**Last Tuesday, the Premilab laboratories in the United States announced that the muon's magnetic moment does not match the theoretical calculations. The experiment conducted in the state of Illinois confirms the anomaly that was discovered several years ago but for the first time stands at a certainty of 4.25 sigma (a statistical error close to 1:100,000). Is this evidence of a new fundamental force in nature?**

see also: The moment of truth has arrived - will we hear about new physics this week?

A decade has passed since the last breakthrough in particle physics and there is still nothing new under the sun. On the one hand, the discoveries correspond with amazing precision to the standard model, on the other hand, there is no doubt that the model is incomplete. The unique case of Permilov Laboratories in the United States is different in the scientific landscape because this time, after many years, significant evidence of new physics was revealed. The results of the experiment were published last Tuesday in the prestigious journal Physical Review Letters and are already causing embarrassment and excitement among physicists around the world. The experiment known as g-2 measured the coefficient g of the muon's magnetic moment, the same coefficient responsible for the degree of rotation of the particle's internal magnet.

## Deviation between the experimental results and the theoretical calculations

The discovery is significant Because it verifies with a high precision of 4.25 sigma (a probability of one in a hundred thousand that this is a statistical error) the contradiction between the experimental results and the previously published theoretical calculations. Physicists concentrate a lot of effort to calculate the internal rotation of the particles in nature to the point of obsession. The reason for this lies in the fact that it is a physical quantity that can be measured with great sensitivity and because it contains a lot of information about the quantum vacuum in the universe. When physicists refer to "vacuum", they do not mean a complete void, but an environment with no particles at all. Although the vacuum sounds completely empty, it is full of quantum fields. According to the uncertainty principle, there is constant noise in the quantum fields expressed in particles that are created and disappear spontaneously. Every particle in nature has a field that describes it, therefore every particle can suddenly appear in a vacuum and react with particles in its environment, this of course according to the standard model. Although many call these particles as "virtual particles" but their effect is measurable because they react with the muon (or any other charged particle) and change the size of the g factor.

The most famous measured magnetic moment belongs to the electron. The theoretical precision is exemplary and stands at fourteen digits after the decimal point. Any experiment that measures the magnetic moment of the electron will show full agreement with the theory and confirm the quantum nature of the universe. At the same time, we know that the standard model is incomplete. It does not explain dark energy and matter, does not explain the oscillations of neutrino particles and does not describe gravity at all. For this reason physicists considered it appropriate to examine the magnetic moment of the muon because it reacts more likely and with greater power than the electron (40,000 times). If the standard model is incomplete, an anomaly may be detected with high probability through the muon.

## CERN also reported anomalies

Indeed, the experimental results do not match the theoretical calculations conducted so far. The theoretical number for the muon's magnetic moment currently stands at 2.00233183620 (with a possible error in the last 2 digits after the decimal point). The number measured in the previous experiment conducted in New York State was certainly different but the certainty was relatively low (3.7 sigma, meaning a certainty of one in ten thousand). We will remind the old readers that not long ago The accelerator in the axle reported About an anomaly in the measurements collected with a certainty of 3.9 sigma but after more data was collected the result disappeared. Therefore, physicists prefer to consider a significant result as a "discovery" only if the certainty is at least 5 sigma (a probability of one in 3.5 million that it is a mistake). Today, the Illinois experiment showed that the muon's magnetic moment is 2.00233184122 (again with an error in the last two digits after the decimal point with an accuracy of 4.25 sigma). This is significant progress towards what is considered a "discovery". The researchers hope to achieve this goal after analyzing the remaining measurements collected in the third and fourth runs of the experiment. Permilv reported that they hope the analysis will be completed next summer with the aim of reaching 5 sigma certainty. Chris Foley, a scientist at Permilav adds: "So far we have only analyzed 6% of the data we have collected. And yet, already from these data we can see a discrepancy between the standard model and what nature tells us. I believe we will hear more exciting news in the coming years."

It is important to note that although the error is small, it is definitely significant in order to claim that this is new physics. of what kind? There is no telling. It may be that we are talking about a massive particle created with low probability that reacts with the muon but has not yet been detected in accelerators. It could be a new force that we haven't discovered yet or another type of Higgs particle.

At the Permilev press conference, they stated that this is just the beginning for them and now they are standing at the beginning of a project that will last at least a decade. The project will continue to collect data on the muon's magnetic moment and at the same time will examine the ways the muon decays in an experiment known as mu2e. The researchers hope to measure in the innovative experiment disintegration processes that can only be explained by new theories beyond the standard model.

**More of the topic in Hayadan:**

- The moment of truth has arrived - will we hear about new physics this week?
- Things that Yaorim know: where does the compass needle point?
- Two accelerator laboratories in Japan and the US plan to repeat the faster-than-light neutrino experiment (which eventually turned out to be a mistake)
- Higgs boson is getting closer: Premilab scientists claim to have narrowed the search range. Tomorrow an announcement is expected at the particle accelerator at CERN
- The particle accelerator in the axle works at one-seventh of its power, but this is enough to break the record for the power of particle accelerators belonging to Primilab

## 149 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.

For your information.

I have an efficient proposal: dividing the comments into sub-comments.

and then

If there are 2 geniuses (or more) who do what is done in this thread, they will be concentrated in one reaction tree.

This mode may allow the presentation of additional opinions at the same time as 2 geniuses (or more) commenting here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computation_of_%CF%80

Too bad, now we have to rewrite this entire Wikipedia entry.

got upset

again,

Your theory is based on nothing.

The difference between your calculations and the accepted calculations from the world of mathematics and physics

is that your calculations refer to something that does not exist in reality but exists only in your mind.

You measure the diameter of a cylinder.

What about the diameter of a proton?

Measure?

Your calculation stems from an illegitimate experiment.

If you had performed a legitimate experiment you would have been aware of your mistake.

You apparently do not understand the concept of pi, but you still continue to spread your unconventional and unhelpful opinions.

poor

(Have you seen the movie "Pi"? - You mention the hero of the movie...)

aetzbar

My previous comment was meant for you.

Every good theory gives predictions that can be verified!

What predictions does your theory make?

eavesdropping "NASA is right, they use a minimum pie starting with the digits 3.1415927,"

NASA does not use the pie you wrote, NASA's pie is 3.141592653589793

I also proved to you that in a gas turbine whose shaft diameter is 18.5 mm, that is, an accuracy level of tenths of a mm

When the calculation is done with a constant pie

1. Your pie is incorrect for calculating NASA spacecraft trajectories

2, even in small diameters, for example in the design of the axis of a jet engine according to the level of accuracy in mm, your pie is incorrect

did we agree What did we agree on?

In the video there is the formula linking the diameter of the circle shown in a number of millimeters, and the value of pi

The formula is good from a diameter of 0.001 mm, to infinity mm

https://youtu.be/u4Y_i5D7WFM

Please - don't feed the troll. The genius from Vilna did not bother to record the temperature at which he performed his experiment.

aetzbar

So we agreed that in large vectors there is no change in the constant pie

And what about a gas turbine whose shaft diameter is 18.5 mm, which means an accuracy level of tenths of a mm

A gas turbine can reach thousands of revolutions per minute, so the exact diameter of the shaft is important

https://www.jvejournals.com/article/18765

to wave

NASA is right, they use a minimum pie starting with the digits 3.1415927, because a minimum pie is suitable for spacecraft orbits (large diameters), a maximum pie belongs to a diameter approaching zero mm, and its value

3.164 approx.

Really, really, what do you want our annoying?

He was able to prove through an experiment that pi is the same in every circuit in the field of measurement error, and for that he deserves respect and recognition.

aetzbar

You repeat like a broken record, and don't answer the questions.

I gave NASA as an example of calculating spacecraft trajectories with a PI of 15 digits after the point 3.141592653589793

And it contradicts your theory, what do you have to say?

In addition, what predictions does your theory give?

You know...really...the whole story started with Descartes

Descartes' geometry

delayed the appearance of physical geometry.

Descartes' geometry has an auxiliary tool, and it is an actual plane on which a point is drawn, marked with zero. This point is common to the beginning of two ruler lines drawn in this plane, a horizontal ruler line, and a vertical ruler line.

On this tool it is possible to mark points whose position is determined by the number of a horizontal bar, and the number of a vertical bar.

The numbers of the points are produced by a formula like for example y=xx

If we look from a distance at a collection of dense points of this formula, it is easy to make a mistake and think that it is a curved line, and not a collection of points.

Since it is a collection of points and not a curved line, the appropriate name for such a collection of points is a curved point.

In Descartes' geometry there are no lines, instead there are points.

When Descartes' geometry appeared, it was no longer necessary to draw a line with a pencil, and it was enough to use a formula that produced points.

In Descartes' geometry there is no closed round line created with a caliper, instead there is a round dot created from the formula xx+yy=1

There is a profound difference between a closed round line and a round dot. A closed circular line has an actual length such as 45 cm, and a unique uniform shape that is perceived at a simple glance.

Whereas a round dot has no actual length, and no shape.

It is forbidden to draw the points of a round point, because a tangible point has an actual length, an actual width, and also a shape. A round dot only exists in Descartes' axis system, with a suitable formula.

In Descartes' geometry, the concept of line does not exist, and in its place is the point.

The punctuation led geometry to a standstill which delayed the emergence of physical geometry.

Newton and Leibniz did not feel this stagnation, and they proposed a calculus that should handle curved and circular lines.

This calculation does not deal with curved and round lines at all, but round and curved lines that are seen as straight lines. (A straight line is made up of straight line segments)

Each closed circular line has an actual length and a unique uniform shape.

Each curved line has an actual length, and a unique shape

These data do not appear in the Newtonian calculus, and in their place appears a circular straight line, or a curved straight line.

The result of replacing a circular line with a circular straight line

is an inaccurate account

The Newtonian calculus would necessarily be inaccurate, and therefore he would not be able to discover the relationship between the actual length of a closed circular line, and the ratio number between it and

The length of the straight diameter.

This connection was discovered by physical geometry

Mathematics needs to conduct a critique of all its activity in the continuous geometric field, of the idea of striving for zero and infinity, of the validity of the Newtonian calculus, of the failure to treat lines that are not straight, of the fundamental concept of geometry, and it is time to differentiate between mathematical geometry capable of treating straight line segments, and geometry Physically able to handle round and curved lines.

A. Asbar 1/4/2021

It varies according to the mood of the attackers. Today, for example, is the 24th.

After 150 responses, I understood the specific disability that Asbar suffers from,

This is called an integral…

Say Mr. Asbar, do you know what an integral is? Have you heard the whole concept? It is interesting that there is no mention or calculation of integrals in the Bible that you are trying to promote here. From the little you know about integrals... do you understand that they have anything to do with the delusional theory you are trying to market here?

Or is the whole concept of integrals also incorrect and irrelevant nonsense? Just want to understand from what point onward I should abandon the conventional scientific/mathematical theory and move to the ethereal universe?

Spring.

I understand that the autonomous system contains many responses...

What is the number of responses that reach the site per day?

If it's not a secret of course... thanks.

https://youtu.be/gX7-XyMVnSM

For Avi Blizovsky's information, this message was not delivered by

aetzbar responded:

April 22, 2021 at 17:27 pm

No experiment needed. No proof needed. Every person can see with natural knowledge that a round line is not suitable for calculations.

The academy goes against me because they spent many years of study on mistakes and they will never admit it in their lifetime

Shabbat Shalom, Asbar.

I'm sure we'll hear from you a lot more..

No experiment needed. No proof needed. Every person can see with natural knowledge that a round line is not suitable for calculations.

The academy goes against me because they spent many years of study on mistakes and they will never admit it in their lifetime

Nice, you have a proof of a constant pie, I have a proof of a variable pie, and everything falls into place safely.

Answer the question asked, his nerves.

The proof is for you only, except for you no one believes in variable pie..

Israel, publish your proof, if you are sure it is worthy of publication

aetzbar

NASA uses PI with 15 digits after the dot 3.141592653589793

send spaceships.

Do you think NASA is wrong?

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2016/3/16/how-many-decimals-of-pi-do-we-really-need/

The last one was also put on hold..

This is also their limit..

The main thing is health.

Be well, my father.

The responses are almost always moderated..

And what about recent comments?

There is an autonomous system and I can't log in every two minutes to check it. Yesterday, for example, I didn't feel well.

Avi Blizovsky, why are all the messages waiting?

I am not against vaccines! I even got vaccinated against Corona! Even though I got corona!

So why are the responses moderated?

Not to mention why are there no recent comments?

I haven't found proof myself, but the proof you brought is similar to mine. You will see this if you finally answer what I asked:

Do you not accept that there is a certain relationship between string and bow whether you can calculate it or not?

There are many proofs of constant pie, here is one of them

https://math.wikia.org/wiki/Proof:_Pi_is_Constant

It's time to post your proof

Proof 1:

It is clear to anyone who has eyes in his head and has minimal integrity that the "changing PI" actually aspires to PI. You can see between the lines that this is even Asbar's conclusions. (For example what he wrote about a small circle over time). It's just that an internal contradiction is not what will stop a compulsive troll

Proof 2:

The presence of a root in his formula contradicts everything he is trying to say. Obviously, here too he chose to ignore.

A key fact is that compulsive botherers simply ignore anything that contradicts their opinion.

By the way, it's amusing to see that Asbar demonstrates almost all the qualities in the definition of compulsive troublemakers 🙂

T.T.K

What evidence has been brought to Asbar that shows he is wrong about his math?

It seems trivial that pi is the same for every circuit, but I couldn't find proof of this on the net. I believe I managed to find one, and this is the purpose of the discussion.

There is also another value - I am beginning to understand that what makes people create barbed wire of delusional theories is simply that they are - to put it mildly - a bit challenged..

See how long Asbar fought to understand that even if he is unable to calculate the length of an arc according to a string (a trivial operation in Euclidean geometry) it does not mean that such a relation does not exist..

What will Elijah be? It is not clear to you that you will not receive answers? that as soon as Asbar reaches a contradiction (show him 2) he will answer everything except what is relevant? Hasn't it been proven beyond any possible doubt that he is a troll + a compulsive troublemaker? That evidence doesn't change anything for him?

I'm already starting to wonder what *you* are trying to achieve, and why you think you'll achieve it

What will be annoying?

Do you not accept that there is a certain relationship between string and bow whether you can calculate it or not?

Israel, instead of asking questions that for me are meaningless words, I suggest that you write the "Israeli theory" on a round bow and its straight string, and publish it here.

No doubt you will get a lot of comments.

The neural theory says: It is impossible to calculate the length of a circular arc based on the length of its straight string.

We will try in stages.

There is a circle with a diameter of 0.01 mm.

In the circle there is a string that is a billionth of a millimeter long.

Questions:

1. Do you accept that there is a certain and constant relationship between the length of the string and the length of its arc, whether it can be calculated or not?

2. Do you accept that the same relationship exists between any other string that is a billionth of a mm long and its arc, in the same circle or in any other circle with a diameter of 0.01 mm?

What is meant is that if the ratio is x then in any circle with a diameter of 0.01 mm we will always get the same ratio x between the length of a string a billionth of a mm long and its arc (for example 0.999,99965) whether we can calculate the same ratio or not - it still exists and remains Fixed.

getting?

To Israel

Maybe what is on Wikipedia will suit you

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%92%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%9C_sin(x)/x

I will try to formulate what I understood from your request, in a simple and understandable way.

Given a string in a circle, and the length of this string gets smaller over time in the direction of zero mm

There is a moment that is 1 mm long, and a moment that is 0.1 mm long, and a moment that is 0.0001 mm long, and so on forever.

It is clear and self-evident that the length of its circular arc is also getting smaller in the direction of zero mm

If this string is in a large circle then the transition number between the length of the string and the length of the arc will always be greater than 1 and it always changes towards 1 (it is impossible to calculate this number)

And if this string is in a tiny circle, then the transition number between the length of the string and the length of the arc will always be greater than 1 and it always changes towards 1 (it is impossible to calculate this number)

I understood from your request that you expect an answer in numbers, but there is none.

You can decide just like that, that after infinite years, the transition numbers will be 1, but this wrong decision has already been made by famous mathematicians before you.

You are evasive, as always.

I didn't ask for the exact size, I asked for a range. You also often talk about inequalities, all your variable pie idea does not give an exact pie but a certain area.

So how much, nerf? Between 1.007 and 1.008? This can't be too big a field, what is the ratio between the bow and the string that is a billionth of a millimeter long?

You won't give an answer, not even roughly. But you know very well that this is the death blow to your geometry:

If the ratio is relatively large - this contradicts the axiom of the shortest distance between 2 points.

Small - so all circles have the same pie.

So how much, nerf?

Israel, you should already know that the question you asked 7 times has no answer,

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.

Therefore, one can never know how many times the arc is longer than its tangent.

How many times a number means, and this number cannot be calculated.

Here is an excerpt of an article I published

The only way to obtain the transition number between the length of a string appearing in a circle, to the length of its circular arc, is by measuring the length of the string, and estimating the length of the arc.

Please note: this is about measuring with a ruler, and evaluating based on a look.

From any combination of measurement and estimation, a transition number concept is necessarily imprecise.

Example: In a given circle, a string with a length of 32 mm was measured, and the length of its arc was estimated at 38 mm.

The inaccurate transition number between the length of the string and the length of the arc is 1.1875

Another example

In a given circle, a string with a length of 8 mm is measured, and it is very difficult to estimate the length of its arc, because it is a very large circle. Therefore, I estimated the length of the bow at 8.05 mm, when it is clear to me that this estimate is not accurate.

The inexact transition number between the length of the string and the length of its circular arc is 1.00625

And what is certain about this assessment? that the length of the bow is greater than the length of its string

so,

There is no point in repeating the same question again and again, and there is no point in all the calculations that try to obtain the transition number between the diameter of the circle and its circumference.

The diameter of the circle is the largest chord, and the circumference is 2 times its circular arc, and the rule says

It is impossible to calculate the length of a round bow, according to the length of its straight string.

Maybe in the world of your private concepts. In academia - whose recognition you so desperately seek - a rational number is a number that can be expressed as the division of two whole numbers.

"It follows from this axiom that a round bow is always longer than its string."

But how much more upset, how much more? What is the minimum ratio (I only asked 7 times).

If it is large - and 1.007 is not a negligible ratio at all - then a triangle can be built inside the arc where the sum of the opposite sides is equal to the base.

If it is small, then the length of the polygon obtained by connecting all the strings is almost exactly equal to the length of the circle, so it can be easily shown that pi is the same for any circle.

So how many times?

You will of course not answer because that would be a death blow to all your geometry. Anyway, you helped both in theory and experiment to show that pi is the same in every circle and for that you deserve a star. Applause to annoy!

To Israel,

First of all, a typo in my previous message must be corrected

Should be

Say from now on: 1 is the only irrational number, and all other numbers and antinumbers are rational.

And it was registered

Say from now on: 1 is the only irrational number, and all other numbers and antinumbers are irrational.

Obviously, the axiom of the shortest distance is acceptable to me, and that's how I perceive it

The shortest distance between two places has a unique uniform shape that can be illustrated with a stretched shoelace.

This shape is perceived at a simple glance, and its conventional name is a straight line shape.

All Euclidean geometry can be based on this axiom, and there is no need for 5 axioms, and of course there is no need for 21 axioms.

From this axiom follows, that a round bow is always longer than its string.

Eliyahu, you got another proof that you are a troll and a compulsive troublemaker.

He received *two* examples of internal contradictions and was asked 2 simple questions about them.

His responses:

1. Ignoring the contradiction and not addressing claims/questions (probably due to lack of integrity)

2. Back to invented terminology that only he knows

The alter ego "Doctor Tomer" actually did not return and did not identify himself...

Of course, of course.. you've already reinvented all the definitions and axioms, so why not the definition of the rational numbers?

What about the axiom that says that only one straight line passes between two points which is also the shortest distance between them, which you accept? Because then all the fancy neural geometry has gone to you and you can see it if you finally answer the question: what is the minimum ratio between the length of a bow and its string in a circle with a radius of 0.01 mm.

Rational - relative

Irrational - absolute

The invention of numbers is based on the invention of 1, which is the only absolute number, and everything that can be said about it appears in the equation 1=1

Any other number greater than 1 is a relative number, and is understood according to the accumulation of 1

Every anti number like for example anti 3 is a relative number smaller than 1 and is understood by dividing 1 into 3 equal parts, and using a single part of this division.

Say from now on: 1 is the only irrational number, and all other numbers and antinumbers are irrational.

This is what is in gifts 1, numbers greater than 1, and numbers less than 1 called anti-numbers.

The numerators appeared following a process of actual measurement, and have a use in the continuous geometric field, following the fundamental flaw of the invention of the anti-numbers.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/45317ede-eca8-48bc-8608-477e5a47c910.pdf

The phrase "rational number" comes from the word ratio - ratio, division, and means a number that can be presented as a division of two whole numbers.

…..1.666666 is a rational number because it is a division of 5 by 3

0.4 is a rational number because 2 is divided by 5.

Root 2 is not a rational number because there are no two whole numbers that can be divided by each other to arrive at it.

What about the ratio between the length of the bow and the string, nerf? 1.007 cannot be the smallest ratio because it allows the construction of a triangle where the sum of 2 sides is equal to the third.

A much smaller number to almost equality between the two numbers immediately contradicts the variable pi. (Explanation for those interested).

So what's the number, sad? What does natural knowledge or the safe rule say about this?

I think you are avoiding the question.

If you put 3 in your invented "formula", what result does it give? A number does not exist according to *your* settings and what about placing 5? 7?

Your "formula" collapses for infinite examples.

You can come up with names until tomorrow but you made a fatal mistake.

From the moment you used the root, a lot of results give numbers that have no meaning according to *your* definition

What is your answer to that? Butterflies? Numbering butterflies? Trolls?

You made a stupid mistake and you are too cowardly to address it and certainly not to admit it.

Every time you write something, this is the reaction that readers will receive

For segments with you

I don't know if the scientific community will ever agree with me, but I know that physical reality has agreed with me.

The scope experiment asked the physical reality an obvious question - a pie of 2 mm diameter (equal or not) to a pie of 120 mm diameter? And physical reality replied.. "not equal"

And if the physical reality agreed with me, the scientific community must accept the ruling of this reality.

but

It is very understandable that mathematics rejects the scope experiment, because it does not agree that a simple mechanical experiment

(but accurate) can discover a mathematical truth, which mathematics cannot discover at all.

For 2000 years, the incorrect mathematical idea of a constant pi has been handed down from generation to generation, and it is only necessary for a bold mathematician from the academy to kill it, restore it and announce...we were wrong.

To the participant who talked about an irrational number

An irrational number is an absolute number whose value is known by itself, and not by another number.

Therefore, 1 is the only irrational number, because its value is known by itself on the equation 1 = 1

On the other hand, 3 is a rational number (that is, relative) whose value is known from the accumulation of 1 plus 1 plus 1

Say from now on: 1 is the only irrational number, (or the only absolute), and all other numbers are rational.

(ie relative)

What's left ? The main thing of course - every measurement ends with a digit and never ends with a number.

The numerator belongs to neural mathematics, whose proper Hebrew name is Kematana.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/45317ede-eca8-48bc-8608-477e5a47c910.pdf

So you claim that in a circle with a diameter of 0.001 mm the minimum ratio between the length of an arc and its string is 1.007? What about the string is a billionth of a millimeter long? What about a string that is a billionth of a billionth long? Is the ratio still not smaller than 1.007?

The ratio "length of a tiny bow divided by the length of a tiny string" is always greater than 1, since a bow is always longer than its string.

However, this ratio is getting closer to 1, when it comes to an arc belonging to a huge circle, a tiny section of its perimeter line, "looks almost like a straight line.

When it comes to a tiny circle with a diameter of, for example, 0.01 mm, this ratio will get closer to 1.007

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/feaa8e28-ae7a-4966-b3c1-c4d37108da00.pdf

The approximation to the ratio of 1.007 belongs to the neural geometry in which pi varies

1.007 expresses the ratio between maximum pie and minimum pie

Well, really upset..

When the string is the diameter, the ratio between the length of its arc (the semicircle) and the string is greater than 1.5. We all agree on that, right?

When the string is the length of the radius, the ratio is smaller, isn't it?

When the chord is one hundredths of the radius, it's even smaller, right?

And when it's a billion, it's even smaller, don't you agree?

And when the string is really small, tiny, Izzi Izzi, Gojon - don't you see that it goes and inhales along its arc?

By the way, this is the mathematical way in which pi was once calculated: add up the length of all the bases of the triangles formed by small strings that go with the length of the radius as the other two sides.

So why not reach an arc/string ratio of 1.000,000,001 or even smaller? There is no obstacle to this in Euclidean geometry, but what about neural geometry?

The question you asked is not understood by the questioner, and I assume that neither is the questioner

If you agree to accept Rule A (from which Rule B derives), your question will become meaningless.

A. Mathematics does not have the ability to calculate the length of a circular arc, according to the length of its straight string.

b Since the longest chord of a circle is the diameter, and since its circular arc is half the circumference of the circle, then mathematics has no ability to calculate the circumference of the circle based on its diameter.

In short, the circuits do not belong to mathematics, and handling them is possible only by a physical way of measurement.

Again we returned to neural geometry, which definitely deserves the name physical geometry.

What a coward you are!

Refuses to confront the simple question of why there is a root in your formula, in a *physical* formula in *physical* geometry.

A root often gives an irrational number that cannot be measured? In a theory built on the fact that there are no such numbers?

What happened? Has your theory collapsed and you are afraid to face reality?

Have you come across an argument that is too big for you and you have given up?

Just out of curiosity I'll talk, beyond all the idle discussions, about the glorified Asbar universe... and cylinder engraving..

What is the probability, in your opinion, that your revolutionary theory will ever gain any acceptance and popularity by any scientific consensus? Do you think it is possible? Ototo?

I have to admit that it doesn't look very promising, judging by the comments here? Maybe you should use public relations services?

You can't be perfect in all areas..

Let the professionals do the work.

But I didn't ask to calculate the length of a circular arc based on the length of its straight string, I asked to know if there is a string whose ratio between the difference in length and the length of the arc is greater than a billion..

After all, there is such a relationship, whether we calculated it or not, right?

And why wouldn't there be such a string if we take strings as small as we want? This is exactly the way Pi was calculated, smaller and smaller strings. Is there a restriction in neural geometry on the length of the string?

There is no answer to your question, because it is impossible to calculate the length of a circular arc, according to the length of its straight string

And if it is not possible to calculate the length of a circular arc based on the length of its straight string, then it is impossible to obtain the "transition number" from the length of a string to the length of its circular arc.

The only way to obtain the transition number between the length of a string appearing in a circle, to the length of its circular arc, is by "measuring the length of the string", "and estimating the length of the arc".

From any combination of "measurement and evaluation", a transition number is necessarily imprecise.

I probably wasn't clear enough, so here's the question to tease one more time:

Do you accept that in a small circle - say 1 cm in diameter - it is possible to stretch a string whose difference between the ratio of its length to the length of its arc is less than 1 in a billion? Or even 1 per trillion?

If not, what is the maximum ratio?

I'll try one more time, maybe Asbar will leave his preoccupations with D'Maale's affairs and answer:

Is there a string in a circle of radius cm whose difference to its arc is less than 1 in a billion? If not, what is the maximum difference?

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/447ba886-c89e-42a7-bfb4-8d2c9be59c73.pdf

Sorry, your formula is wrong according to your own definitions. A root will give an irrational number to most radii, and an irrational number does not exist according to your definitions because there is no irrational measurable quantity in the physical world.

Congratulations, you've made yourself look like you're not honest enough to admit it

Whatever you say, get angry, whatever you say.

After all, you determine the laws and the axioms, so why don't you also determine what a measurement error is?

What about my question? Is there a string in a circle of radius cm whose difference to its arc is less than 1 in a billion? If not, what is the maximum difference?

"This can only be done by a representative of the Academy of Exact Sciences, when the inevitable result is a scientific drama that shatters conventions"

I will immediately call the "representative of the Academy of Exact Sciences". Really wrong.

I wasn't aware... do they have a representative? Especially for such cases?

This is the beginning of your last comment and it says so

Israel Shapira responded:

April 18, 2021 at 22:58 pm

You did conduct an experiment that showed that the pie ratio between 2 cylinders with much different diameters is 1 within the measurement error range.

Well, what you wrote is not true

The experiment I conducted showed that the ratio of the diameters of two cylinders is (slightly greater) than the ratio of their circumferences.

The difference is tiny, but certain and beyond the margin of error.

This tiny difference has a huge meaning, because it means that the pie of the small cylinder is slightly larger than the pie of the large cylinder.

And if you ask... how big is a little? Go to the video on YouTube The pi revolution and there is a formula capable of calculating a pi with a diameter of 2 mm, and a pi with a diameter of 120 mm.

You did conduct an experiment that showed that the pie ratio between 2 cylinders with much different diameters is 1 within the measurement error range.

And allow me to question the integrity or even the sanity of a person who claims to be right on a point, and there is no need to conduct an experiment to prove his rightness.

But we will move to the theoretical field. Do you accept that in a small circle - say 1 cm in diameter - it is possible to stretch a string whose difference between the ratio of its length to the length of its arc is less than 1 in a billion? Or even 1 per trillion?

If not, what is the maximum ratio?

There's no need for an experiment, I've already explained it to you over and over again.

The experiment can create a scientific drama that shocks 2000-year-old conventions, provided that it is performed by a representative of the Academy of Exact Sciences.

I conducted the experiment, and no drama was created, and in its place appeared, as expected, a complete disqualification of the experiment.

I know that there is no need for an experiment, and anyone with imagination and knowledge can know that pi is not constant in all circles, but rather it varies in a narrow numerical range that I have already presented.

The theory of the changing pie existed with me even before the invention of the scope, and the experiment I conducted was intended

To prove to me that the theory is correct, and indeed he did.

Now the theory needs to be proven to the global scientific community, and this can only be done by a representative of the Academy of Exact Sciences, with the inevitable result being a scientific drama that shatters conventions.

So I suggest you relax, and wait patiently until a representative of the Academy feels the need to appear, and defend the idea of a constant pie, which has existed since Archimedes.

If the experiment is so important to you, organize a support group that will contact the Technion with the demand to repeat the scope experiment.

Will the Technion agree? I don't know, but if this discussion is brought to his attention, he might agree.

And if he agrees, this will be the great scientific presentation of the 21st century, which will create a paradigm shift in mathematics, geometry, and physics.

Come on Asbar Hals Harat, who do you think you are working for?

A grown man playing keke, don't you have an iota of respect?

Go do the snooze experiment. Who but you is interested in the drama, don't you understand that without solid facts no one will take you seriously and everyone here just enjoys picking on you? Is this the role you chose for yourself?

Do the experiment already or you will realize your true place: the village fool.

Israel, there is a well-known law "when the debate moves from the subject matter itself, to the psychological state of the interested party,

It's a sign that the interested party is right."

You usually speak to the point, but not all participants in this discussion are like that.

And even in your response you spoke to the matter, when you brought an experiment in which an image of a closed circular line is projected onto the wall

drawn on a slide, which is, for example, 7 cm long, and you get on the wall an image of a closed circular line, which is, for example, 140 cm long

Each closed circular line has two distinct data, a unique uniform shape, and an actual length.

The line drawn on the slide has an actual length of 7 cm, and has a certain uniform shape.

The closed circular line that appears on the wall has an actual length of 140 cm, and a uniform shape that is different from the particular one.

With this example you express real support for neural geometry.

There are infinitely many closed circular lines of any real length we want, and each real length has a unique uniform shape.

And since the mathematical expression of a form is always a ratio number,

And since the actual length of a closed circular line necessarily determines the actual length of its straight diameter line,

So the ratio between the actual length of a closed circular line and the actual length of its diameter line, expresses the uniquely uniform shape of the closed circular line.

Thank you so much for this unexpected support,

My conclusion from the discussion is more psychological than technological.

I entered the discussion with the following paragraph:

"Elijah and everyone else, please note that Ezbar now has 3 options, with 3 possible outcomes:

1. Asbar will perform the experiment with 100 rounds (no more than an hour) or with 10 rounds (10 minutes), publish the video, and prove to the world his righteousness. genius!

2. He will perform the experiment and will be proven wrong and admit it. Crackfoot, but honest.

3. He will refuse to perform the experiment and say that the experiment he performed is already enough. charlatan".

From previous discussions with Asbar, I had little doubt that Asbar falls into the third category: charlatan. But the benefit of the discussion here is the understanding of the motives of the compulsive troublemakers, which Asbar revealed to us in such an impressive way: loneliness, boredom, delusion of grandeur.

After all, if Asbar really believed in his own claims, he would have dedicated them

20 minutes and conducts the scope experiment in an appropriate way. His refusal indicates that he knows his experiment is flawed, and his call for "drama" shows his flawed value as an objective, unbiased scientist.

And to the point: small circles do look more concave than large ones, as do ellipses and polygons. At the time, I tried to show Asbar that this is an optical illusion, that if we project a slide of a circle and place a screen in front of it at different distances, we will get larger and smaller circles that are all actually the same basic circle that has grown due to the perspective, and therefore there is no possibility that the ratio between the circumference and the radius will change. This experiment came to show that his claim to the difference between mathematics (where pi is obtained algebraically) and geometry is wrong. Asbar refused to confront this claim from the world of physics and geometry, as with all other claims.

My assessment is that Asbar probably knows that there is no basis for his claim to a changing pie, but simply enjoys all the commotion around him simply because it is the only way of social communication he knows.

Collapse of the geometry of Asbar!

1. Asbar used *root* in the formula. It is known that there is no measurable size for the root of 2! Abar promotes an internal contradiction in the Abar geometri that will delay us for decades!

2. Asbar set a formula for 0.1 mm. The formula is meaningless for smaller numbers.

3. Asbar lost faith in his own experiment and is not willing to repeat it with greater precision!

4. Asbar proved that PI is constant to the point of experimental error (which he does not understand what it is)

5. Esbar admitted that the mathematical definition of PI and its calculation is correct

6. Oh and he's a compulsive troublemaker troll who admitted that it's all for the drama in his head only, and doesn't understand basic concepts that a high school student understands

This response will come after every trollish rant of an asbar

I propose to end this interesting discussion with a short summary

Now it is necessary to distinguish between mathematical geometry and physical geometry.

The geometry of the straight line is mathematical, and its highlight is the Pythagorean theorem.

The geometry of closed circular lines (called circles) is physical, and its highlight is a formula that links the actual diameter of a circle to its transition number.

Transition number = 3.1416 + root of (0.0000003 : D above 0.001 mm)

There is no connection between mathematical geometry and physical geometry, just as there is no connection between a straight line and a closed circular line.

Summary: In reality there is a known and known mathematical geometry for thousands of years,

And there exists in reality a physical geometry that the scope experiment discovered not long ago.

aetzbar

If your article appears on a tissue then there are chances that I will find a use for it….

10 years, and you still haven't found 3 months to do a course in intefismal calculus?

It is also interesting that you choose to ignore the fact that Pi can be calculated exactly from an infinite series... well. I guess it requires some understanding of intifismal calculus..

Here is an article of mine from more than 10 years ago, entitled "Neural Geometry"

It has the physical background for solving the circuit puzzle, but it does not yet have the invention of the perimeter.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_162255757.pdf

Don't be moved by the phrase "neural geometry" it can be replaced by the phrase "physical geometry"

You will probably be more excited here

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

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

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

Here is a short article describing the neural universe

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/ac193a50-8b58-4711-89bd-475f16879d2a.pdf

By the way, a general note..

Usually a theory is named after its inventor, only by other people, and not by the researcher himself (for example, I'm pretty sure that Einstein did not refer to his theory of relativity as Einstein's theory, or that Hawking did not use the concept of Hawking radiation to describe his effect.

What's more, it is usually also customary to use the Hanel description after the theory has been proven or at least gained more popularity than zero.

The above should turn on some warning lights for you in the context of growing madness. and social disability. my condolences

i will be upset

Do you have an explanation why the above calculation is incorrect?

….-1/9 +pi x 4 = 1 – 1/3+1/5 -1/7

I didn't see a reference from you?

(If it is not clear what is written above -

This is a way of expressing Pi as the sum of an infinite series.. )

Doesn't this somehow imply that there is a constant value according to me?

2.0003 mm Aalek………………

On 0.00000000020003 mm did you check, chemologist?

Have you measured the diameter of a proton, at least, bar-brain?

Geometric rotations in Dalek….

Maybe you dropped a grain of cat food into your awesome machine during one of the rounds?

Scientist Damicolo…

What are you, are you just bored Mr. Asbar a..Rachamides?

The genius was nervous

You insist on not understanding.

Your device is crooked and you have deviation in measurements.

Capish, my friend?

Academia is simply mature enough to ignore your rambling ramblings, you meaningless twit.

And stop writing under fabricated names and titles that do not belong to you.

idiot.

Really dramatic, upset.

It's also dramatic that you lecture me about making an effort - a groundbreaking inventor who is too lazy to perform a 20-minute experiment.

To Israel

This time you should have attached a calculation, after all I specified the data of the steel axis.

If you make an effort and do the calculation, you will see that the measurement result exceeded the range of error, so there is no doubt that a 2 mm diameter pie is (slightly larger) than a 120 mm diameter pie

And the rest is history

But as I said again and again, the scope experiment came to create a scientific drama

For the first time in the history of the exact sciences,

A mechanical experiment reveals a mathematical truth, which mathematics cannot discover at all.

You see….Mathematics has absolutely no ability to discover the variable pie idea.

Drama... you understand?

The circles do not belong to mathematics and its calculations, but they belong to physics and its measurements.

Drama... you understand?

The so-called "mathematical constant pi" simply disappeared from the world of science

Drama, you understand?

For 2000 years, a mathematical error of a constant pi was handed down from generation to generation, and not a single mathematician felt it

Drama, you understand?

With the wrong idea of a constant pi, mathematics delayed the emergence of neural geometry, which is a physical geometry based on precise measurement that science did not know at all.

Drama, you understand?

Science also did not know the scope

All in all, I have no complaints, as I am going through a normal obstacle course, of a paradigm shift.

Your interest in the scope experiment was helpful.

Thanks

You're right, Asbar, as always.

There is no need to repeat the scope experiment with 10 times or 100 rounds - you have already proven to everyone's satisfaction, including the academy, that all the circuits are the same, in the area of measurement error.

Thank you Asbar for the excellent experiment that removed all doubts. It seems to me that the academy will be satisfied with your experiment and there is no need to repeat the experiment - just as you said!

Continue this way.

I'm Ruby Rivlin.

Lol, did you get down to inventing characters in your head that support you?

I'm willing to bet that "Tomer" will never identify himself by his real name, or refer to his master's thesis.

If he was a real doctoral student he would not be afraid to identify himself. But his real name was sad... extremely sad

The response that says that even 10000 revolutions will not help, if the diameter of the cylinder is 2.001 mm and not 2 mm, is really to the point.

For your information, I ordered the cylinder in the USA, and it came to me with a document from a certified measurement laboratory.

Its length is 50 mm, its diameter is 2.0003 mm in the middle, 2.0004 mm on one side, and 2.00025 mm on the other side

The second part of your response which says that Pai has a defined value... is a meaningless phrase, which is not understandable to the writer and not understandable to the reader.

To Tomer, the article is attached as gifts instead of math, and thanks for the encouragement.

And Israel, you have no choice but to be patient, and wait for the representative of the Academy of Exact Sciences to repeat the scope experiment. This is really a dramatic experiment, but there is no need for it, because the geometrical proof I attached (which is not dramatic) states that Pi is variable and not constant.

Or Tomer is a troll trolling the troll

Or Tomer enjoys the arguments here and wants them to continue

Or that Atzbar started writing another name.

Aalek is a doctoral student.

Mr. Tomer, why don't you identify yourself with your full name and write where you are doing your doctorate?

There is no reason to be ashamed of it.

And what ideas does it connect to you? (Surely everyone is upset about passive tense nonsense)

Asbar is right and you didn't understand.

He is mad because here we are his only friends in the world, the only ones who even treat him.

And thanks to Asbar who performed the scope experiment, which shows that all circuits have the same pie in the field of experimental error.

Therefore there is no need to repeat the experiment, Asbar is right this time.

Peace be upon you.

I wanted to thank you for sharing your fascinating ideas.

I am a doctoral student in the field of applied mathematics at the university. And you certainly gave me a lot of food for thought, and helped me connect some ideas that have been occupying me for a long time. It is very connected and relevant to a scientific article that I am currently writing for the purpose of receiving the degree.

Thanks again,

And don't let all the little faith discourage you

Atzbar does not understand ideas at a high school level - measurement error, and ignores his own experiment that proves that PI is constant up to the measurement error (as if!)

The compulsive math nerds, according to Dudley, are almost always male, and almost always older, often in their post-retirement years. They do not understand the meaning of the mathematical statement that a certain thing is not possible. Their knowledge of the field in which they operate is extremely partial, and they usually lack formal education. They believe that the problems they attack are of great importance, and tend to suspect that the copyright will be stolen from them. Above all, they cannot be convinced that they are wrong.

Due to the lack of recognition of their discoveries, compulsive troublemakers in many cases claim a conspiracy in which the scientific establishment that harasses them and deliberately denies the truth is complicit. Troublemakers use terms invented by them that have no clear definition and avoid using clear and well-defined terms. When asked to explain their terminology, they tend to do so using equally vague terms.

Many times the basic problem in the claims of compulsive troublemakers is a lack of differentiation between definitions, facts and opinions. Results that contradict their intuition are rejected by them, apparently by rigorous reasoning, but in fact many times their argument consists of many layers of claims and definitions that are based on inconsistency or that the fundamental reasoning is based on an intuitive assumption

Even 10000 turns won't help, if the inner roll is 2.001 and not 2.0 mm

The wrong ratio compared to the radius of the outer cylinder will remain wrong no matter how many turns are involved..

The maximum accuracy of engraving is about 2 micrometers, so the experiment is wrong from the start.

The glorified article that you are trying to market here intensively, is more reminiscent of an article in the children's magazine Atchoni. Both in content and wording as well as in the envelope.

Not to mention that for some reason you choose to ignore the simple fact that according to Pi a value is uniquely defined as a convergent column

Friend you dig..

Since there are pointless arguments about the perimeter experiment, I propose to give up the experiment - which came to dramatically present the idea of the variable pie - and settle for a simple geometric proof of this idea.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/5604aa4e-34d1-49c7-86a2-4905ab2f0392.pdf

Of course repeat it with more precision. with more rounds.

The only quibble here is from Asbar himself. His refusal to run his own "experiment" for more rounds (20 minutes of work).

So he rambles on about waiting for the Weizmann Institute.

The "cap" "experiment" proves that PI is constant up to the experimental error.

Asbar realized that his "experiment" proved that he was wrong, and that the "measuring tool" that he built himself proved it. With will repeat it with more rounds his experiment will prove it with increasing accuracy.

But Adon Asbar hung up on someone else (Technion/Weizmann) who would waste his time on something he himself proved to be nonsense. The fact that everyone realized he was a troll is proof in his eyes that "they are afraid of change"

It is clear that Asbar will not run the "experiment" that is already prepared in his yard, because then he will have to admit that, like any compulsive troublemaker, he has wasted entire decades of his life on nonsense. This is his biggest fear.

Join the call to the Academy of Exact Sciences

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/51ea21af-238b-4926-8045-06105f2e4ed6.pdf

The only response to the "scope" "experiment" is to repeat it

If the person making the ridiculous claims built an "experiment" and refuses to repeat it and expects someone to take it seriously...

You've proven yourself to be a joke who doesn't believe her own bullshit

1. Asbar claims that with the help of a cube he can guess thoughts.

2. Asbar is right when he guesses that the experimenter thought of the number "6".

3. Asbar can disprove/confirm the revolutionary claim by rolling a die 100 times

4. Asbar does not do it and waits for the Weizmann Institute

From 1-4 it follows that he was upset by fear or a charlatan

It's easy and simple to respond to the scope experiment, with verbal gibberish

The math is not wrong, and it proved that pi is constant

The mechanics are always imprecise, so the experiment is flawed

Why would a measurement appear in the geometric field, there has never been such a thing.

Mechanics in the geometric field? After all, this is the place of pure logic, and of ideal ideas.

That a mechanical experiment will invalidate a mathematical proof? After all, mathematics is the queen of sciences.

The idea of constant pi has existed for thousands of years since the days of Archimedes, and all mathematicians accepted it,

It is also possible to ignore the experiment as if it did not exist, and not refer to it at all.

The result of the scope experiment can only be refuted with a repeated experiment, not with talk.

The experiment is the final arbiter in science, and its ruling must be accepted.

This experiment should challenge every scientific institution in Israel and the world, and it is interesting which of them will choose to respond.

It is a physical experiment of precise mechanical measurement unknown to science at all, which will inevitably create a shock in mathematics and geometry.

The expected shock in the exact sciences is probably the brake, which delays the appearance of a repeated experiment.

But we all know that it is impossible to stop the development of science, so it was and so it will be.

got upset

Note (if you have one), the ratio remains the same ratio.

Man is man. Only the IQ is different.

Just like in your case:

The pie remains in the same ratio, only the size of the circle is different...

Perhaps the difference in your measurements stems from a measurement error at nanometer levels, as a result of instruments that are curved enough?

got upset

A person with an IQ of 2 is different from a person with an IQ of 120.

What is your claim?

Just the fact that you went and built the device and now that you have it you insist on conducting the experiment in a biased way that supposedly shows success but you and everyone else know that the experiment has no value in less than a large number of rounds, indicates your value as a scientist and experimenter.

At least everyone sees in real time the true face of all the compulsive troublemakers - bored, grumpy, building barbed wire of "theories" and "proofs" whose entire purpose is to glorify the ego of the "inventor" and who are not ready to accept any refutation of their erroneous claims.

Abar proves 1:

He is a compulsive troublemaker who admitted that an invented drama is better for him than a simple experiment (for which he had already built the entire experimental set-up) that would prove him wrong.

Abar proves 2:

He does not understand basic concepts that every high school student knows

The "scope" experiment proved

PI is constant up to the experimental error

Aristotle did not perform the experiment because the scientific method (hypothesis - experiment) was not yet accepted.

He thought that if he reached a logical conclusion (from his point of view) there was no need for an experiment

What a jerk.. you have no doubt..

You already said you don't do the real experiment because of the drama. If you were a real scientist and not a cranky charlatan, you would do the experiment and forget about the drama.

I have no doubt about the outcome of the scope experiment

A pie with a diameter of 2 mm (slightly larger) than a pie with a diameter of 120 mm

Do you have a doubt? Repeat the experiment yourself

Can't you repeat the experiment?

Wait patiently for the daring physicist to repeat the experiment.

I too am waiting for the expected dramatic result.

Another Bertha regret, eye contact.

Aristotle did not perform the free fall experiment because he did not think it was necessary or did not know how to do it. It is not that he carried it out and there was much doubt as to the accuracy of the experiment.

You have performed the scope experiment and can repeat the experiment today to get the right degree of accuracy. The very fact that you refuse to conduct the exact experiment indicates the degree of your integrity as a person and a "scientist".

Alek scientist.. You must see yourself in the same line with Aristotle and Galileo eh? Or maybe they are also a little on his nerves?

But in the same matter, an interesting question for the forum:

If we drop 2 bodies of different weights from a tall tower in Israel with time differences, who will reach Israel at a higher speed, the lighter, the heavier, or will both arrive at the same speed?

Aristotle claimed - that in free fall - the heavier body is faster, therefore if we drop a stone and a piece of wood from the top of a tower at the same moment, the stone will reach the ground first. This is an experiment in the field of tiny phenomena, and it is supposed to reveal a difference as small as 0.01 mm, such an experiment has never been conducted, because it is very difficult to perform it.

If Aristotle had conducted the experiment and proved his claim, it is doubtful whether Galili would have conducted his famous free fall experiment.

Full disclosure: there is a connection between the Aristotelian experiment that was not conducted, and the scope experiment.

"There are many scientists who did not take them seriously, especially if they propose a paradigm shift."

Remorse, as always.

Show me even one scientist in history who had a "slam dunk" experiment that he could have performed and proven right, and he didn't perform it.

You have such an experiment including all the required equipment - the scope experiment with 100 times the rounds - and you do not perform it because of "drama" considerations.

It's true that you're trying unsuccessfully to catch everyone's eyes - but what about your own eyes, snarky? You know the truth, either you've already done the experiment (20 minutes) or you don't do it because you know very well that afterwards there will be nothing left of all the glorious geometry and neural physics, and you'll be forced to deal with the depressing day-to-day grayness in which you're just delusional in the daytime, a blogger on the blog. .

There are many scientists who have not taken them seriously, especially if they offer a paradigm shift

https://alaxon.co.il/article/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%9B%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%93/

The scope experiment is supposed to change a paradigm in geometry, mathematics, and also physics.

The scope experiment also includes the invention of a measuring device, which performs an innovative measurement in the geometric field.

So don't be surprised that they don't take me seriously, it's really required, and I'm not excited at all.

Come on Hals Asbar, you already said in a moment of truth that your motive is loneliness and boredom. No one will take you seriously because you are a conscious charlatan, otherwise you would have already done the real scope experiment, not the regret you did.

Your proposal is not good, because it is based on Descartes' geometry

Descartes' geometry delayed the emergence of physical geometry.

Descartes' geometry has an auxiliary tool, and it is an actual plane on which a point is drawn, marked with zero.

This point is common to the beginning of two ruler lines drawn in this plane, a horizontal ruler line, and a vertical ruler line.

On this tool it is possible to mark points whose position is determined by the number of a horizontal bar, and the number of a vertical bar.

The numbers of the points are produced by a formula like for example y=xx

If we look from a distance at a collection of dense points of this formula, it is easy to make a mistake and think that it is a curved line, and not a collection of points.

Since it is a collection of points and not a curved line, the appropriate name for such a collection of points is a curved point.

In Descartes' geometry there are no lines, instead there are points.

When Descartes' geometry appeared, it was no longer necessary to draw a line with a pencil, and it was enough to use a formula that produced points. In Descartes' geometry there is no closed round line created with a caliper, instead there is a round dot created from the formula xx+yy=1

There is a profound difference between a closed round line and a round dot.

A closed circular line has an actual length such as 45 cm, and a unique uniform shape that is perceived at a simple glance.

Whereas a round dot has no actual length, and no shape.

It is forbidden to draw the points of a round point, because a tangible point has an actual length, an actual width, and also a shape.

A round dot only exists in Descartes' axis system, with a suitable formula.

In Descartes' geometry, the concept of line does not exist, and in its place is the point.

The punctuation led geometry to a standstill which delayed the emergence of physical geometry.

Note, this is related to your offer

Newton and Leibniz did not feel this stagnation, and they proposed a calculus that should handle curved and circular lines.

This calculation does not deal with curved and round lines at all, but round and curved lines that are seen as straight lines. (A straight line is made up of straight line segments)

Each closed circular line has an actual length and a unique uniform shape.

Each curved line has an actual length, and a unique shape

These data do not appear in the Newtonian calculus, and in their place appears a circular straight line, or a curved straight line.

The result of replacing a circular line with a circular straight line

is an inaccurate account

The Newtonian calculus would necessarily be inaccurate, and therefore he was not able to discover the relationship between the actual length of a closed circular line, and the ratio number between it and the length of the straight diameter.

This connection was discovered by physical geometry

Mathematics needs to conduct a critique of all its activity in the continuous geometric field, of the idea of striving for zero and infinity, of the validity of the Newtonian calculus, of the failure to treat lines that are not straight, of the fundamental concept of geometry, and it is time to differentiate between mathematical geometry capable of treating straight line segments, and geometry Physically able to handle round and curved lines.

A. Asbar 1/4/2021

Introductory course in intepsmal calculus first year at university?

*Introduction* to one *high school* unit will be enough (Introduction chapter to the laboratory)

Topics covered there include how to conduct an experiment, what a laboratory is, *experimental error*, and the like

I would suggest an introductory course in intepsmal calculus first year at university.

They will explain to you about derivatives and integrals, and why -

…1/9 +pi x 4 =1-1/3+1/5 -1/7

And a few other things that may be related, but I guess it's out of your honor.

By the way, if before I only thought that you didn't understand anything in mathematics, theoretical physics, experimental physics, and of course in scientific writing, now it is also clear that you are really bad at writing songs.

A combination of obsessive compulsive disorder and a Napoleon complex set us free.

You have joined anonymous poets...good luck

Take a ruler, draw on an A4 page a circle with a diameter of 2 cm, and a circle with a diameter of 8 cm

Identify the closed circular line belonging to the 2 cm diameter, and you will surely notice that there is a uniform shape

Now identify the closed circular line belonging to the 8 cm diameter, and you will surely notice that there is a uniform shape, but it is different from the previous uniform shape.

From here, a new geometry of closed circular lines is already developing, in which there is a clear connection between their actual length (this actual length was represented by a physical method of a quantity of centimeters) and a unique uniform shape.

Each closed circular line has a certain actual length, and a unique uniform shape.

Therefore, closed circular lines are not similar to each other

Therefore, circles are not similar to each other

More details in the next article

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/45317ede-eca8-48bc-8608-477e5a47c910.pdf

Mr. A. Get upset, Esquire

The great poet and inventor of the legendary scope,

His Highness sees hidden things and hears voices,

Your servant is hereby asking you, in a nutshell, if you could answer my question from earlier (I mentioned to you that I did not understand what you "noticed" so I wanted to know what you "noticed")?

Thank you Thank you Thank you

(bowing)

- Applause…

end

So what causes a muon's magnetic field to show different values than expected?

What is the more likely option according to the senior experts?

(Dark matter and energy? Sabdarmish playing with the laser? Speculations, anyone?)

Well, you're sad, good luck in your new path as a poet, director and publicist.

Just don't expect someone to take your geometry and physics seriously..

Why do you ask? I probably don't have a good answer

Maybe because it's human nature,

The painter wants his paintings to be seen,

The violinist wants to be heard playing,

Israel Shapira wants his words to be heard,

The theater actress wants her performance to be seen

The carpenter wants the furniture he makes to be seen

The doctor wants to see the smile of the person who has returned to normal health

The poet wants his poems to be known

and told his stories

And I want them to know about the changing pie idea

The bread baker wants them to taste and get to know his bread.

And the singer wants his voice to be heard

And so on

And so on

This is man, and this is his way of connecting with people, as it is said that it is not good for man to be alone

We are smaller than you, we are not worthy of your greatness. We are simple people who are only interested in science, not drama. That's why we comment on Hidan, a scientific blog, and not on drama blogs.

The question is why does a scientist like you need our knowledge at all, or the scientific establishment, after all they are also smaller than you, mediocre people like them..

Israel Shapira

Not the exactness of Israel Shapira, I am interested in a scientific drama, and not in an ordinary drama of the vagaries of the human soul.

All the data of a scientific drama is in the story of the capsule, and you just need to insert them correctly.

Even you who are well acquainted with the subject, do not know whether the experiment succeeded or failed, although a practical experiment is not necessary to know this.

All that is required is a little imagination and a little logic to arrive at the solution.

So what's the point of giving up a scientific drama, and spinning 600 rounds instead of 60?

The scientific drama is much greater regarding the passive tense.

Matter, the first physical concept, was created by combining amounts of passive time and energy,

And it is in the nature of a physical form.

The idea of physical form rejects the Newtonian idea that matter is a quantitative concept, and gravity reflects this quantity.

Passive time is a completely new physical dramatic concept, and the perception of matter as a physical form already necessitated the writing of the next poem.

Poetic Cosmology 7/6/16

The passive tense surrounds us,

And we move through it.

I asked him, and I didn't answer.

Wait some time

he said

Who are you ? I asked and was immediately answered

I am the passive tense,

I belong to nature

I lead the light and color.

Where you ? I made it difficult

I fill the terrible space,

And it is now full of a river

The energy is also with me, its power is beyond words,

And together, we create the material.

I know the stuff, I said

I touched it and it's right here

You can't touch me

But inside me you are free to move.

Are you really time?

After all, the time I know always flies away.

I have no past - said the passive tense - nor a future.

I'm always here, I'm not a guest.

I is the real time

And the energy is always with me.

Aetzbar

Avi Blizovsky

I got upset from trolling and flooding the comments and didn't come to read the site. I want to read other people's comments and they are drowning in his comments. *Most* of the comments are his, and this is not the only article that is like this.

Haha the poor guy was upset. Turns to Alec reverse psychology. It is suitable for those who care about annoying or its far-fetched idea. Who cares about a drama that only exists in his head?

He ran out of pseudo-science so he switched to emotion.

Asbar does not understand basic concepts at a high school level (like measurement error).

Because then he will realize that actually his stupid device proves that PI is *constant* to the error of the experiment...

Truth be told, I think you answered and you answered beautifully.

You are interested in drama, not science.

You understand that the experiment in the form you performed it is regrettable, you know how to perform it the right way, you have the equipment and the time, but you will not perform it because you are interested in drama.

Real scientists performed their own experiments before demanding recognition - Galileo with the weights, Franklin with the kite, Lavoisier with the test tubes and many more.

And only Esbar who claims to have invented new geometry and physics demands that the establishment perform his groundbreaking experiment without performing it himself..

Even if you are right, you have branded yourself in a completely different category than all the scientists in the world. It's as if a certain person claims to have built a leading Perpetum, publishes the principles of the new physics needed for its operation, and demands that they try his machine without having tried it himself.

So why should anyone take you seriously, snotty?

But why would a scientific institution conduct the real experiment (100 turns for the big wheel, not 1, 1 is regret) if the thinker himself does not perform it?

Why do you ask? Because I don't want to take the drama out of the scope experiment.

At this point the mystery exists, and anyone can claim that the device is not accurate, the diameters of the steel axle and the steel wheel are not accurate, therefore there is great doubt whether the experiment heralds a mathematical geometric transformation.

At this stage there is also doubt whether the neural concept "physical geometry" is real or if it is a meaningless phrase.

These are subject to scientific drama, and all the drama will disappear if the steel axis is 2 mm in diameter

will rotate 600 turns and not 60.

I would like a reputable scientific institution to repeat the experiment with 60 rounds, and be surprised by the result.

This result will cast doubt on the activity of mathematics in the continuous geometric field, and will require changing mathematical conventions that have existed for hundreds of years.

The most important convention in mathematics is that there are no mistakes in mathematics.

Do you suggest canceling this drama?

Do you suggest canceling the drama? In which "some unknown person who calls himself nervous" created a mathematical geometric transformation with the help of the link to a physical measurement unknown to science, with a precise measuring device unknown to science.

If you want to see this drama, start a support group to try to convince the Weizmann Institute or the Technion to repeat the scope experiment.

And the sooner the better.

Oh, don't worry, a direct relationship can also be negative... 3rd grade.

But why not really do the experiment with a larger number of rounds? As one who has been shouting his righteousness for so many years, claiming to be ignored by the scientific establishment and asking for recognition - why don't you invest 20 minutes of your time to prove the correctness of your claims? If your time is so precious, why not ask a volunteer to conduct the experiment?

Could it be that the inventor of the scope knows very well that his experiment proves nothing?

Is it conceivable that the mythological thinker of neural mathematics and passive time is simply an eye-catching charlatan and not a genius because the petrified scientific establishment ignores him because he is afraid of the gospel in his mouth?

This is what she wrote at the beginning of your comment

Eliyahu

Is Asbar a compulsive troublemaker as you say who is not aware of it, a charlatan consciously, or maybe he is even right and pie is indeed small in direct proportion to the diameter of the circle?

And regarding the repetition of the experiment, I leave it to a respected scientific institution, that the scientific community in Israel and the world will accept the result he achieves.

If he decides that a pie of 2 mm diameter = a pie of 120 mm diameter, then I will definitely admit that I was wrong, and wasted many years on research that was a complete failure.

But if he rules that a pie with a diameter of 2 mm is "a little bigger" than a pie with a diameter of 120 mm, salvation will come to the exact sciences, mathematics, geometry, physics.

That's what I wrote, is not it?

"What you claim proves that the pie of the small cylinder is bigger than the pie of the big wheel."

Will you do the scope experiment with 100x rounds or 10x and prove us all wrong?

What does this article discussing the standard model of matter have in common with the scope experiment?

The answer is - experiments in the field of tiny phenomena that are very difficult to notice.

And what is the difference? The experiment of the standard model is not related to physical reality, because matter is a physical form. (Material is not a quantitative concept and is built from the combination of amounts of energy and passive time)

On the other hand, the scope experiment deals with an actual physical reality, of steel cylinders with a very precise geometric shape, in which closed circular lines appear without thickness. (emphasis – lacking thickness)

The diameter of these cylinders can be measured with a deviation of half a thousandth of a mm, and the circumference manages to achieve

the ratio number between their circumferences.

Measuring an exact ratio between the circumferences of cylinders is the first in scientific history, and it is she who brought to the world the concept of "physical geometry" which is the geometry of closed circular lines.

The geometry of the straight line is a mathematical geometry, based on the Pythagorean theorem.

The opposite Israel, the opposite...

Pie gets bigger, as the diameter of the circle gets smaller...

This connection can be discerned, even without a practical experiment.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/5604aa4e-34d1-49c7-86a2-4905ab2f0392.pdf

The practical experiment only proved the "direction of the change", when it determined that a pie of 2 mm in diameter, "a little bigger"

120 mm diameter pie plate.

When the direction of pi change was determined, the value of maximum pi had to be guessed.

My hypothesis was 3.164, and this hypothesis should stand the test

The value of minimal pi did not need to be guessed, because all the mathematical calculations regarding pi were with straight line segments (the Pythagorean theorem is only valid for straight line segments)

A tiny segment of the circumference of a circle (whose diameter approaches infinity mm) is a straight line, therefore the famous mathematical result of 3.1415927 corresponds to a circle whose diameter approaches infinity mm

And this is where mathematics ends its role, because it is only able to calculate minimal pi.

And this is exactly where the role of physics began, with its measurements.

And this is exactly where a great wave of resistance arose from the mathematicians, who are not ready to admit that their calculations are not suitable for all circles, but only for a circle whose diameter approaches infinity mm.

Do you know a mathematician who would agree to admit that dealing with circuits does not belong to mathematics and its calculations, but belongs to physics and its measurements. You know ????

Do you understand why the results of the scope experiment are not believed? After all, this is a mathematical earthquake, and the eruption of a volcano bearing a line of new geometry.

what were you thinking ? Will they believe me? I knew they wouldn't believe me, and I also knew about the expected reactions that would discuss the interested party, and not discuss the matter itself.

I have already said and repeated, if a respected scientific institution like the Technion repeats the scope experiment, the scientific community will accept its ruling. Does such a repeated experiment deter the academy? Probably so

We have talked enough about the subject...the time has come for action...issue a call to the Academy of Exact Sciences.

Eliyahu

Is Asbar a compulsive troublemaker as you say who is not aware of it, a charlatan consciously, or maybe he is even right and pie is indeed small in direct proportion to the diameter of the circle?

Let's check:

Anbar, you articulate yourself eloquently and your scope experiment is beautiful and impressive, which rules out the possibility that you are a complete moron.

We will accept your claim that the ratio between the two cylinders in your experiment is exactly 60:1. You showed in the video that when we rotate the circumference, we get a different ratio than 60:1, which you claim proves that the pie of the small cylinder is larger than the pie of the big wheel.

But the experiment has too large a margin of error, which can be easily corrected with a larger number of rounds. After all, if your claim is correct, then if you turn the wheel 100 times you will get a 100 times greater distance difference, right?

Would it be possible to perform the experiment once more and take a video with a larger number of rounds? The equipment is in your possession and the experiment should not last more than 20 minutes. If you get an increasing difference as the number of rounds increases, it will no longer be possible to disqualify your claim, and I believe everyone here will be happy to share your new sweetness with the academic community.

Will you do it, sad? What is 20 minutes compared to eternity and eternal glory?

Eliyahu and everyone, please note that Esbar now has 3 options, with 3 possible outcomes:

1. Asbar will perform the experiment with 100 rounds (no more than an hour) or with 10 rounds (10 minutes), publish the video, and prove to the world his righteousness. genius!

2. He will perform the experiment and will be proven wrong and admit it. Crackfoot, but honest.

3. He will refuse to perform the experiment and say that the experiment he performed is already enough. charlatan.

And there is of course the obvious possibility that he has long since performed the experiment with a higher number of rounds and is aware of his folly.

got upset

I didn't understand what the "distinction" is - "...that brought into the world a new geometry..."

I remind you: your geometry is not based on any known physical size or force...

Sweet dreams.

The compulsive math nerds, according to Dudley, are almost always male, and almost always older, often in their post-retirement years. They do not understand the meaning of the mathematical statement that a certain thing is not possible. Their knowledge of the field in which they operate is extremely partial, and they usually lack formal education. They believe that the problems they attack are of great importance, and tend to suspect that the copyright will be stolen from them. Above all, they cannot be convinced that they are wrong.

Due to the lack of recognition of their discoveries, compulsive troublemakers in many cases claim a conspiracy in which the scientific establishment that harasses them and deliberately denies the truth is complicit. Troublemakers use terms invented by them that have no clear definition and avoid using clear and well-defined terms. When asked to explain their terminology, they tend to do so using equally vague terms.

Many times the basic problem in the claims of compulsive troublemakers is a lack of differentiation between definitions, facts and opinions. Results that contradict their intuition are rejected by them, apparently by rigorous reasoning, but in fact many times their argument consists of many layers of claims and definitions based on which there is no consistency or the fundamental reasoning is based on an intuitive assumption.

Compulsive hassles is the right term for Mr. Asbar

See here:

http://www.haayal.co.il/story_1571

And here:

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%99

There is nothing to be upset or angry about, this is a mental disability like any other mental disability syndrome and it must be contained with understanding and tolerance

Lassie

And if you are still not convinced, use this article

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/45317ede-eca8-48bc-8608-477e5a47c910.pdf

If you are not convinced Esi, the help of this article

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/51ea21af-238b-4926-8045-06105f2e4ed6.pdf

Lassie

A large square is similar to a small square, and they have the same shape.

The mathematical expression for the form...is a ratio number

Therefore, the ratio between the perimeter of each square and its diagonal is constant and its approximate value is 2.8284342

A large closed circular line is not similar to a small closed circular line, and they do not have the same shape.

Using a caliper, draw a closed circular line with a diameter of 12 cm, and a closed circular line with a diameter of 1.5 cm

Note that each closed circular line has a uniform shape...but unique

A closed circular line with a diameter of 12 cm has a uniform, but unique shape (and necessarily has a unique ratio number).

A closed circular line with a diameter of 1.5 cm has a uniform, but unique shape (and necessarily has a unique ratio number)

It is about the ratio between the actual length of a closed circular line,,, to the actual length of its diameter

Actual length is shown with a number of mm. cm, meter and so on.

This is the distinction that gave birth to a new geometry, but mathematics is unable to express it.

Only accurate measurement is able to distinguish it, and the scope experiment is the subject of the gospel.

Measurement belongs to physics, so the new geometry is physical geometry

The ancient geometry of the straight line is a mathematical geometry, based on calculations based on the Pythagorean theorem.

Do not rush to reject and offer to block.

Don't hesitate to admit a mistake

Successfully

If your phi changes, your circles are probably not perfect but ellipses.

If you are not able to understand that a circle is a fixed shape and its size does not matter, then please go back to first grade

Someone block Asbar please.

This is a common troll whose whole purpose is to provoke fruitless discussions on a subject on which there is complete unanimity. For thousands of years and thousands of developments rely on the fact that there is a fixed Pay.

Like claiming that the ratio between the perimeter of a square and the length of its side is not 4/1 but is variable.

Enough ,

…1/9 +pi x 4 =1-1/3+1/5-1/7

Do you understand what is written here?

The mathematicians never calculated the ratio between the circumference of the circle and its diameter, because in reality there is no such calculation.

Mathematical calculation is only suitable for straight line segments, and is not suitable for a circular line.

The preoccupation with closed circular lines belongs to physicists and their precise measurements, and does not belong to mathematicians and their calculations.

Even without a practical experiment, it is possible to prove the variable pie idea

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/5604aa4e-34d1-49c7-86a2-4905ab2f0392.pdf

Well, let's say we roll with your bullshit,

Tell me, are you aware that Pi was measured with tens of digits after the point? In dozens of different ways?

- Are you aware that Pi can also be obtained as the sum of an infinite series?

- Do you understand that the relative accuracy of the delusional experiments you propose is limited in its error, to the measurement error in the engraving of 2 mm the radius/circumference of the inner cylinder? (Which is about 20 microns for the radius at best, and probably much worse for the circumference) and it entails a much larger error than the 0.995 effect you claim about?

I estimate that the number of readers you have managed to convince so far with your nonsense is about 1 to 2 including you.

In the adult world, there is something called a scientific paper. And there is something called peer review. Although it doesn't seem to me that you will find any researcher who would be willing and able to read this nonsense? Maybe for a decent fee...

The truth is that your comments are really fascinating,

But they are more suitable for the section of articles on clinical psychology, under the topic Madness of growth.

But don't let all this discourage you..

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-tiny-muon-s-wobble-could-break-physics-as-we-know-it

And here is a study (later in the article) that shows that the theoretical calculation is incorrect and shows that the experimental results correspond to the corrected calculation

The ancient investigation of physical reality dealt with "everything that is perceived by the senses, and gave it the name matter. Newton stated that matter is a quantitative concept, and its weight can be measured.

But matter is not a quantitative concept, and is a physical form.

This concept creates a completely new physics, and eliminates the particle concept of matter.

Here is the old concept

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A8_(%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%94)

Maybe it sounds like that to you, but it is scientific, quantitative, and measured

Be sad, it sounds like quotes from Kabbalah

And if the experimenters do repeat the scope experiment, they will also reveal to the world the existence of a new astrophysics.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/ac193a50-8b58-4711-89bd-475f16879d2a.pdf

I suggest the editors of this experiment repeat the circumference experiment, and reveal to the world that there is a new geometry, through which new physics can be presented.

https://youtu.be/HY7GQxU1HLk

A muon was chosen because it is an elementary particle very similar to an electron but relatively heavy and therefore reacts more powerfully to particles in nature. Beyond that, it is easier to produce compared to the other particles (apart from the electron whose magnetic moment we have already measured). The noises in the vacuum, which are particles that are created and disappear in an instant, affect how the internal magnet of the muon rotates. If the theory does not match the measurements, it is likely that there is something else that contributes to how the muon's magnet rotates. Of course it could be that something we already know does not work as we expect, but so many experiments have already been conducted on the standard model that it is hard to believe that something in the model itself that is already known is not true.

Why Meowon?

And what is it all about? That there is something that interferes (or interferes) in a muon's magnetic field?

(Are there professional people here on the site who also respond? Or is it just annoyance? Because if it's just annoyance then God knows how this site survives at all).

The new physics is geometric physics, and the idea of particles has come to an end

Geometrical physics

A line is the fundamental concept of geometry, and it has two data

First figure - actual length Second figure - shape

Energy is the fundamental concept of physics, and it has two data

Actual quantity - and form (mechanical, thermal, electrical, chemical, etc.)

Energy can change form, but the actual amount is always conserved.

The concept of form is of paramount importance

A lump of dough always has a shape.

The shape of a lump of dough comes from combining quantities of two other things.

Volume and area are two quantitative things - but volume is a different thing than surface

The shape of a lump of dough results from adding quantities of the volume of the lump and its surface area.

Squeezing the lump of dough changes the amount of its surface area, but its volume remains constant.

Therefore, crushing the lump of dough changes the combination of the quantities of volume and surface area, and following this change, a change in the shape of the lump of dough takes place.

A closed geometric shape in a plane results from adding quantities of a perimeter containing an area.

Perimeter and area are two other quantitative things.

The shape of the square results from a certain combination of quantities, of a perimeter containing an area.

The shape of the circle results from a certain combination of quantities of a perimeter containing an area

And just as there is a geometric form, so there is also a physical form

Physical form also results from combining quantities of two other things.

Physical form results from combining amounts of passive energy and time.

Passive time is a fundamental concept of the new physics.

Passive time is absolute rest and absolute cold, and it fills the infinite space.

Passive time is the medium that transmits sunlight.

The stars move through passive time, and it does not interfere with their movement.

Passive time exists in physical reality, while the active time known to all of us exists only in human consciousness.

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

The substance is created by combining amounts of passive time and energy

Therefore, a material meter does not exist, and in contrast an energy meter does exist, and a passive time meter does exist.

And since matter is a physical form, there is no room for a particle theory of matter.

Physical geometry and geometric physics are intertwined.

Physical geometry contains clues about true physical reality.

hypothesis

The number 1.007 will appear in physical geometry, and also in geometric physics.

In physical geometry it expresses the ratio between the extreme transition numbers

3.1416 and 3.164

In geometric physics, it expresses the existence of a narrow velocity domain, related to

to the structure of the universe. The ratio between the high speed of the domain and the low speed of the domain is 1.007

To be continued

A. Asbar

4/2021