Do You Believe In Scientism?

tharkun73 said:

Have you actually read his papers and comprehended his argument?

Click to expand...

SelfSim said:

Hmm .. I think I can handle metaphors(?)
Only to the extent of avoiding crakpottery though

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

But yeah, I'm a big stickler on identifying and observing the various Limits of Science.

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

Yes. His take on morality is basically scientism grafted onto unstated assumptions.

Click to expand...

SelfSim said:

Yes. Many years ago now though .. memories of the details have since faded.
What remains distinct however, is my conclusion.

ETA: Oh I also remember the point that arose when considering a turntable.
When the turnatable isn't turning pi = 3.1416.... When the turntable is rotating Pi = 4.
If the turnatable is of a fixed radius, the circumference of the turnatable is larger when it is rotating.

Click to expand...

tharkun73 said:

I'd be curious to see you support that turntable example from one of his papers. I've never seen him argue such a way. A turntable doesn't represent an orbit because a point on a turntable doesn't have the tangential velocity and centripetal acceleration that an object in orbit does; it's contrained by the material. Miles' argument is based on orbital motion and not on rotation of fixed objects. This is a misunderstanding of his argument.

Click to expand...

tharkun73 said:

I'd be curious to see you support that turntable example from one of his papers. I've never seen him argue such a way. A turntable doesn't represent an orbit because a point on a turntable doesn't have the tangential velocity and centripetal acceleration that an object in orbit does; it's contrained by the material. Miles' argument is based on orbital motion and not on rotation of fixed objects.

Click to expand...

SelfSim said:

Whereas I'm not absolutely certain of where those limits actually are .. but I somehow know they'll be contextual and provisional ..

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

Maybe it's contextual. Maybe it's provisional. It might even be circumstantial. But whatever it is, I have a feeling that achieving Star Trek transhumanism will be a very long time in coming, like beyond the 24th century sort of long time in coming. I'm not assuming that Warp Speed will even be on the captain's chair menu...........

Click to expand...

tharkun73 said:

Ad hominems are logical fallacy 101.

Click to expand...

tharkun73 said:

I'd be curious to see you support that turntable example from one of his papers. I've never seen him argue such a way. A turntable doesn't represent an orbit because a point on a turntable doesn't have the tangential velocity and centripetal acceleration that an object in orbit does; it's contrained by the material. Miles' argument is based on orbital motion and not on rotation of fixed objects. This is a misunderstanding of his argument.

Click to expand...

sjastro said:

A point on a turntable will have a tangential velocity and centripetal acceleration and is easily demonstrated with the use of a two axis accelerometer on the turntable where one axis is parallel to the radial direction the other in the tangential direction.
If the angular velocity or RPMs is constant the tangential acceleration is zero or in other words the tangential velocity is constant, the centripetal acceleration will be non zero irrespective if the angular velocity is constant or not.

On the subject of orbital motion the period T for a planet to complete one orbit is:

T = 2π√(a³/GM) where a is the dimension of the semi major axis of the ellipse, G the gravitational constant and M the mass of the planet.

π = 3.1416 and not π = 4.

Click to expand...

SelfSim said:

So, for a planet orbiting, the centripetal acceleration is: a = v^2/r,
where "a" is the centripetal acceleration, "v" is the orbital velocity of the planet, and "r" is the radius of its orbit.

Which can be rewritten as: a = GM/r^2,
where G is the gravitational constant and M is the mass of the central body (a star).
because the force providing the centripetal acceleration is the gravitational force between the planet and the central body (a star).

Ie: the centripetal acceleration is non zero, as its also independent of the angular (orbital) velocity, yes(?)

ETA: Ie: the two scenarios; turntable and obiting planet are physically the same.

Click to expand...

SelfSim said:

Ahh ... but Miles may well be the key to all our problems there ..

Click to expand...

sjastro said:

Answering the last part of your question first, the centripetal acceleration is not independent of the angular velocity ω.
ω is the rate of change of the angle θ as illustrated.

The centripetal acceleration ‘a’ depends on ω according to the equation a = rω².

An object on a rotating turntable will follow a circular path but planetary orbits are ellipses, the difference being Newton equated the centripetal force with the inverse square law for gravity F = GMm/r², leading to solutions where paths taken by planets could be ellipses, parabolas or hyperbolas while circular orbits are unstable as they are easily perturbed into ellipses by the gravitational effects from other planets.

The rotating turntable is a good example of the absurdity of Mile Mathis idea of π = 4 for kinematic cases.
The circumference of a rotating turntable should be around 1.3X larger compared to when it is stationary which is complete utter nonsense.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

I'm not familiar with "Miles," expect as credits in a frequent flyer program.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

I'm not familiar with "Miles," expect as credits in a frequent flyer program.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

His is a frequent flyer. Mathis is an internet loon, pseudoscientist, and conspiracy theorist who is bad at math.

Click to expand...