Flat earth and physics

It's a common happening to me, that I ALWAYS found falacy everytime I researched something. Even for "hard science" called maths. In this case: Pi=3.14159. It's obviously incorrect.

As to physics, there are much more evidences of falacies. I even predicted all part of physics are already corrupted.

It's a common happening to me, that I ALWAYS found falacy everytime I researched something. Even for "hard science" called maths. In this case: Pi=3.14159. It's obviously incorrect.

As to physics, there are much more evidences of falacies. I even predicted all part of physics are already corrupted.

If flat earth would be correct, many areas of pysics must be incorrect.

Which areas exactly must be incorrect? Please choose from the list below and explain.

1 Classical mechanics
2 Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics
3 Electromagnetism and electronics
4 Relativity
5 Quantum mechanics
6 Optics, and atomic, molecular, and optical physics
7 Condensed matter physics
8 High energy/particle physics and nuclear physics
9 Cosmology

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 01:31:17 PM

It's a common happening to me, that I ALWAYS found falacy everytime I researched something. Even for "hard science" called maths. In this case: Pi=3.14159. It's obviously incorrect.

As to physics, there are much more evidences of falacies. I even predicted all part of physics are already corrupted.

Strange that nobody agrees with you.

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 01:31:17 PM

It's a common happening to me, that I ALWAYS found falacy everytime I researched something. Even for "hard science" called maths. In this case: Pi=3.14159. It's obviously incorrect.

In other words, you think that your error-prone measurements are better than the work of all the mathematicians from Archimedes on.
That's a typical flat earth earther attitude!

Quote from: Danang

As to physics, there are much more evidences of falacies. I even predicted all part of physics are already corrupted.

Really? What are those "parts of physics are already corrupted"? That is the question in the OP:

Quote from: alex314 on June 14, 2019, 12:16:46 AM

If flat earth would be correct, many areas of pysics must be incorrect.

Which areas exactly must be incorrect? Please choose from the list below and explain.

1 Classical mechanics
2 Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics
3 Electromagnetism and electronics
4 Relativity
5 Quantum mechanics
6 Optics, and atomic, molecular, and optical physics
7 Condensed matter physics
8 High energy/particle physics and nuclear physics
9 Cosmology

Quote from: inquisitive on June 14, 2019, 02:17:59 PM

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 01:31:17 PM

It's a common happening to me, that I ALWAYS found falacy everytime I researched something. Even for "hard science" called maths. In this case: Pi=3.14159. It's obviously incorrect.

As to physics, there are much more evidences of falacies. I even predicted all part of physics are already corrupted.

Strange that nobody agrees with you.

That's quite okay. By the way this is what the sun looks like.

In this case: Pi=3.14159. It's obviously incorrect.

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 01:31:17 PM

In this case: Pi=3.14159. It's obviously incorrect.

I'd like to hear more about this.

Quote from: Jargon on June 14, 2019, 06:20:09 PM

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 01:31:17 PM

In this case: Pi=3.14159. It's obviously incorrect.

I'd like to hear more about this.

The calculation method for Pi has flaw i.e. sacrificing a number of tiny fractions in the name of "approximation".
It's obligatory for Pi to be MORE than just 3.14159.

Within 45° the ratio for a circle line segment over the radius is 0.79289 : 1.

Phew = 4 [ (SinX) + (1-CosX)² ] OR 4 [ (SinX)² + (1-CosX) ] = 3.17157

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 06:31:36 PM

Quote from: Jargon on June 14, 2019, 06:20:09 PM

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 01:31:17 PM

In this case: Pi=3.14159. It's obviously incorrect.

I'd like to hear more about this.

The calculation method for Pi has flaw i.e. sacrificing a number of tiny fractions in the name of "approximation".
It's obligatory for Pi to be MORE than just 3.14159.

Within 45° the ratio for a circle line segment over the radius is 0.79289 : 1.

Phew = 4 [ (SinX) + (1-CosX)² ] OR 4 [ (SinX)² + (1-CosX) ] = 3.17157

Why are you calling it Phew? Why not just say Pi actually equals 3.17157? It's like you're saying there is a new constant that no one is considering.

Is Pi = 3.14 incorrect? Or is it true that Pi = 3.14 and Phew = 3.17?

They are all wrong anyway except s=vt. i mean even for RE

Quote from: Jargon on June 14, 2019, 06:55:46 PM

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 06:31:36 PM

Quote from: Jargon on June 14, 2019, 06:20:09 PM

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 01:31:17 PM

In this case: Pi=3.14159. It's obviously incorrect.

I'd like to hear more about this.

The calculation method for Pi has flaw i.e. sacrificing a number of tiny fractions in the name of "approximation".
It's obligatory for Pi to be MORE than just 3.14159.

Within 45° the ratio for a circle line segment over the radius is 0.79289 : 1.

Phew = 4 [ (SinX) + (1-CosX)² ] OR 4 [ (SinX)² + (1-CosX) ] = 3.17157

Why are you calling it Phew? Why not just say Pi actually equals 3.17157? It's like you're saying there is a new constant that no one is considering.

Is Pi = 3.14 incorrect? Or is it true that Pi = 3.14 and Phew = 3.17?

Why Phew? Because we belong to people that like to play words

People know Pi = 3.14 which is incorrect.

They are all wrong anyway except s=vt. i mean even for RE

Why is it?

Quote

They are all wrong anyway except s=vt. i mean even for RE
Why is it?

because both Einsteinian and Newtonian mathematical models of the gravity are wrong - already proved

Guess law is derived from Newton law of gravity

Gauss's Law
The total of the electric flux out of a closed surface is equal to the charge enclosed divided by the permittivity.

Einstein's time dilation, relativity, etc are also wrong - already proved

rest are derived from Einsteinian and Newtonian mathematical models

similarly, the multiplication of goats and trees has no useful meaning in both physics and math because they can't be multiplied and the same is applied to momentum which = mass x velocity and all similar equation in physics

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 01:31:17 PM

In this case: Pi=3.14159. It's obviously incorrect.

I'd like to hear more about this.

No! That "both Einsteinian and Newtonian mathematical models of the gravity" are accurate is based on very strong evidence.
Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation are quite accurate within regions where velocities and gravitational fields are "not too hig

In physics it is incorrect to add or subtract quantities with different units but is is quite legitimate to multiply or divide them when the units are correct for the whole equation.

So momentum is defined as mass x velocity So in the SI System has units of kg.m.t-1.
And force is mass x acceleration [/b] So in the SI System has units of kg.m.t-2.

Where did you get these strange ideas from?

In physics it is incorrect to add or subtract quantities with different units but is is quite legitimate to multiply or divide them when the units are correct for the whole equation.

Quote from: Jargon on June 14, 2019, 06:20:09 PM

Quote from: Danang on June 14, 2019, 01:31:17 PM

In this case: Pi=3.14159. It's obviously incorrect.

I'd like to hear more about this.

Are you sure?  I try to stay away from this one myself.

Quote

In physics it is incorrect to add or subtract quantities with different units but is is quite legitimate to multiply or divide them when the units are correct for the whole equation.

So momentum is defined as mass x velocity So in the SI System has units of kg.m.t-1.
And force is mass x acceleration [/b] So in the SI System has units of kg.m.t-2.

Where did you get these strange ideas from?

multiply 3 goats with 5 trees
3 x5 = 15 goat.tree so can pls tell me what does meant by 15 goat.tree what kind of unit is goat.tree

Quote

In physics it is incorrect to add or subtract quantities with different units but is is quite legitimate to multiply or divide them when the units are correct for the whole equation.

any reference pls

PHYSICS EQUATIONS AND FORMULAS: Physics For Dummies,

Part of Physics I For Dummies Cheat Sheet
Here’s a list of some important physics formulas and equations to keep on hand — arranged by topic — so you don’t have to go searching to find them.

ANGULAR MOTION
Equations of angular motion are relevant wherever you have rotational motions around an axis. When the object has rotated through an angle of θ with an angular velocity of ω and an angular acceleration of α, then you can use these equations to tie these values together.



FORCES
A mass, m, accelerates at a rate, a, due to a force, F, acting. Frictional forces, F_F, are in proportion to the normal force between the materials, F_N, with a coefficient of friction, μ. Two masses, m₁ and m₂, separated by a distance, r, attract each other with a gravitational force, given by the following equations, in proportion to the gravitational constant G:

Quote

No! That "both Einsteinian and Newtonian mathematical models of the gravity" are accurate is based on very strong evidence.
Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation are quite accurate within regions where velocities and gravitational fields are "not too high".

ok ill provide you with proof one by one. Let's start from the Galileo in the following link

*Is Galileo's statement correct, theoretically?*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Equations_for_a_falling_body#Is_Galileo.27s_statement_correct.2C_theoretically.3F

repeat the Galileo experiment with two different masses say 5 kg and 100kg but don't drop them simultaneously.
drop 5kg from height h and note the striking timing of earth and 5 kg, then
drop 10kg from the same height h and note the striking timing of earth and 100kg
you will find two different striking times - gravity (g) of 100 kg mass is greater than the gravity (g) of 5kg mass - agree.
so the earth will accelerate faster towards 100 kg mass as compared to 5kg mass