentally that pi changes, just as triangles in nature are not 180 degrees. But very quickly you were discovered to be a donkey full of bloat and self-importance.

And regarding my calculations, I brought you the link earlier where you too can calculate every length of a bow and the area enclosed between it and the string with the click of a button. The theoretical calculation is also quite simple. Since the length of the string and the diameter are known, it is easy to calculate the central angle of the triangle formed by the string and the two radii from the points on the circle. Divide the angle by 360 and multiply by pi twice the diameter.

Nissim responded:

July 20, 2020 at 11:17

aetzbar

And regarding my calculation - I know how to calculate the size of the error, so I know how to calculate both a maximum value and a minimum value. After all - that's why I said that the accuracy I calculated was 15 digits.

Nissim responded:

July 20, 2020 at 11:15

aetzbar

Let's say we replace your big wheel with a gear that has microscopic teeth. Now - the scope is much larger, but your experiment will give the same result.

So it turns out that your experiment proved nothing.

In your first post, you calculated the minimum pie with an approximate value of 3.1416

The accuracy in your calculation is unnecessary and has no point

Now try to calculate the maximum pi whose approximate value is 3.164

Regarding your second message - easy talk is hard to do

aetzbar

And regarding my calculation - I know how to calculate the size of the error, so I know how to calculate both a maximum value and a minimum value. After all - that's why I said that the accuracy I calculated was 15 digits.

aetzbar

Let's say we replace your big wheel with a gear that has microscopic teeth. Now - the scope is much larger, but your experiment will give the same result.

So it turns out that your experiment proved nothing.

for miracles

I didn't claim that you made a mistake in the calculation, I claimed that you calculated the minimum pie

I suggested you try to calculate maximum pi

To remind you, pi varies between 3.1416 and 3.164

And regarding your verbal criticism of the scope experiment - there is no point in it.

I look forward to a hands-on, trial-and-error review by professionals in precise mechanical measurements.

If a practical experiment determines that I was wrong, I will obviously accept its ruling, because the experiment is the final arbiter in science.

I would be very happy if the Technion decided to repeat the scope experiment,

aetzbar

I explained to you that I know how to calculate the error in my calculation. This means that the value of pi is the value I calculated, plus or minus the error.

Do you have a hard time with math or Hebrew?

And regarding your experiment - I found a mistake in your experiment. Do you really think the Technion won't laugh at your sloppy experiment?

Nissim responded:

July 20, 2020 at 10:31

aetzbar

What are you confusing the brain? I calculated exactly 15 digits. "My" calculation does not depend on the radius.

You claim I miscalculated. For the last time - where is my mistake?

Pay attention to the current situation:

You admitted that you messed up in your measurements (you didn't refer to the temperature).

I showed you - scissors!!! - that the effect of one degree creates a bigger error than your measurement.

And on the other hand - I showed you a calculation whose accuracy increases with each step, and I told you that I would be happy to explain to you why this is so.

In addition, Israel told you that it is possible to accurately calculate the length of an arc by integration.

So - are you going to answer the questions honestly, or not?

for miracles

I didn't claim that you made a mistake in the calculation, I claimed that you calculated the minimum pie

I suggested you try to calculate maximum pi

To remind you, pi varies between 3.1416 and 3.164

And regarding your verbal criticism of the scope experiment - there is no point in it.

I look forward to a hands-on, trial-and-error review by professionals in precise mechanical measurements.

If a practical experiment determines that I was wrong, I will obviously accept its ruling, because the experiment is the final arbiter in science.

And Israel, he presented a number, and did not present the calculation that produced this number.

A very challenging person.

Or should we say - challenged?

Israel

Dunning and Krueger would celebrate... .

Nissim, I'm sorry I'm not here to answer questions. He is here to educate us and instill in us his deep teachings, which do not require any reasoning.

So please don't disturb the genius and pester him with facts and calculations.

8.01752 mm.

aetzbar

What are you confusing the brain? I calculated exactly 15 digits. "My" calculation does not depend on the radius.

You claim I miscalculated. For the last time - where is my mistake?

Pay attention to the current situation:

You admitted that you messed up in your measurements (you didn't refer to the temperature).

I showed you - scissors!!! - that the effect of one degree creates a bigger error than your measurement.

And on the other hand - I showed you a calculation whose accuracy increases with each step, and I told you that I would be happy to explain to you why this is so.

In addition, Israel told you that it is possible to accurately calculate the length of an arc by integration.

So - are you going to answer the questions honestly, or not?

To Israel

A closed circular line with a diameter of 70 mm is given

Between two points on the closed circular line, a string 8 mm long appears

Calculate the length of the circular arc between the two points.

Israel

He can run for president of the USA...

Nice, since Matan and A.P. We didn't have such a case, eh?

You calculated the minimum pi, after all pi varies in a narrow range between 3.1416 and 3.164

Now try to calculate maximal pi.

Successfully

"It is impossible to calculate the length of a round bow by the length of its string"

What do you mean, the bow has only one string? Because if not, what does the word "her" proximity mean?

Every bow that has "its" string also has "its" diameter.

Tell me the length of the string and the diameter and I'll tell you the length of the bow.

aetzbar

Please stop being arrogant. OK?

aetzbar

I did a calculation. Are you saying I miscalculated?

Before you answer - know that I know how to calculate the maximum error in my calculation.

Well - are you claiming that I miscalculated?

And please, keep your mantras to yourself. We are talking numbers here.

I already answered you, it is impossible to calculate the length of a circular arc based on the length of its string, and the Pythagorean theorem is suitable for calculations of straight line segments, and not suitable for circular line segments.

aetzbar

Are you not going to answer me?

Saddened us, Oriyata man.

Maybe enough with the shame already?

Now answer what was asked,

Or respect yourself and go home.

A correct distinction, there are endless closed circular lines, and each closed circular line has an actual length such as , 0.5 mm, 18 meters, 343 km, 0.017 mm, and so on without end.

But there is another important distinction regarding closed circular lines, apart from actual length.

Each actual length of a closed circular line has a uniform - unique shape

A closed circular line with an actual length of 0.8 mm has a uniform shape - but unique

A closed circular line with an actual length of 18 cm has a uniform shape - but unique

From here you come to the idea of variable pie.

Pi is a number that expresses a ratio.

A ratio number in geometry expresses shape.

its unique uniform shape of a closed circular line, expressed by a unique ratio number (if you want a unique pie)

All this description does not rule out the safe rule.

Conventional mathematics does not have the ability to calculate the length of a circular arc, based on the length of its string.

"Set two points on a closed circular line".

Which circular line is closed? There can be infinitely many closed circular lines and each corresponds to a different circle with a different diameter, no?

we

A point is dimensionless, and the question is essentially philosophical.

Israel does not understand philosophy. Israel is just a small pawn in the great game of life. Leaving universe-spanning discoveries to Archimedes Newton Einstein and the moment of transformation and the secrets of the universe.

It's just a shame that the great educator doesn't have a concept of basic geometry..

Determine two points on a closed circular line.

This determination created two lengths.

Length of a circular arc.

length of a straight string. belonging to the arch.

What is the ratio number between these lengths.

You can decide that the number 1 represents the length of the string, and the goal is to find the number that represents the length of the arc.

There is no doubt that the number representing the length of the arc is greater than 1, but conventional mathematics is unable to find this number.

Nor did conventional physics discover passive time.

Passive time is a completely new concept, filling the infinite space.

Energy also fills the infinite space.

Passive time is absolute rest and absolute cold.

Passive time is the medium in which "passive time waves" move that transmit sunlight.

From combining amounts of passive time and energy, matter is created.

Matter is a physical form, and is not a quantitative concept.

A spring is stretched by an actual body attached to the end of the spring, measures the passive energy of the actual body, and does not measure the amount of matter of the actual body. (Simply, the Newtonian concept of amount of matter does not exist)

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/1a427eca-c545-4992-b230-398cab183137.pdf

Israel

indeed

And 'his mother's fault'.

but,

I would like to focus on one thing:

Our nerves make a legitimate claim:

What is a "line"?

When does the length of a point become a line? or something like that.

Scholars claim that:

The proton is the minimum point.

the question is:

What is the particle that determines the minimum distance for the definition of space and what determines the minimum time in which that particle travels that distance.

According to what is known today, the smallest particle defines space and time itself.

The problem is that there is no such particle.

For you, secrets of the universe.

https://handymath.com/cgi-bin/arc18.cgi?submit=Entry

aetzbar

I asked you a question - please answer.

You must learn how to engage in dialogue.

Give me a string length and diameter and I will calculate exactly the arc length of that string.

Passive time elk..

we

Ahasuerus reigned over seven twenty hundred countries from India to Kush.

It is known that India was his father's.

And black?

There is no way to calculate the length of a bow, based on the length of its string

Why study unfounded calculus, which uses the literary concepts of zero and infinity.

If Newton and Leibniz's calculus were correct, this calculus would reveal the idea of a variable pie.

This calculation uses a dot, instead of a line

The point is a collection of points, which from a distance looks like a line, but really it is a collection of points.

The point has a valid mathematical formula in the Cartesian coordinate system.

The line has no mathematical formula, and never has.

Mathematics does not have a formula that describes a line

The formula Y=X^2 describes a collection of points, and if we connect the points in straight line segments, we get a straight line.

Mathematics has never discussed round lines or curved lines, it discusses straight lines.

Therefore, mathematics failed to discover the secret of the circular lines, and the idea of the variable pie.

And what about the secrets of the universe?

Newton proposed two fundamental concepts of force and matter, and the natural motion of stars in a straight line. This natural movement does not appear in reality, because the Newtonian force bends straight trajectories of motion into elliptical trajectories.

Einstein proposed two fundamental concepts of energy and matter, and curved geometric space.

And I propose two fundamental concepts, of passive energy and time, and stars whose natural motion is in spatial spiral orbits.

Passive tense is a completely new concept just like the variable pie is a completely new concept.

Passive time is the real time that fills the infinite space, and is absolute rest.

Passive time is the medium in which passive time waves move at speed C

The active time known to all of us does not exist in physical reality, and it exists only in the consciousness of man.

The world of science is very close to a moment of transformation, mathematical, geometric, and physical.

A. Asbar

I still haven't understood what the problem is with calculating the length of an arc.

The length of the string alone is not enough since it corresponds to an infinite number of different arcs in an infinite number of different circles. But if we know another figure - the length of the diameter of the circle of which the arc is a part - then what is the problem with finding the length of the arc?

A line integral is only one way.

aetzbar

I calculated to the nearest 15 digits.

What is the accuracy of your measurement?

anonymous

Nice try

for miracles

You failed to calculate the length of a round bow, based on the length of its string.

try again

Tip: Do not use the Pythagorean theorem, this theorem is only suitable for the lengths of a straight line, and is not suitable for the length of a circular arc.

I didn't want to answer... but,

Miracles;

"Kush country", is this a racist statement?

In your opinion?

Israel

I hope..

You didn't understand miracles.

He meant the mother of the circle's kush.

or the triangle.

No, we? 🙂

anonymous

Keep your racism to yourself.

got upset

In addition to Nissim's question about the Pythagorean theorem.

It would be conceivable that the geometrical truths that have been taught for 2,500 years are shattered and the variable pi thinker that automatically entered all the textbooks - just never studied calculus?

Is it possible that the inventor of the neurophysics that will take the place of the theories of Newton Einstein and Bohr - does not know how to calculate derivatives and integrals?

?

??

??! ??

What should Israel do? Our world is very complex... we have passed the physics of the 18th century...

Today we have to consider quarks no less than negroes.

Anu, don't add fuel to the fire.

It's bad enough that we're only dealing with circles, arcs, triangles, and shins.

If you now add friction as well, then we will lose concentration completely.

And we - here we come, us?

Israel

Here is the result I got: 3.141592653589790

All I used was the Pythagorean theorem. And the Pythagorean theorem is easy to prove...

I admit, as a vessel full of words, that I could not understand where the problem is here.

Bring me a page with a bow, a string, a ruler, a protractor on it, and I will calculate the length of the bow.

Did I miss something?

The friction issue is indeed important.

The heat rising from the friction of two wheels creates a deformation of the material.

The question is to what extent?

The heat generated as a result of friction can be overcome by slowing down the speed of rotation...

And still, measurements with such resolutions also require taking into account the product of the temperature increase of the materials during work.

aetzbar

I hate to ask, but... Do you know the Pythagorean theorem?

aetzbar

After you watch - I will be happy to explain what is not clear. I understand that you have not studied basic mathematics, and I will be happy to explain to you what is not understood.

I already asked you if you understand the limits, and as usual, you didn't answer.

aetzbar

Please watch the following video (to which I have already provided a link)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rJdkhlWZVQ

I would love to hear how you calculate the length of a bow, based on the length of its string

Successfully

aetzbar

I did not change the data. If you had finished the XNUMXth grade - you would know the concept of "an auxiliary building".

aeztbar

I asked you - why? Are you going to answer or not?

The truth is - we both know the answer, and it is not for you!

I asked not to change the data, that's all

You want to change...please

aetzbar

I tried to show you a simple way to do it. You refused to listen. May I ask why?

This is a safe rule - it is impossible to calculate the length of a round bow, based on the length of its string.

Therefore, it is impossible to calculate the length of a closed circular line based on the length of its diameter.

Therefore, the domain of closed circular lines does not belong to mathematics.

This field belongs to physics and measurements, and does not belong to mathematics and calculations.

And this is where the gate to the scope experiment opens.

Newton and Leibniz's calculus will not be able to bypass the safe rule,

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/78fa1e1b-84bb-4f65-b2db-4418d08c5831.pdf

A. Asbar

aetzbar

In this situation it is not possible to measure the length of the arc. So??

The data are these:

A closed circular line is given, with two points on it.

Between the two points appears an unknown length of a circular arc, and an unknown length of a straight line.

I did not determine the distance between the points, and this distance is up to you.

If you added you, you changed the data.

aeztbar

I did not change the data. I uploaded you. Do you have a hard time with Hebrew?

I asked not to change the data

aetzbar

Am I allowed to raise you from the middle of the string to the bow?

for miracles

A closed circular line is given, with two points on it.

Between the two points appears a circular arc whose length is unknown,

Between the two points appears a straight line (string) whose length is unknown.

This is the data and do not change it.

Could you show a calculation of the length of the bow, according to the length of its string?

Successfully

"It was not held on a hot Hamsin day, nor on a winter day

and frozen

In short, you have no idea under what conditions the "experiment" was conducted or what the sum of its errors is.

And this is the reason *Israel Shapira* that it is worth nothing.

Since I did not write a word about the conditions of the experiment, I can only assume that the writer strongly felt that I did.

aetzbar

You wrote "There is a rule that says: It is impossible to calculate the length of a round bow, based on the length of its straight string."

No - this rule is wrong. As you decrease the string, the relative error will decrease, and in the limit it will be zero.

If you want - I will prove to you what I said.

aeztbar

You wrote "If you measure in Jerusalem an acceleration of gravity of 11 meters per second squared, it will be a coup if the error is plus or minus 1 meter per second squared"

This is your mistake - the error in your experiment is greater than the deviation you showed.

Israel

A good example!

To Israel

Good luck

A. Asbar

You missed the slide idea.

As far as I understand, according to neural geometry the ratio between the circumference of a circle and the circumference of a square that blocks it increases as the diameter increases.

But here we are dealing with a slide - there is no possibility to change the ratio, just as you cannot change the ratio in the image of Mickey Mouse projected from a projector and getting bigger as you move away from the projector.

You continue to request that a recognized academic institution invest a lot of money in the scope experiment, but you are not willing to invest a little time in the equipment you already have in your possession and the experiment you have already conducted and all that is required of you is to repeat it a few times. Why should anyone take what you say seriously if you don't take it seriously yourself?

I invest thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars in experiments designed to give a quantitative result to my idea because it is clear to me that no qualitative result alone will convince anyone. See:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3l8u1qm_0Og&persist_app=1&app=m

But I have no pretensions to announce a new mathematics or physics before I obtain unequivocal results, and even then I will be very doubtful whether I am indeed right in the idea.

But a man who openly proclaims that he is discovering a new geometry based on a strange diagnosis that, by his own definition, he simply "feels" is true, and a controversial experiment that does not show much, and is not prepared to face any criticism that is inconsistent with his belief, is not a scientist but Just pathetic.

Father, for some reason there are responses that are approved much later than others

And regarding the photographs of a closed circular line.

Let's say you took a picture of a closed circular line, 5 cm in diameter

And let's say you projected the photo on a screen and got a closed circular line with a diameter of 50 cm

What has changed ? The unique uniform shape of a closed circular line is what has changed

A closed circular line belonging to a diameter of 5 cm, has a uniform but unique shape

A closed circular line belonging to a diameter of 50 cm, has a uniform but unique shape.

The mathematical expression for a geometric shape is a ratio number.

Therefore, a closed circular line belonging to a diameter of 5 cm, will have a unique ratio number

And a closed circular line belonging to a diameter of 50 cm, will have a unique ratio number.

Hence the idea of variable pie,

To clarify my position, mark two points on a closed circular line, and you have already got a circular arc.

You also got the straight distance between the two points, which represents the length of the string of the bow.

We have no knowledge of the length of the arc

We have no knowledge of its string length.

All that is known - has been known since time immemorial - the length of the bow is (greater) than the length of its string.

There is nothing to do with this data.

Israel

There is a rule that says: it is impossible to calculate the length of a round bow, according to the length of its straight string.

Is it acceptable to you?

Miracles

Take a square of a certain size (say 5 cm side) that blocks a circle and draw it on a slide including the diameter. Let's denote the diameter by d. The side of the square, a, in our case is also equal to 5 cm, but this is not fundamental. There is a certain relationship between the circumference of the circle and the diameter of the circle, we will denote it by t.

Project the slide and place a screen at a certain distance, so that the diameter on the screen due to the perspective will be exactly double (10 cm in our case, but you can move the screen as far as you want until the diameter is also equal to 10 meters or 10 km.

The side of the square on the screen increases accordingly and is equal to the diameter of the circle. The great circle is still blocked by the great square. We will mark the big circle with m.

According to Asbar's claim, the ratio 't between the circumference of the large circle on the screen and the diameter of the large circle is smaller than t, the ratio between the circumference of the small circle and its diameter.

So we will take a circle whose ratio between its circumference and the new diameter (10 cm, 10 km, whatever) is exactly equal to t. According to Asbar's claim, the circumference of this circle is greater than the circle blocked by the eyes of the great square. We will mark this circle with m, and it is larger than m.

There are two options:

1. Since the circle m is larger than m and m is blocked by the large square, then m will exceed the large square.

2. 'm is not a perfect circle, but here the question arises where exactly relative to m does the distortion appear. For reasons of symmetry, it must be the same in every direction, so even then 'm will exceed the large square.

But 'm cannot exceed the large square - the large square is only the image of the slide of the small square and also the large circle is only the image of the slide of the small circle, and what technical juggling could make it suddenly exceed the image of the circle blocked by a square projected on a screen? And in what respect?

Therefore m is equal to m, and t is equal to t, and both are equal to pi.

I don't address this question to Asbar because I already know the answer: "As far as I'm concerned, there is one possibility - that a recognized scientific institution will repeat the scope experiment.

There is no more point in saying too many words, and there is no use in them.

It was interesting to talk to you.'

Of course, the question arises as to why Asbar even brings up his mistakes here on the website if he is not ready to confront any question that is asked of him, but this, as I have already mentioned, belongs to the field of psychology.

"It was not held on a hot Hamsin day, nor on a winter day

and frozen

In short, you have no idea under what conditions the "experiment" was conducted or what the sum of its errors is.

And this is the reason *Israel Shapira* that it is worth nothing.

Even a low precision experiment can show results.

If you measure a gravity acceleration of 11 meters per second squared in Jerusalem, it will be a coup if the error is plus or minus 1 meter per second squared

will study in all universities. Obviously. International institute. in space. It's coming in a moment.

As long as the "experiment" does not even meet the standard of matriculation in the laboratory in matriculation in physics, no one will repeat it because it is not an experiment.

Again I repeat: the conditions under which the experiment was conducted were not presented, the quantification of the errors is fundamentally lacking. The basic understanding of what an experiment is is missing. or what is physics. or mathematics

Even in the warehouse it is possible to do an experiment that will meet the basic criteria of an experiment. What I think I did is really, really not

aetzbar

Maybe talk to Matan Gurudish?

What good will words do, this is the time for actions.

A recognized and respected scientific institution is needed, which will repeat the scope experiment.

After such an experiment, a new geometry will be taught in all the universities in the world.

This is the geometry of closed circular lines, in which the idea of the variable pie holds.

A. Asbar

aetzbar

At what temperature did you measure the exact diameter you indicated?

And at what temperature did you perform the experiment?

Nissim responded:

July 19, 2020 at 08:25

aetzbar

You write "therefore, I refer to the steel wheel as having a diameter of 120 mm" - that is, you admit that you do not know what the diameter of the wheel really is.

You don't even mention the issue of temperature - the diameter of your wheel increases by 0.0015 mm for every degree of warming!!

And what about the sliding between the metal parts - after all, there is always such sliding (maybe you don't know that?)

for miracles

Your comment about the diameter is correct.

The exact diameter of the wheel is unknown to me, but it is known that such bearings are manufactured with a very high degree of precision,

and it is possible to assume plus 0.0004 mm or minus 0.0004 mm

If you make calculations, these assumptions will not change the revolutionary result of the scope experiment.

Your comment about the temperature is also correct, but the experiment was not conducted on a hot Hamsin day, nor on a winter day

and frozen

Your comment about sliding - should not have appeared.

There is no slippage in the scope test, because after 60 revolutions of the steel axle, the steel wheel rotates "a little more than a full revolution"

If there was slippage, the steel wheel would rotate "a little less than a complete revolution" and such a phenomenon does not appear in the scope experiment.

And in conclusion, there is no point in having verbal discussions, and they will not advance the issue.

It is not for nothing that I am asking a recognized scientific institution with a large budget to repeat the experiment.

This scientific institution will ensure accurate measurement of the bearing diameter in an international calibration laboratory, which will display data including temperature. This scientific institution will conduct the experiment in a temperature-controlled space.

A scientific institution will conduct the scope experiment, under the supervision of mechanical engineers, physicists and mathematicians.

A very large budget is required to conduct a very, very accurate scoping experiment, and I am sure that it will confirm the result of my scoping experiment.

A. Asbar

aetzbar

You write "therefore, I refer to the steel wheel as having a diameter of 120 mm" - that is, you admit that you do not know what the diameter of the wheel really is.

You don't even mention the issue of temperature - the diameter of your wheel increases by 0.0015 mm for every degree of warming!!

And what about the sliding between the metal parts - after all, there is always such sliding (maybe you don't know that?)

For miracles and Israel

There are two parts in the scope experiment, the level of accuracy of which must be known, and they are the steel axle and the steel wheel.

The steel wheel is a ball bearing with a diameter of 120 mm, and the degree of accuracy of bearings is the highest in the mechanical industry.

At the time I asked the National Physics Laboratory to measure the diameter of the bearing, and I was not answered.

Therefore, I refer to the steel wheel as having a diameter of 120 mm.

Regarding the steel axis, the information is more accurate.

I ordered a steel shaft with a diameter of 2 mm in the Class X precision grade in the plus direction.

(axis length 50 mm)

Such an order of Class X should provide a steel shaft whose actual diameter is between 2 mm

to 2.0005 mm.

The steel shaft comes with a document from a calibration laboratory, and the main data in the document are these.

Diameter in the center of the axis 2.000310 mm

Diameter at the end of the shaft 2.000440 mm

Diameter at the other end 2.000250 mm

The document is dated 8/6/2013, and a photo of it will be presented to a recognized scientific institution, which will agree to repeat the scope experiment.

The scope experiment.

Let's now assume that the end of the steel shaft with a diameter of 2.00044 mm, turns the steel wheel with a diameter of 120 mm.

And let's assume that the mathematical belief in a constant pi for all circles is true, and the value of this constant pi is 3.1415927

Therefore, this pi value will correspond to a diameter of 120 mm, and also to a diameter of 2.00044 mm.

Now it is easy to calculate the circumference of the steel wheel, and the circumference of the steel axle.

The circumference of the steel wheel = about 376.99 mm, and the circumference of the steel axle = about 6.28456 mm

With this data, it is possible to know what should happen in the experiment in which we rotate the steel shaft 60 revolutions, and these will rotate the steel wheel.

Expected result:

The cumulative circumference of 60 revolutions of the steel shaft = 377.074 mm, therefore after

60 revolutions of the steel axis - a point marked on the circumference of the steel wheel - will rotate a complete revolution - plus a distance of 0.0829 mm (376.99 mm + 0.0829 mm = 377.073)

But the experiment shows that the expected result did not appear.

The experiment establishes without a shadow of a doubt:

The said point has completed a complete revolution, plus a distance "a little greater than 0.0829 mm"

The distinction of "slightly larger than 0.0829 mm" has the meaning of a new geometry.

A. Asbar

Israel

He's surprised that the proof didn't convince you...

Did you also see the mathematical proof? He is absolutely right. Small circles are really better than big bends.

True, the strings are also just as small, but words should not be exaggerated and there is no use in them. Only an academic institution such as the Technion, the Einstein Institute or MIT will be able to confirm or refute the claim and the question is only whose part will have the right and honor to test the scope experiment first. The thinker does not bother with trifles such as repeating the experiment with more rounds, it is not the quantity that matters but the quality!

But what if only a quantitative experiment could confirm the variable pie idea? If there is anything to the story, it is theoretically possible to know the circumference of a circle just by measuring the deviation of the needle and comparing the deviation to the table, and this without prior knowledge of the circumference of the measured circle. That would be a slam dunk that cannot be argued with. But I don't think such a simple experiment will ever be carried out.

Israel is interested in technology, not psychology.

Israel

I was actually surprised by how close the needle was to 0 after the rounds. The guy did not bad mechanics.

Miracles

Successfully

?

aetzbar

I would like to see the calibration certificate of the same institute that measured your wheels. This will be the first requirement of the Technion or the Weizmann Institute

Successfully.

To Israel

As far as I'm concerned, there is one possibility - that a recognized scientific institution will repeat the scope experiment.

There is no more point in saying too many words, and there is no use in them.

It was interesting talking to you.

Thanks

A. Asbar

To Israel

As far as I'm concerned, there is another possibility, and it's waiting for a scientific institution to repeat the scope experiment.

There is no more point in saying too many words, and there is no use in them.

It was interesting talking to you

Thanks

A. Asbar

And according to you:

"Whoever claims a scientific discovery must provide the possibility to disprove it.

Here I provide such an option, but there is no volunteer to repeat the experiment.'

Could you lend your equipment to a volunteer who will repeat it but with 10 or 100 times more rounds?

You ignore what I say. Here it is again:

Take a picture of a circle (say 20 cm in diameter) and enlarge the photo exactly 2 times.

If according to you the ratio between the diameter and the circumference will change, then the increase is not exactly in a ratio of 2:1, and this is contrary to the claim that it is indeed so.

The same idea will work with smaller strings as well.

To Israel,

I'm surprised you weren't convinced by this geometric proof

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/3d60e524-468b-4b1f-bd0b-310bc08a3567.pdf

It is clear that you cannot calculate the length of a bow, based on the length of its string.

But that's okay - the geometric proof convinces me, but not you

You were also not convinced by the experiment I conducted, and that's fine too.

I am sure of the result of the experiment, and anyone interested can repeat it.

Whoever claims a scientific discovery must provide the possibility to disprove it.

Here I provide such an option, but there is no volunteer to repeat the experiment.

If a scientific institution repeats the experiment and gets the result "the ratio of the diameters = the ratio of the circumferences" I will definitely admit my mistake., and declare that I was wrong, wrong, wrong....

But the chances of a result of equality are zero, because measurement is not able to determine equality.

I repeat: measurement cannot determine equality.

A measurement is able to determine "inequality" provided that this inequality is beyond the range of error.

Indeed, the circumference experiment established an "inequality" of the ratio of diameters (larger) than the ratio of circumferences.

If the subject continues to interest you, I suggest that you recommend the Weizmann Institute or the Technion to look into it.

It is also possible to share the Einstein Institute of Mathematics, but it is not an easy challenge.

After all, mathematics established the equation...the ratio of the diameters (equal) to the ratio of the circumferences.

There are also many scientific bodies in the world, who will jump on the bargain, after all, in every university in the world

They will learn about the circumference experiment, which brought to the world a new geometry, which includes the idea of a variable pie.

A. Asbar

Calibration of wheels? Give a breakdown of technical data you want to know.

arc of this a >> a (because the arc line is more bent)

Indeed, but a is correspondingly shorter.

You can see this I believe if you think of larger circles, and take a=d, the chord is actually the diameter.

Now take a picture of such a circle (say 20 cm in diameter) and enlarge the photo exactly 2 times.

If according to you the ratio between the diameter and the circumference will change, then the increase is not exactly in a ratio of 2:1, and this is contrary to the claim that it is indeed so.

The same idea will work with smaller strings as well.

I also believe that the improved scope experiment I proposed will show this immediately. It's strange to me that you don't conduct such a simple experiment that you can perform now with the equipment you have, and still ask the academy to perform the same experiment.

aetzbar

"These calculations are not valid for a curved line, but for a straight line that appears from a distance as if it were a curved line.

You can draw the conclusions."

These calculations are only valid for a curved line!!! They are clearly mistaken for a line made up of segments.

I asked you about the calibration of your wheels. Can I please get an answer?

got upset

...and maybe your line is even a string?

Could it be that the 'ratio between pi numbers', in general, expresses the relative errors in your calculations?

And another thing:

In the companies I tell you, your device, mentions the flux capacitor.

Nissim responded:

July 17, 2020 at 02:08

aetzbar

So you dismiss the concept of the derivative and the integral??

These calculations are not valid for a curved line, but for a straight line that appears from a distance as if it were a curved line.

You can draw the conclusions.

If these calculations were accurate, they would notice the variable pi idea.

A. Asbar

aetzbar

So you dismiss the concept of the derivative and the integral??

aetzbar

Am I right in that you don't know the concept of "limit" in mathematics?

Whoever invented the concept of the border, invented the chained line built from tiny segments of a straight line.

Looking at a straight line from a distance, one will mistakenly recognize a round line, but it is really a straight line.

A straight line will never be a round line, therefore the calculation using the concept of the limit, failed to discover the variable pie idea.

The calculus of Newton and Leibniz, failed to discover the secret of circles.

The scope revealed their secret, and announced to the world the existence of a new geometry.

A. Asbar

To Israel

The 2500-year-old theory can be disproved even without a practical experiment.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/3d60e524-468b-4b1f-bd0b-310bc08a3567.pdf

aetzbar

Am I right in that you don't know the concept of "limit" in mathematics?

The whole experiment from start to finish took less than 4 minutes.

I assume that in less than 10 hours you will be able to achieve an unequivocal result. In practice, even one hour will be convincing.

One hour of not very hard work to disprove a 2500 year old theory? Worth the effort.

You can also hire the services of unemployed students. There are many now.

Nissim responded:

July 17, 2020 at 01:06

aetzbar

"Mathematics at all is unable to arrive at a maximal pie suitable for tiny closed circular lines."

Can you explain what you mean by "unable"?

The mathematical calculation is based on straight line segments.

Such a calculation is only suitable for closed circular lines of enormous length, a tiny segment of which almost resembles a straight line.

This calculation yields the approximate number 3.1416

Mathematics has no calculation suitable for tiny closed circular lines, a tiny segment of which is very crooked, and does not resemble a straight line at all.

The perimeter experiment revealed the number belonging to closed circular lines of tiny length, and it is 3.164

3.1416 is a minimal pie belonging to a very large circle

3.164 is a maximal pi belonging to a very tiny circle

The ratio between these pi numbers is approximately 1.007

1.007 is the new constant appearing in the geometry of closed circular lines.

Hypothesis: This constant will also appear in actual physical reality.

A. Asbar

Easy to talk, hard to do

It is possible to create a scope showing an experiment with 6000 revolutions of the steel axis,

An engine, a rev counter, and a precise stopping mechanism are required. (and maybe also a cooling mechanism)

I leave the creation of the elaborate scope to the representatives of the Academy, who have not yet accepted the variable pie idea.

I am satisfied with a manual rotation of 60 revolutions, and a manual stop at the starting point.

The distinction in the tiny deviation is enough to determine beyond any doubt... the ratio of the diameters > the ratio of the circumferences.

Even with an experiment of 6000 revolutions of the steel shaft we will get that...the ratio of the diameters > the ratio of the circumferences

This result is just the basis for completing the theoretical structure of a new geometry.

This structure is shown here http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/58841b0a-74db-4f68-8146-555ea76f587d.pdf

If the subject intrigues you, you are welcome to produce an elaborate scope. (Baruch says and does) I have already done mine.

A. Asbar

aetzbar

"Mathematics at all is unable to arrive at a maximal pie suitable for tiny closed circular lines."

Can you explain what you mean by "unable"?

aetzbar

Can you please show me how you calibrated your device?

got upset

The experiment you showed on YouTube is impressive, but inconclusive. As I mentioned, it is possible to improve it easily by multiplying the number of rounds by 100.

Your avoidance of the enhanced trial evaluation raises the suspicion that you are afraid that the results of the enhanced trial will not match your claim.

Sincerely.

And regarding the mathematical pie

The mathematical pie is a minimal pie suitable for very long closed circular lines.

Mathematics at all is unable to arrive at a maximum pie suitable for tiny closed circular lines.

The value of minimum pie is about 3.1416

The value of maximum pi is about 3.164

The following graph describes the relationship between the value of pi and the actual length of closed circular lines

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/58841b0a-74db-4f68-8146-555ea76f587d.pdf

A spinning wheel touching a spinning wheel is nothing new, but there is no revolutionary measuring device in this description.

The scope is built from two such wheels, but the precision with which it creates a measuring device that science did not know.

This measuring device - which measures the number of the ratio between the circumferences of actual circles, is completely new.

There is no such measuring device in the precision mechanical industry.

There has never been a practical requirement to measure a ratio number between the circumferences of steel cylinders.

Diameters of cylinders were always measured, and the ratio of the diameters went to the ratio of the circumferences.

The scope proved that this transition is not true, and thus a mathematical geometric revolution was created.

A. Asbar

aetzbar

How do you get the idea that this invention is new? A metal wheel spinning around a metal wheel is nothing new.

aetzbar

"A second assumption seems correct in a large tangible drawing of a hexagon blocking a closed circular line, but there is no certainty that this assumption is correct, in a tiny drawing of an "elaborate multi-sided polygon" blocking a tiny closed circular line."

Your explanation is correct. Not because the perimeter of a blocking polygon is greater than the perimeter of a blocked closed curve - after all, you can easily block an unconnected curve with a simple polygon.

Are you claiming that the practical pi (that you measured) is always greater than the mathematical pi? Or are there situations where the measured pie is smaller?

The video explains the calculation of pi using the Archimedes method, and you ask me to point out the error in this calculation.

So first I will introduce the great work of Archimedes, described in Wikipedia.

Part of his enterprise was the invention of machines, and this part fascinated me.

If in the time of Archimedes there was a precise mechanical industry as in these days, there is no doubt that he would have invented the scope.

But the invention of the circumference fell to me, and I apologize for my impudence in pointing out an error in Archimedes' method,

When this method tries to reach the ratio between the circumference of the circle and its diameter.

Archimedes on Wikipedia

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A1

The criticism of Archimedes' method.

Before Archimedes is placed a drawing of a closed circular line and a straight diameter line, and Archimedes knows that he does not have a calculation capable of handling such a combination of lengths.

Archimedes does not have a calculation capable of determining the number of the ratio between the length of a closed circular line and the length of its straight diameter line.

And since Archimedes clearly knew that he had no calculation, there is no doubt that he would have moved on to measurement.

Archimedes would use his well-known ingenuity, and invent the perimeter,

But since in the time of Archimedes there was no precise mechanical industry like nowadays, he could not invent the scope, so he resorted to a detour involving two assumptions.

First assumption: if we block a closed circular line inside a polygon, then the perimeter of the polygon will be smaller - than the length of a closed circular line.

Second assumption: if we block a closed circular line inside a polygon, then the perimeter of the polygon will be greater than the length of a closed circular line.

The first assumption is true without a shadow of a doubt, because a bow is always longer than its string.

A second assumption seems correct in a large tangible drawing of a hexagon blocking a closed circular line, but there is no certainty that this assumption is correct, in a tiny drawing of an "elaborate multi-sided polygon" blocking a tiny closed circular line.

The scope experiment disproved the second assumption.

The second assumption is the first error in the Archimedes method, and this error invalidates the entire Archimedes method.

A. Asbar

aetzbar

Please - are you willing to explain to me what is the error in the following explanation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rJdkhlWZVQ

The value of Pi is calculated to any desired accuracy using Taylor's column development. We must be missing something Derek, you see, annoyed.

Maybe try consulting the Einstein Institute of Mathematics, and tell them about the scope experiment.

aetzbar

You have to show why the math is wrong - and no one will be impressed by a sloppy experiment.

It's perfectly fine, as the well-known proverb says...a caveat to wisdom...silence

aetzbar

I mean the math axioms are also wrong….. I have nothing to say.

I claim that discrete mathematics is perfect and accurate, and all you can do is count.

I also claim that continuous mathematics is not perfect, therefore it has no ability to perform exact calculations on straight continuous line lengths, and it certainly has no ability to perform calculations on continuous circular line lengths.

Details appear in the article http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/d72ae594-dd7e-4ebe-abff-a675c67573f6.pdf

And regarding Euclid's axioms, all Euclidean geometry can be based on a single axiom, of the shortest distance.

Type ...reinvent the geometry, and you will get to the article discussing the matter.

A. Asbar

aetzbar

Are you saying all the math is wrong? In particular - do you claim that Euclid's axioms are wrong?

As you wish, but if at your request someone from the academy repeats the experiment - perhaps even with your device - do you think they will settle for less than a few thousand rounds? Isn't it better to try first?

Any researcher or institution that approves a new concept in sweetening or any other scientific subject, will gain world fame and every possible honor (while giving credit to the thinker of course).

To Israel

In principle, you are right that you should slowly turn the steel shaft 180 turns, or 300 turns, and notice a greater deviation of the hand.

But who will believe me that I noticed a bigger deviation?

This experiment should be performed by a recognized scientific body whose ruling the universities will accept.

I have no doubts about the success of the experiment, but without the agreement of an "acceptable scientific authority" such as the "National Laboratory of Physics" that deals with precise measurements, the variable pie idea will not be accepted by the scientific community.

Therefore, I wait patiently until the right moment when a curious physicist from academia decides to repeat the scope experiment.

(I doubt if a mathematician would repeat the volume experiment, because the success of the experiment would put mathematics in an embarrassing position, which held the wrong idea of a constant pie for thousands of years.

Any renewal of sub-conventions has to wait patiently, and I am aware of that.

There have already been things from the past, after all, Prof. Shechtman waited 30 years until his discovery was recognized.

Meanwhile, history is recorded:

There are my articles in science forums, and there are videos, and there are interesting exchanges like here on the science website, and there is an innovative measuring device, which bears the name Hikpan.

And there is also a new geometry of closed circular lines, awaiting institutional recognition.

A. Asbar

.

What's the problem with turning slowly or waiting a few minutes between each series of turns? It may take some time but can strengthen your argument a lot.

hi father There are 2 of my comments that you did not publish

To Israel

I avoided a large number of revolutions of the steel shaft, to prevent heating between the steel shaft and the steel wheel.

Such heating will damage the accuracy of the measurement, so I settled for 60 revolutions of the steel axis.

After 60 rounds I already got the amazing result, and I was satisfied with that.

Attached is a video showing the rotation of the steel shaft with the help of an electric motor.

https://youtu.be/N8HYTrX5duA

got upset

Why not conduct the experiment one more time but multiply the number of rounds a hundredfold? It's pretty simple, isn't it?

Math is more chic..

Do not expect…

aetzbar

It does not interest the Technion. Your experiment is wrong. You have the right not to listen, but expect someone to listen to you.

To Israel

When you talked about Hebrew, it is worth mentioning that a long time ago I offered the Hebrew name as gifts, instead of mathematics

In the article ...as gifts instead of mathematics, the topic of this discussion appears

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/d72ae594-dd7e-4ebe-abff-a675c67573f6.pdf

aetzbar

Archimedes did not assume that there is a relationship between the diameter and the circumference - he showed that there is a relationship, and even gave us a way to calculate this relationship.

You must learn basic math and physics.

for miracles

Instead of a verbal critique, try repeating the scope experiment.

And if you can't, try to interest the National Physics Laboratory to repeat the experiment.

The discussion is no longer at the stage of words, and it expects actions.

Maybe this discussion can be moved to the Weizmann Institute or the Technion? This will be the contribution of the science site to science.

A. Asbar

Which comet? I am now with the spectrum analyzer..

We are not told anything!

Israel

Have you seen the comet? I look at it now - really beautiful!

aetzbar

You need to show that your error is negligible compared to the size you are measuring. Physicists talk about a confidence level of 5 sigma. That means 6-7 digits of accuracy.

In your case they will demand much, much, much better than that.

I explained to you that your invention is 250 years old (approximately).

I also explained to you that you are ignoring major errors such as thermal expansion, flexibility, slippage and impurities.

got upset

I don't know why the scope experiment is needed. There are measuring tapes accurate enough that you can use them to determine the ratio between the diameter and the circumference of a cylinder with an accuracy of a thousandth of a percent, which will definitely be enough to confirm or refute your claim.

But as I mentioned, you definitely deserve a word for the interesting experiment, the eye-opening tables, and even for the Hebrew.

Nothing to do with Euclid. His honor rests in the books of geometry and history.

If I bother, I will conduct the experiment as I suggested (multiply by 100) and the results will show a significant deviation (the pin will not move from 0 in the first case but will move 10 cm in the second case). If you measure with a very precise tape the ratio between the circumference and the diameter of different cylinders and you see that there is a deviation according to the Asbar formula or any other formula, how will you explain the discrepancy?

An attempt to convince Nissim and Israel

The circle shows a random combination of lengths - (length of a closed circular line), (and length of a straight diameter line).

What is it similar to? For a toothpick and a pencil placed on the table, and they also show a random combination of lengths.

The mathematician stands helpless in front of a random combination of lengths, and is unable to find their ratio.

The physicist, on the other hand, feels good with a random combination of lengths.

The physicist measures the length of the pencil and gets an approximate sample result between 188 mm and 189 mm

After that he measures the length of the toothpick and gets an approximate sample result between 62 mm and 63 mm

From these results he gets an approximate ratio number of 3.016

This simple description states:

Mathematics is unable to calculate the number of the ratio between the length of a closed circular line, along its straight diameter line.

This is an absolute conclusion:

Circles do not belong to mathematics and its calculations, but they belong to physics and its measurements.

I repeat with full confidence:

Mathematics has no ability to calculate the ratio number belonging to a random combination of lengths.

At this point it is already clear that one must resort to measurement to find out the ratio number in the circles, when all the known and strict regulations that measurers are familiar with must be applied to the measurement.

The exchange between us will not solve the mystery, a mechanical engineer and a physicist will.

Perhaps this respected website "Hidan" will try to challenge the Weizmann Institute to repeat the scope experiment? Or the Technion?

The Einstein Institute of Mathematics should not be challenged, because every mathematician I spoke to dismissed out of hand the variable pie idea.

A. Asbar

The reaction mechanism is not a source of scientific information. Everyone understands that.

Israel

There are many ways to calculate pi. One of them is to calculate angles between stars in the sky 🙂

On a scale where the sum of the angles in a triangle is different from 180, then the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference can be different from pi. This is exactly why under such conditions Euclid's axioms are not valid.

But, that's not the point here. This experiment is full of errors that I would not accept from a XNUMXth grader.

And this is beyond the fact that his invention is 250 years old...

This man brings out Matan Gurudish Gaon……

Miracles, I have already shown that it is possible to obtain pi only from a numerical calculation.

The question is whether there is a necessity for the numerical calculation to work with vigorous precision in the physical world as well.

We know that checking triangles, the geometry of the book does not work in the physical world, and maybe for some unknown reason there is also a deviation in the circles.

If Esbar's claim that there is a deviation in the circles is proven, then the issue requires examination.

Although I do not understand his claim that it is impossible to check the circumference of a circle. What is the problem with measuring the diameter of a cylinder using a thread and then also measuring the circumference with the same thread?

It will also add another profession to Eno's circle, Galilan.

Israel

The assumption is that there are no mistakes? You're kidding, aren't you?

And what about the negation of Euclid's friends? Are you willing to go to UCLA and tell them the axioms are wrong (don't get me started on Riemann and his friends now….)?

aezbar

"The natural reaction denies the existence of such a transmission, because the circumference of the steel axle is smooth and polished, and the circumference of the steel wheel is smooth and polished.

The natural reaction says: if the surface is smooth and polished and shiny - the transmission will not work at all."

1) 40 years ago I worked with precise tools for calibration. I had some smooth pieces of metal that I would use for calibration. There was tremendous friction between them!!!

2) The inside of a piston in an internal combustion engine is very, very smooth. Same as the outer part of the lubrication rings. Hmmmmmmmm ….. why do you think they are called oil rings? Because of the oil... OK …. And why is there oil? Because of the friction!!!!

3) Trains …. do you know Smooth wheel, smooth rail...for 250 years 🙂 🙂

Miracles

The assumption is that there are no errors, including cumulative ones, and that all the data that Asbar brought are correct and accurate.

If he adopts my suggestion and doubles the number of turns 100 or 1000 times and gets a significant deviation, then the experiment is definitely worth a qualified test.

Israel

1 - What is the accuracy of the two wheels?

2 - What is the freedom in labor?

3 – What about thermal expansion?

4 - What about elasticity in each of the components?

5 - What about dust caught between the 2 wheels?

6 - How much slippage is there between the wheels (and there is such slippage)

7 - If Archimedes' explanation is wrong then Euclid's axioms are wrong.

Except that this mechanical mechanism is very old, as I said

got upset

It will be much more convincing if you double the number of rounds by 100 to 2000 and 6000. Maybe even 1000 times. If your claim is correct, the deviation will be clear and unequivocal, the so-called "slam dunk".

A note about the perfect transmission that exists in the scope experiment

A steel shaft with a diameter of 2 mm is pressed in its circumference to a steel wheel with a diameter of 120 mm, and when the steel shaft rotates, the steel roller also rotates.

The natural reaction denies the existence of such a transmission, since the circumference of the steel axle is smooth and polished, and the circumference of the steel wheel is smooth and polished.

The natural reaction says: if the surface is smooth and polished and shiny - the transmission will not work at all.

Even though it is a perfect transmission that works wonderfully, as far as I know - the first use of it appeared in the scope experiment.

This is a perfect transmission, because after 60 revolutions of the steel shaft, the steel wheel has turned "a little bit more"

From a whole round.

From this tiny addition of "tip a little more" we can conclude.

A: There is no slippage in the transmission - if there was slippage, the wheel would turn "a little bit less" than a full turn.

B: A pie of the steel axle with a diameter of 2 mm "a little larger" than a pie of the steel wheel with a diameter of 120 mm.

Conclusion B is supposed to create a "conceptual earthquake" in the geometric and mathematical fields.

This conceptual earthquake will only happen if a respected scientific institution approves it.

Technion scientists can easily produce an even more accurate scope, and they will get the amazing result I reached.

The numerical value of a pie belonging to a diameter of 2 mm (a large drop) the numerical value of a pie belonging to a diameter of 120 mm.

Now all that remains is to wait until a respected scientific institution repeats the scope experiment, and it announces to the world of science about the existence of a new geometry, which is the geometry of closed circular lines.

This new geometry will of course join the old geometry of the straight line.

A. Asbar

What is not convincing in the clip?

Israel

Are you serious? Old Sony tapes have such a transmission 🙂 although there one of the wheels is hard rubber, but it's exactly the same principle.

I saw the video. are you kidding me I have seen more convincing evidence that the earth is flat.

"I call on the site team to obey my advice at least somewhat in order to prevent intellectual damage in society..."

I guess you consider yourself a scientist.

Could you give an explanation for the experiment presented in the video of Esbar? Are you claiming the video is fake? Or is the data that Asbar brought incorrect?

Thanks.

we

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY7GQxU1HLk&feature=youtu.be

How do you know that in the physical world the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference is pi? Perhaps like Einstein's triangles whose angles in the physical world do not add up to 180 degrees, is there some distortion in physical circles whose cause is unknown to us?

This is what the experiment shows. I have no way of quantifying the level of accuracy in it, but Asbar is right in asking the academy to repeat it.

What is this: "...that in the physical world the ratio between the diameter of the circle and its circumference is not pie..."?

what is that supposed to mean?

Sho video, our Israelis?

Miracles, the value of pi in geometry and mathematics is known and can be calculated to any desired level of accuracy. Asbar's claim, as I understand it, is that in the physical world the ratio between the diameter of the circle and its circumference is not a pie, and this is due to physical considerations that I am not familiar with.

We also know that in the physical world the sum of the angles in a triangle is not 180, contrary to Euclidean geometry. Asbar brought a video of an experiment in which he demonstrates his claim. If there is no measurement error in his experiment, then I don't see how it can be ignored.

And if so…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

I didn't understand why the size of a pie was unknown. Archimedes found a method to calculate the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter, and the method still works today...

The very fact that you write "there is no measurement error" shows that you do not understand anything. There is *no* experiment without measurement errors. Not being able to point him out about the second part shows you don't understand anything.

The result of an "experiment" is worth nothing without noting the error, and many of the errors you didn't mention or claimed didn't exist...

Very nice. Let's hope someone in the academy will pick up the gauntlet..

There is no measurement error, and there is a new formula, and even a suitable graph.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/58841b0a-74db-4f68-8146-555ea76f587d.pdf

If there is indeed no measurement error, then the scope experiment is important and revolutionary and I do not understand why the academic institutions do not perform it.

Pi is an elementary number that is not necessarily related to a circle except in the world of geometry. Physical reality is not necessarily Euclidean, for Riemann and Einstein there are no 180 degrees in a triangle.

Asbar, can you explain why in different circles there is a different ratio between the diameter and the circumference? Is there a formula that links them? Is there a situation where the ratio is exactly pie? In your first experiment there was an exact match, could there be a situation where as the circle grows the ratio changes inconsistently? Can there be two circles with the same diameter but different circumference?

Thanks.

I thank the critics for the scope experiment, and it is definitely an objective criticism.

However, any verbal criticism does not make much sense, and the criticism that has sense is really practical.

Create a scope (a simple but very accurate task), and repeat the experiment.

This assignment is suitable for a scientific institution, and when it publishes the result of the measurement, the world of science will accept it.

I have already tried to interest the Technion, the Weizmann Institute, and was not answered.

I also published the attached article, Call to the Academy of Exact Sciences.

I hope for a positive response.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/117720bb-ade0-427e-96f8-1d8fa47cc07b.pdf

got upset

Is there a 'perfect circle' in nature?

How is a circle created in nature?

First of all, to produce a circle you need more than one reference point.

Second,

You can take a ruler - but in nature there is no natural ruler and there is no ruler (a profession I invented: one who works with a ruler).

Third - triangulation.

Triangles.

and angles between them...

You won't be able to convince him with logic. From the same hubris that called it "neural mathematics" and "neural physics".

The Elek "His Torah" includes terms from the New Age field such as "natural knowledge" that does not require proof.

He was previously shown a proof that the difference between the sum of the lengths of the sides of the blocked and the blocking polygon tends to zero and both tend to PI as the number of sides tends to infinity. Do you think he was convinced? He continued to claim that there is no such thing as non-straight lines (what does that have to do with it) and when it was shown to him that the proof of polygons *does not* have curved lines, he withdrew from the argument.

All his arguments are full of confusing redefinitions, while he drags you to use them, hereafter "scope". All his "proofs" are full of vague redefinitions to confuse + New Age nonsense.

There is a name for such people and the only solution is not to feed them.

So what is the measurement error in the facility? What is that number? And what number did you actually get?

And is it possible to calibrate your system, like a scale. For example, take 2 wheels with the same diameter, and put them in the device and see what the deviation is.

If I were you, I would be very careful and perform the same experiment in several completely different ways just to see that I was not mistaken. For example turning it in the opposite direction. For example, letting someone else spin. For example rotated horizontally and not vertically. For example, perform the experiment in the morning and in the evening. For example, ordering an identical copy of the same wheels and performing the same experiment.

If you do not reproduce with great precision the same original number of deviation - something here is suspicious.

Good question and to the point

There are two parts in the experiment whose level of accuracy is very important, and they are the steel axle and the steel wheel.

The steel shaft was ordered in the USA and it arrived with a document detailing its diameter, up to a level of accuracy of half a thousandths of a mm. The steel wheel is a ball bearing with a diameter of 120 mm, and such bearings are manufactured with the highest degree of precision of the fine mechanical industry.

With these data the measurement result must be checked.

It must be remembered that such an experiment is not known to science, and it is a shame that a scientific institution like the Technion does not repeat it.

In any case, the result of the experiment goes beyond the margin of error, which must be taken into account.

Be upset, why do you think that this machine created by the "Hahikpan" is so complex and unique that no one has so far thought of building it and doing the experiment you did? Perhaps because it is clear in advance that results from such an experiment depend on mechanical measurement errors (completely inaccurate circumferences of the circuits in the machine, etc.) and therefore they will show inaccurate results with small deviations? (As happens in your experiments?) Why do you put yourself one above the great mathematicians?

aetzbar

Question about the experiment.

What is the measurement error? Every experiment has measurement error. If the phenomenon you discovered is within the measurement error range, then the experiment needs to be improved, right?

For example - the circles are not 100% accurate, you can certainly get the error range from the manufacturer (for example the circle is perfect to within 1 percent, meaning it may be elliptical so that the short axis is 100 cm long and the long axis is 101 cm. This is one source Be wrong. There's sure to be more.

Unfortunately, the site's personnel includes only one person - me (the rest are volunteers writing). There is still no artificial intelligence that can detect nonsense and I have no way to monitor every response.

Thanks, but the numerical calculation of pi is pure mathematics, regardless of measurement.

Leibniz's method: ...PI/4 = 1/1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7

The Wallis method: ...*PI/2 = 2/1 * 2/3 * 4/3 * 4/5 * 6/5 * 6/7

As you add terms in each equation, you will get a better approximation of the value of pi to any level of precision you want.

So if you got a different result than the value 3.1415926535, it contradicts the pure mathematical calculation, doesn't it?

Answer regarding the scope experiment

Since the days of Archimedes (and probably even before that) mathematicians have adopted an unfounded assumption.

This assumption means that a single number (slightly larger than 3) corresponds to all circles, and it allows the transition from the length of the diameter to the length of the circumference.

If it is a tiny circle with a diameter of 0.5 mm, then the length of the circumference will be a little more than 1.5 mm

If it is a huge circle with a diameter of 50 mm, then the length of its circumference will be a little more than 150 mm

For those who adopted this assumption, there is only one task left, and that is to find a more accurate value than "a little more than 3"

I did not adopt this assumption, and I also asked what follows from this assumption.

If this assumption is correct, then the ratio of the diameters of the two circles in the example, (must be equal) to the ratio of their circumferences (the ratio of the diameters is 100 and the ratio of the circumferences must also be 100)

And so we got two unfounded assumptions

The first assumption is the assumption of the only number that is slightly larger than 3

A second assumption (the ratio of the diameters = to the ratio of the circumferences) follows from the first, and is therefore also an assumption.

And what turns out? that mathematics is unable to prove the first assumption, and necessarily it is also unable to prove the second assumption.

The impotence of mathematics amazed me, but I had to accept it.

Then I held on to the ancient rule that says "the actual experiment is the final arbiter in science" and looked for an experiment that would decide the simple question.

The ratio of the diameters (equal) to the ratio of the circumferences? , or (not equal) to the volume ratio.?

When I got the answer from the actual experiment, it turned out that I had discovered a new geometry.

The new geometry "gains" resistance and they are not ready to accept it.

This geometry waited 2000 years for its discovery, and it can wait a little longer.

A. Asbar

Aim for the beautiful experiment, but isn't the value of pi also obtained through many mathematical calculations that are independent of each other and strive for its exact value as the number of terms in the calculation formula increases?

for example:

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%AA_%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A1

Or even Euler's formula

e^ipai+1=0

So how does it work out?

Good for you.

Surely there is some weird one here in the comments (look at the chain of messages). who speaks as if he understands anything about subjects in which he understands nothing, and of course anyone who has studied these subjects at a high school level can demean the knowledge that this person does not have. Not to mention the highly educated. (Not that the idiot can learn anything, apparently...)

But a foolish man is like a dead man... he does not know that he is one.

bless him.

and to the site team. I recommend that you add a function that will allow you to mark despicable and retarded messages. A kind of seal on messages that makes it clear to everyone that this is a message from a layman (and/or an idiot depending on the case). Let there be a mark that cannot be missed, lest he spread his ignorance... Humans don't want to put retarded people to execution (I respect that, although it's a counter productive in the long run...) so at least mark them so they can see and be seen.

Well I'll put it in a nutshell

In Newton's universe, the two fundamental concepts are matter and force.

In this universe the stars move in a straight line, which bends due to the existence of a force.

The space in this universe is full of wonderful content - the ether.

In Einstein's universe - the two fundamental concepts are matter and energy

In this universe, space is empty, and it is curved due to the existence of a force,

In this empty space, light waves travel at speed C

In the neural universe the two basic concepts are passive time and energy.

Passive time fills the space, and is absolute rest,

Passive time is the medium in which light waves travel at speed C

Light waves are waves of passive time.

In neurophysics, matter is created by combining amounts of passive time and energy.

Passive time will explain the electrical phenomena, without electrons and other particles.

This is the time when particle physics will be replaced by continuum physics.

Since the death of the world of physics, it has only spoken about an active type of time, familiar to all of us.

It is a type of time that exists in human consciousness, and does not exist in physical reality.

Only passive time exists in physical reality, and it heralds the emergence of a new physics.

A. Asbar

Have a nice evening. I just admire the achievements of the physicists and astronomers and all the scientists and technicians who have been working together for decades and bring us all the technologies and leapfrog all the fields of science that throw upon the field of human life biological and medical engineering and electronic and electromagnetic and bio and nano technologies and space and industry and aviation and quantum computing and on the way to deciphering the universe And its mysterious and elusive particles take humanity one step further in physics and it's good that this is how I salute science and all its helpers, their work is sacred to humanity

got upset

You said a lot - you didn't say...

The 'new' physics will probably be the physics of quarks and below these resolutions... and not what you describe.

In your last message you used the letters aezbar In your previous message you used the letters aetzbar

And this is not acceptable. Don't you have a username? You can also appear under your real name.

And to the point

I know that the idea of a variable pi sounds delusional to say the least, and if it turns out to be true, there will be a big embarrassment in the scientific establishment, because 2000 years have taught that pi is constant in all circles.

Do you understand what this is about?

Mathematics has to admit that a precise mechanical experiment has discovered a mathematical truth, when mathematics with its calculations is not at all capable of reaching this truth.

Obviously, no scientific journal will agree with me, and I don't expect them to either.

I do expect that a respected scientific institution such as the Weizmann Institute, or the Technion, will repeat the scope experiment, and confirm the measurement result I reached.

To date I have not responded, but there is no doubt that a day will come when a curious physicist from the academy will repeat the scope experiment

And he will get the result I arrived at, that indeed pie changes.

After the academy is convinced that pi is changing, the scientific world will accept the fact of the existence of a new geometry, which is the geometry of closed circular lines.

Experiment the scope for your judgment

https://youtu.be/HY7GQxU1HLk

A. Asbar

The world is not real, because it seems, like a dream, therefore, there is no end to names and forms, the glory of the one and two Gods - there is none, and that is you. Mandukya Upanishad, Gaudpada Karika Shankara Bhasya.

I wonder what it means that *no academic* answered you. For a long time you have not repeated the claims that everyone is captive to the concept or that the "establishment" has decided what is right and woe betide those who go against the flow

By the way, nothing prevents you from publishing in official scientific manuscripts. You don't need a degree for that. Except for the fact that you will be thrown down all the stairs because you don't make any coherent sense.

But you don't have the courage to do it

And contrary to the claim made here

"Of course, as soon as he was asked to contact academics, he avoided"

On the contrary, I turned to academics and got no response.

A call to the Academy of Exact Sciences

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/117720bb-ade0-427e-96f8-1d8fa47cc07b.pdf

This is indeed a serious scientific site, and it could contain a new universe, and a new physical concept of passive time.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/7512af65-e1e5-47ac-af36-b3654d2d790b.pdf

We are in a free country, one of whose principles is freedom of speech

In quantum physics anything that can happen does happen.

The question is with what probability. (As long as the process does not violate the laws of conservation of momentum, energy/mass, etc.

Also the creation of a "particle" that consists of 4 (tetra) or 5 (penta) quarks (it is not an elementary particle, just as the proton is not an elementary particle.

for the creation processes of the tetraquark and the pentaquark

There is a low probability (action cross section) many orders of magnitude lower than the creation of a proton/neutron.

which also leads to a very short life span,

This is also the reason why there are not many of them around us.

Oh no. aetzbar came here?

For years he claimed that PI is not constant. Reinvented so many concepts that each of his arguments is unreadable. Wrote a book that how many people read it? And somehow the criticism against the book was deleted.

Of course, as soon as he was asked to contact academics, he evaded. Even when he was presented with arguments that he did not know how to answer, he suddenly disappeared

I don't understand why there is no monitoring after delusional and strange reactions. After all, this is a serious scientific site.

Basic lines for a new physical theory, which should replace the physics of particles.

Physics deals with two continuous and measurable quantitative things, which are time and energy.

Time has an active side and a passive side, as does energy.

In natural knowledge it is possible to identify the amount of active time between two heartbeats.

A heartbeat is a physical action, and it is evident (at the moment of beginning), (along with amounts of active time and active energy), (and at the moment of ending).

From this concept of action were created the concepts - present - past - future - that exist in human consciousness.

Amount of active time can be measured with a pendulum.

The active energy has many manifestations that maintain the law of quantitative conservation, and these manifestations alternate with each other, in the way of physical action.

Energy also has a passive side.

Every real body reveals its passive energy amount, by means of a spring that stretches or contracts.

With a simple spring you can create a passive energy meter.

Time also has a passive aspect, and this is the real time that exists in physical reality

Passive time fills the infinite space and the void does not exist.

Energy also fills the infinite space.

Passive time is absolute rest, and serves as a medium for passive time waves.

Passive time waves guide sunlight.

These are the initial outlines of a new, continuum-matter physics that should replace particle physics.

The substance is created by combining amounts of passive time and energy.

Matter is a physical form, and a measure of quantity of matter does not exist.

Passive time is a new physical concept, which exists in the concept of continuous matter

In Newtonian physics the two basic concepts are force and matter

In Einsteinian physics the two fundamental concepts are energy and matter

In continuum matter physics, the two fundamental concepts are passive energy and time.

A. Asbar

planted Thanks.

Are the products of particle collisions really "elementary particles" or are they random products (which explains the bewildering multiplicity of their types).

If we throw two stones at each other that will cause them to break, then we will not claim that every break and splash from the stones is an "elemental particle" of them. Sorting prototypes of fragments and splashes into groups of fragments with certain similar characteristics will also be rather fruitless, and will not teach us much about the essence of the shattered stone.

Please move the "disabled" sign to a place where it will not hide text.

Avi is right, but the title of your article talks about 5 quarks:

"Physicists report the discovery of a new and unique particle consisting of four quarks and a magic antiquark" and the drawing is also of 5...

The article is interesting but requires linguistic editing, as some of the sentences are ambiguous or incorrect.

Too bad

The researchers wrote: For example, two quarks and two antiquarks might stick together to form a "tetraquark", while four quarks and an antiquark would make a "pentaquark".

The great secret is hidden in the combination of the letters H and M R

Particle theory did not solve the secret.

The continuum theory proposes to see matter as a physical form, created by combining amounts of passive time and energy.

Just as a geometric shape is created by combining quantities of "two other things" which are a closed length containing an area

Thus a physical form is created by combining amounts of "two other things" which are passive time and energy.

The result is surprising, because matter is no longer a quantitative concept, and is a physical form.

And if matter is not a quantitative concept, the Newtonian theory is undermined.

According to this article it's *4* quarks, and a tetra is 4

https://home.cern/news/news/physics/lhcb-discovers-new-type-tetraquark-cern