Do You Believe In Scientism?

[SelfSim]

Have you actually read his papers and comprehended his argument?

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

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

 

[SelfSim]

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

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

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

I followed that link, read the thread, and see that some things haven't changed here...

 

[tharkun73]

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.

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.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Miles Mills...

Most star pilots can circumnavigate a star at a distance of 1 parsec in less than 8 parsecs, but Miles is a "special" case.

 

[SelfSim]

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.

Yes .. Fascinating!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

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...........

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I wanted to vote "What's the difference between that and Scientology?" but it wasn't an option.

 

[SelfSim]

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...........

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

 

[tharkun73]

Ad hominems are logical fallacy 101.

 

[SelfSim]

Ad hominems are logical fallacy 101.

Welcome to CFs, @tharkun73!

 

[sjastro]

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.

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.

 

[SelfSim]

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.

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.

 

[sjastro]

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.

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

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

 

[SelfSim]

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.

Ok .. (looks like I did the same as Newton).
Thanks for the correction!

 

[SelfSim]

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

Not a great comparison there .. frequent flyer points are useful!

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

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

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

Ok. Thanks for the info. I've never heard of the guy.