@shortstories It took Miles Mathis way longer than it should have, to hit Helen Keller. He did eventually, though
Miles Mathis debunks various proofs for the Universal gravitational constant that do not take into account the mass of walls
I thought he had a shorter version but if he does I do not know where it is anymore and I have not read this very long article in entirety
@GenesRus @shortstories Mathis’s point in his paper isn’t about the geometric relationship between a circle and its diameter; but rather about the constant used in orbital kinematics describing the distance traveled by an object traversing a circular orbit. Geometric Pi isn’t the correct multiplier; 4 is
@GenesRus @shortstories It seems counterintuitive at first; until one remembers a circular orbit through space isn’t the same thing as a circle drawn on paper; assuming it is ends up being a dimensional fallacy
@GenesRus @shortstories It is brain-bending at first ngl; but once it clicks you’ll wonder how it got overlooked for so long 
The distance between two objects is the same in all classical physics reference frames but the distance objects travel can be different in different classical reference frames
An object that travels in a circle in one classical reference frame might not travel at all in another classical reference frame
They claim objects travel in ellipses and not circles
@shortstories He’s quite a character; maybe even a polymath. He’s entirely correct about his “Pi = 4” argument, too - which cracks me up that it still drives people into a rage 😆