# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: gravityblock on May 07, 2014, 01:16:02 AM

Title: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 07, 2014, 01:16:02 AM
According to Miles Mathis, there are no evanescent waves, but instead a radiated charged field and is Maxwell's displacement field.  He also states the cause of coupling is simply a combined or integrated charge density that exceeds the charge density of either object alone. In other words, the charge density in the gap actually becomes greater than the charge density on the surface of either object.  The coupling is strongest within 1/3 of a wavelength from the object.

Now, if we have a boosted charge field in the gap—due to integrating the charge fields of the two objects—this will act to open up the atomic or molecular spacing on these two surfaces. If you change the spacing, you have changed the angle of reflection. The photon can now get through!  If we have an increase in charge density in the gap, what that means is that we have more charge photons hitting everything in the area. This will cause an increase in charge pressure, which will cause all gaps to increase. So the photon on the same angle that couldn't pass before can now pass. It travels into the gap and proceeds on to the other object.

Reference:  Evanescent Waves, by Miles Mathis (http://milesmathis.com/evane.pdf)

We can achieve and maintain resonance by changing the angle of reflection after there is an increase in charge density to accomodate the changes in the atomic or molecular spacing of the two surfaces, so not to allow the photons to pass, which will allow a further increase in charge density and a further increase in the gaps and another change in the atomic or molecular spacing. By maintaining this resonance through a change in the angle of reflection, then we can build a huge charge density.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 07, 2014, 02:24:35 AM
I see.

So which knob do I turn, then.....?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 07, 2014, 03:35:28 AM
I see.

So which knob do I turn, then.....?

The QEG is a transformer and it also works on mechanical resonance, which is a result of an electrical resonance. So it's actually mechanical motion that creates the high voltage pulses; then, from that point, it's more of a conventional transformer action (referenced from peswiki). Since the evanescent wave coupling is directly analogous to the coupling between the primary and secondary coils of a transformer and is a near-field wave, then there is no reason why this couldn't be applied to the basic principals of the QEG. This idea is also based around the work of Tesla (energy resonant transfer), as shown below. Please note, a solid state solution to the QEG may be possible.

An evanescent wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave) is a near-field wave with an intensity that exhibits exponential decay without absorption as a function of the distance from the boundary at which the wave was formed. In optics and acoustics, evanescent waves are formed when waves traveling in a medium undergo total internal reflection at its boundary because they strike it at an angle greater than the so-called critical angle. In quantum mechanics, the evanescent-wave solutions of the Schrödinger equation give rise to the phenomenon of wave-mechanical tunneling.

The evanescent wave coupling takes place in the non-radiative field near each medium and as such is always associated with matter; i.e., with the induced currents and charges within a partially reflecting surface. This coupling is directly analogous to the coupling between the primary and secondary coils of a transformer, or between the two plates of a capacitor. Mathematically, the process is the same as that of quantum tunneling, except with electromagnetic waves instead of quantum-mechanical wavefunctions. It is concluded that the transmitted wave must be a non-vanishing solution to Maxwell's equations that is not a traveling wave, and the only such solutions in a dielectric are those that decay exponentially: evanescent waves. The evanescent wave is a standing wave, essentially a static stress-energy or "pressure" gradient.

A typical application is resonant energy transfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonant_inductive_coupling), useful, for instance, for charging electronic gadgets without wires, such as passive RFID tags and contactless smart cards. A particular implementation of this is WiTricity. The same idea is also used in some Tesla coils. One of the applications of the resonant transformer is for the CCFL inverter, which is an electrical inverter that supplies alternating current power to a cold cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL). Have a look at this site on magnetic resonance (http://www.cornellcollege.edu/physics/courses/phy312/Student-Projects/Magnetic-Resonance/Magnetic-Resonance.html).  Also,

There is a simple method to change the electric and magnetic resonant frequencies of short wire pairs (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CF0QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scirp.org%2Fjournal%2FPaperDownload.aspx%3FDOI%3D10.4236%2Fjemaa.2013.54026&ei=TXEkUrTQD-u1sATX7oDIDg&usg=AFQjCNGQOVa7lYDlclvQQxSf_40mRs9VKQ&bvm=bv.51495398,d.cWc) by using a left-handed metamaterial (LHM), such as an Arlon Diclad 880 (http://www.standardpc.com/pdf/microwave-laminates-composition-chart.pdf). This LHM structure has a dielectric substrate with different metal strips on both sides, of which the electric and magnetic resonant frequencies can be controlled by shifting the position of faced wire pairs up and down. Or, apply these same basic principals to the current mechanical QEG.

By shifting the position of the faced wire pairs up and down, we will increase the wavelength due to an increase in the molecular spacing, which allows the photons on the same angle that couldn't pass before can now pass.  This allows us to once again shift the position of the faced wire pairs up and down to where the photons are no longer able to pass.  By achieving and maintaining this "particular resonance", we can then build a huge charge density!

For a better understanding on the true nature of the evancesent waves and in order to wrap your mind around the opening post, please see: Miles Mathis (http://milesmathis.com/evane.pdf)

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 07, 2014, 03:48:49 AM
Uh-huh. Impressive !

But did you answer my question? Which knob do you turn to achieve and maintain resonance in the QEG! Wait... I know.... it's the Variac knob!

Now if we only knew which knob to turn to make it run itself......

:'(
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 07, 2014, 04:11:57 AM
Uh-huh. Impressive !

But did you answer my question? Which knob do you turn to achieve and maintain resonance in the QEG! Wait... I know.... it's the Variac knob!

Now if we only knew which knob to turn to make it run itself......

:'(

Have you tried the LHM as a knob to turn in order to achieve and maintain resonance in the QEG with a perpetual vibration between the different changes in the angle of reflections, as in a similar way in how atoms are in a state of perpetual vibration? By maintaining this resonance through a change in the angle of reflection, then we can build a huge charge density while increasing the wavelengths which are proportional to the charge density.  According to Miles Mathis and the mainstream, the coupling is strongest within 1/3 of a wavelength from the object. Condemnation before investigation is folly!

Let's do this TK just for "shits and giggles"!  Can you turn this knob, which is, the changing in angle of reflections to compensate for the change in the increases of the gaps and spacing of the LHM as to increase the charge density and space of the gap?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: ACG on May 07, 2014, 08:20:40 AM
Page 1 of N
Dibs on N passing 100 in 6 months time.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 07, 2014, 11:08:27 AM
@gravock: I know how to achieve and maintain Voltage Rise by Standing Wave Resonance, which I think is what you are describing. By controlling reflections and turning phase angle knobs I can accumulate charge and bounce it back and forth in a waveguide or other resonant cavity, reinforcing itself almost like a laser, but with charge instead of light. And the QEG people had better hope that never happens there on their cluttered workbench with improper insulation, layout, routing and components. If they ever do actually generate 28 kV in a resonant, reinforcing tank circuit of the kind I think you mean, making use of VRSWR and tuned cavities, they will wind up in a world of hurt when their _wrong type_ capacitors explode or they create an arc that couples some tender flesh to the discharge from the caps while resonating. They will find out what the "near field" really means.

(They are actually operating, or trying to operate, in a very dangerous range of voltage and current. I'd rather work on a 500,000 volt electrostatic system than a 30 kV system connected back to the mains in any way, and I have considerable experience with both regimes. There is a reason that Dr. Frankenstein used those big knife-switches....)
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 07, 2014, 12:15:08 PM
Page 1 of N
Dibs on N passing 100 in 6 months time.

Dibs on N pages of useless comments passing 100, such as your meaningless post in 6 months time.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 08, 2014, 12:53:25 AM
@gravock: I know how to achieve and maintain Voltage Rise by Standing Wave Resonance, which I think is what you are describing. By controlling reflections and turning phase angle knobs I can accumulate charge and bounce it back and forth in a waveguide or other resonant cavity, reinforcing itself almost like a laser, but with charge instead of light. And the QEG people had better hope that never happens there on their cluttered workbench with improper insulation, layout, routing and components. If they ever do actually generate 28 kV in a resonant, reinforcing tank circuit of the kind I think you mean, making use of VRSWR and tuned cavities, they will wind up in a world of hurt when their _wrong type_ capacitors explode or they create an arc that couples some tender flesh to the discharge from the caps while resonating. They will find out what the "near field" really means.

(They are actually operating, or trying to operate, in a very dangerous range of voltage and current. I'd rather work on a 500,000 volt electrostatic system than a 30 kV system connected back to the mains in any way, and I have considerable experience with both regimes. There is a reason that Dr. Frankenstein used those big knife-switches....)

I agree, we shouldn't operate in a more dangerous environment than need be.  Do you agree a load will dissipate the energy and reduce the gaps, which will reduce the charge density in the gap, while relieving the "pressure"?  We can use a dummy load to reduce it all the way down to where there is little to no charge density buildup with little to no voltage/current present if need be, in addition to controlling the knob of changing phase angles to maintain a safe operating condition.  In other words, the load + dummy load will be in resonance and can either oppose, re-enforce, or be neutral with the induced standing wave of the QEG while suppressing any runaway effects down to a desired safe level, and be in a state of perpetual vibration similar to that of an atom.  I'm sure you have more ideas on how to make this a safer build.

This isn't for your average tinkerer, amateur, or hobbyist working in their garage.  So, someone needs to step up to the plate, and you can do this!  I know you can.  You are the chosen one!  Don't let us down.  Do you accept or not accept to take up this heavy task in order for us and others to learn from, so we may further our understanding and be able to realize the goals of this forum?  Is there anyone else out there who would like to take up this challenge?

I'm squashing my previous dib on N and modifying it.  So now, let page N be large with research, experiments, documentation, videos, references, builds, etc., and without page N being filled with useless and meaningless comments (this little tidbit is not being used in reference to the posts made by TK).

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: ACG on May 08, 2014, 01:20:18 AM
If it was so useless.....why did you reply?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 08, 2014, 02:21:52 AM
TK,

This can be your thread, if you like.  I can change the title to, "TK's Resonant Quantum Energy Generator, (TKR-QEG)" or, something of your choosing.  It's up to you.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 09, 2014, 12:07:56 AM
TK,

This can be your thread, if you like.  I can change the title to, "TK's Resonant Quantum Energy Generator, (TKR-QEG)" or, something of your choosing.  It's up to you.

Gravock

I decided to take the first step.  If you oppose this change, then I will take the thread back and rename it to it's original title of "How to Achieve and Maintain Resonance in the QEG".

Thanks,

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 11, 2014, 04:35:27 AM
Quantum Tunnelling (http://milesmathis.com/tunnel.pdf), by Miles Mathis.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 11, 2014, 12:14:03 PM
Rewriting the Schrodinger Equation (http://milesmathis.com/se.pdf), by Miles Mathis

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 11, 2014, 01:08:57 PM
What causes superconductivity?

If we don't ask the right questions, then we don't get the right answers.  It turns out the answer is fairly simple. All you need is the charge field. To get a charge field, all you do is let the photon that transmits charge be real instead of virtual. You let it have moving mass, radius, and spin. Since charge is real, it cannot be transmitted by virtual particles with no size or energy in the field. We don't have to propose a phonon to fill a hole in our theory. No, we just have to propose that the particles that our equations give us are real. I mean these old equations:

e = 1.602 x 10-19 C

1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see the definition of the Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)

e = 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s

Those equations tells us that charge has mass, and they tell us how much. The fundamental charge is that much mass per second, which I simply apply to the charge field and the photons that are in it. Charge is then the motion of these real photons, not some mystical attraction or repulsion of ions.

This solves the superconductivity problem because conductivity is defined as the ability of a substance to let charge pass. Obviously, charge will pass most easily when it is blocked the least, and it is blocked the least when particles aren't getting in the way. In other words, charge photons will pass through still matter more easily than they will pass through vibrating matter. A lack of conductivity is explained by photons colliding with matter, and energetic matter will collide with more photons.

Reference:  Superconductivity (http://milesmathis.com/conduct.html) and Super-fluids (http://milesmathis.com/sl2.pdf) explained by Miles Mathis

We can switch between superconductivity, conductivity, and non-conductivity states by creating and manipulating this charge field by knowing the correct parameters.  By knowing this information, a safe and reliable device can be built without the inherent dangers of not knowing what we're working with.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 11, 2014, 09:12:11 PM
I decided to take the first step.  If you oppose this change, then I will take the thread back and rename it to it's original title of "How to Achieve and Maintain Resonance in the QEG".

Thanks,

Gravock
I don't know why you want to name any thread about me, but if you sincerely want to know how to obtain resonance in a QEG device, it's easy... it must be, if Robitaille and his crew can do it with what they are using. If you want your electrical resonance to occur at a particular frequency you match your inductances and capacitances to give you the correct frequency. The power handling requirement will determine the size and windings of the heavy inductance, and you can then select capacitance to match, remembering to use _the right kind of caps_ not motor-start capacitors. If you then want to use resonant pumping, that is, you want to drive your electrical resonance by a mechanical input of power at the same frequency as the resonance, you design your stator pole pieces and rotor shunt and their clearances and drive system appropriately. I think any competent electromechanical engineer with some experience in extreme high voltage and rapidly rotating assemblies should be able to carry out the necessary calculations, and a competent machinist/model builder could put it together in a week and have it demonstrating full electromechanical resonance at the desired frequency, even in a cave (suitably equipped of course) in Northern Afghanistan.

So yes, I don't think you should use my initials in the title of this thread, unless you want to call attention to the fact that I seem to know what I'm talking about and many of the QEG people.... just don't.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: ACG on May 12, 2014, 08:37:03 AM
Page 1 of N
Dibs on N passing 100 in 6 months time.

Correction:  Title 1 of N

Currently 3 of N
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 12, 2014, 07:48:47 PM
The charge field can be either right-handed or left-handed, or neutral as highlighted in the snapshot below, and as found in the below referenced publication.  What hand will the charge field acquire with a left-handed metamaterial (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CF0QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scirp.org%2Fjournal%2FPaperDownload.aspx%3FDOI%3D10.4236%2Fjemaa.2013.54026&ei=TXEkUrTQD-u1sATX7oDIDg&usg=AFQjCNGQOVa7lYDlclvQQxSf_40mRs9VKQ&bvm=bv.51495398,d.cWc) (LHM), such as the Arlon Diclad 880 (http://www.standardpc.com/pdf/microwave-laminates-composition-chart.pdf)?  In other words, will the LHM emit photons upside-up or upside-down?

Reference:  Three Problems Solved Mechanically: PARTIAL REFLECTION BY GLASS; THE RIGHT-HAND RULE; AND FEYNMAN'S SHRINK-AND-TURN METHOD (http://milesmathis.com/feyn3.html)

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 14, 2014, 05:34:55 PM
the Electrical Charge (http://milesmathis.com/charge.html)

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 14, 2014, 06:03:05 PM
Maxwell's Equations are also Unified Field Equations (http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf)

This one reversal, as described in the snapshot below and as found in the above publication, explains most of the confusion that still exists.

Go to part 2 of Maxwell's lines of force (http://milesmathis.com/disp2.pdf), where it shows how Maxwell's vortices fail, how to correct them, and how to calculate the charge field straight from the Electrical Field.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 14, 2014, 06:46:18 PM
How the Elements are Built:  A mechanical explanation of the Periodic Table, including an explanation of Technetium (http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf).

Summary:  See snapshot below, of the above publication.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 14, 2014, 07:55:08 PM
The Extinction of Pi (http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html)

On a slightly related note, Vi shows how Pi is misused (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG7vhMMXagQ) (video).

Summary:  See snapshot below, of the above publication.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 15, 2014, 04:01:24 AM
EVO's and the Charge Field (http://milesmathis.com/evo.pdf)

What's an Evo (http://www.svn.net/krscfs/What%27s%20an%20EVO.pdf), by Ken Shoulders

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 15, 2014, 07:32:34 AM
The Extinction of Pi (http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html)

On a slightly related note, Vi shows how Pi is misused (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG7vhMMXagQ) (video).

Summary:  See snapshot below, of the above publication.

Gravock
Any fourth grader with a compass, a thread, a tack, and a ruler can show that the ratio of circumference to diameter otherwise known as Pi is a lot closer to 22/7 than it is to 28/7.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 15, 2014, 05:41:14 PM
Any fourth grader with a compass, a thread, a tack, and a ruler can show that the ratio of circumference to diameter otherwise known as Pi is a lot closer to 22/7 than it is to 28/7.

Yes, the above quote is true for static or abstract circles, but it is not true for orbits or real circles with motion and includes a time variable.  The arc of a cycloid is 8r, which pi is also replaced by 4, just as in the Manahattan metric.  In orbits and circles drawn out over time, you can't compare a velocity (the diameter) to an acceleration (the circumference) because you need more information.  Oddities such as this, which misses it by 27%,  is one of the many reasons why things don't work out in the real world like they do on paper.  Read and understand the article, then comment.  Condemnation before investigation is folly, which is the mentality of a fourth grader!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 17, 2014, 01:35:47 PM
Any fourth grader with a compass, a thread, a tack, and a ruler can show that the ratio of circumference to diameter otherwise known as Pi is a lot closer to 22/7 than it is to 28/7.
This is going to be fun!

I have analyzed Mathis' papers regarding the issue of π=4 in kinematic situations and could not find an error in it.
π still equals to 3.14... in static geometry done by 4th graders, that does not involve motion

These two situations are clearly different and should not be conflated.

Take a look at the kinematic scenario depicted in the attached AVR1.pdf (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/)
Which answer do you think is correct?: Diag.3 or Diag.4 or Diag.5

@Gravityblock
Mathis appears to be a great free thinker.
I think what MarkE is trying to demonstrate is that if Mathis is wrong about such basic issue as Π then he cannot be trusted with his other conclusions (such as his B-Photons of the charge field, evanescent waves, nuclear structure, etc...).
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 17, 2014, 01:54:34 PM
Yes, the above quote is true for static or abstract circles, but it is not true for orbits or real circles with motion and includes a time variable.  The arc of a cycloid is 8r, which pi is also replaced by 4, just as in the Manahattan metric.  In orbits and circles drawn out over time, you can't compare a velocity (the diameter) to an acceleration (the circumference) because you need more information.  Oddities such as this, which misses it by 27%,  is one of the many reasons why things don't work out in the real world like they do on paper.  Read and understand the article, then comment.  Condemnation before investigation is folly, which is the mentality of a fourth grader!

Gravock
Pi staunchly refuses to change even for very small or very large values of pi.  Using the wrong named constant in a problem and then declaring that the named constant's value has changed because that constant's value does not fit the problem belies a misunderstanding of what the word "constant" means.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 17, 2014, 02:39:47 PM
Using the wrong named constant in a problem and then declaring that the named constant's value has changed because that constant's value does not fit the problem belies a misunderstanding of what the word "constant" means.
Are you saying that uniform circular motion is a worse measure of a circle than a piece of string?

What is your name for the following ratio?:
tC / tD

Where:
tC = Time period of one revolution in uniform circular motion.
tD = Time period necessary to travel the diameter by a constant velocity equal in magnitude to the tangent velocity of the uniform circular motion.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 17, 2014, 03:29:19 PM
Are you saying that uniform circular motion is a worse measure of a circle than a piece of string?

What is the name of the following ratio in your book?:
tC / tD

Where:
tC = Period of one revolution in uniform circular motion.
tD = Period necessary to travel the diameter by a constant velocity equal in magnitude to the tangent velocity of the uniform circular motion.
Pi is a symbol for the ratio of circumference to diameter of a perfect circle.  That ratio is a constant value.  If a ratio between two quantities is a different value then one or both are not proportional to the circumference and diameter of the same perfect circle.

If one travels at a constant speed then the time taken to follow one path versus another is the ratio of the lengths of the paths.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 17, 2014, 04:13:11 PM
Pi is a symbol for the ratio of circumference to diameter of a perfect circle.
...but what is a perfect circle?  Is it formed non-physically / abstractly on paper, or physically by inertia of a moving mass and some quasi-centripetal force?
These two circles are not equivalent. ...but both have circumferences and diameters that are measured differently and analyzed differently by math since the former does not contain a time variable and the latter does.

If one travels at a constant speed then the time taken to follow one path versus another is the ratio of the lengths of the paths.
Agreed.  But when you measure the circumference of a perfect circle with constant tangential velocity of a moving mass and its diameter with the constant velocity of equal magnitude then you are dealing with a physical circle and the two lengths of these two different physical paths obtained by this method, refer to that physical circle  ...and the ratio of these two lengths is 4.

When you measure a non-physical circle (e.g. abstract circle on paper) then the ratio of its circumference to diameter is 3.1415...
If you limit your definition of Π as the ratio of circumference to diameter in abstract circles only, then you are only correct.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 17, 2014, 05:02:50 PM
...but what is a perfect circle?  Is it formed non-physically / abstractly on paper, or physically by inertia of a moving mass and some quasi-centripetal force?
These two circles are not equivalent. ...but both have circumferences and diameters that are measured differently and analyzed differently by math since the former does not contain a time variable and the latter does.
A circle is a well defined geometric shape.  You appear to be diving deeper and deeper into Sophistry.
Quote

Agreed.  But when you measure the circumference of a perfect circle with constant tangential velocity of a moving mass and its diameter with the constant velocity of equal magnitude then you are dealing with a physical circle and the two lengths of these two different physical paths obtained by this method, refer to that physical circle  ...and the ratio of these two lengths is 4.
The very fact that the ratio value that you obtain does not correspond to the defined ratio of the length of a circle's circumference to its diameter tells you that by definition what you are measuring is not the ratio of the length of some circle's circumference to its diameter.
Quote

When you measure a non-physical circle (e.g. abstract circle on paper) then the ratio of its circumference to diameter is 3.1415...
If you limit your definition of Π as the ratio of circumference to diameter in abstract circles only, then you are only correct.
You will find Pi defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter everywhere from Wolfram-Alpha to Mirriam-Webster.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 17, 2014, 06:45:22 PM
A circle is a well defined geometric shape.
It is - in abstract geometry devoid of time.

You appear to be diving deeper and deeper into Sophistry.
Instead of writing that borderline Ad Hominem remark your time would be better spent proving that abstract timeless circles are equivalent to physical circles.

The very fact that the ratio value that you obtain does not correspond to the defined ratio of the length of a circle's circumference to its diameter tells you that by definition what you are measuring is not the ratio of the length of some circle's circumference to its diameter.
Not necessarily. This discrepancy can also be an indication that physical circles are not the same as non-physical circles.

You will find Pi defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter everywhere from Wolfram-Alpha to Mirriam-Webster.
Abstract geometric circles - yes.  Not physical ones.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 17, 2014, 07:48:11 PM
It is - in abstract geometry devoid of time.
Instead of writing that borderline Ad Hominem remark your time would be better spent proving that abstract timeless circles are equivalent to physical circles.
Not necessarily. This discrepancy can also be an indication that physical circles and non-physical circles are not the same.
Abstract geometric circles - yes.  Not physical ones.
Begin with the definition:  Pi is the ratio of a given circle's circumference to its diameter.
Take the ratio that you propose represents the ratio of a given circle's circumference to that circle's diameter of your proposed "circle".
Compare that ratio to a numerical evaluation of Pi to a precision commensurate to the accuracy you have obtained your test ratio.

You state that your comparison fails on a gross level:  by over 20%.  Ergo your interpretation of your "circle's" dimensions fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles.  You are free to set about trying to prove all that: your "circle" that according to your evaluation grossly fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles is really a circle, and your measurement of the circumference is correct, and your measurement of the diameter is correct.  Good luck with all that.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 17, 2014, 10:17:15 PM
Begin with the definition:  Pi is the ratio of a given circle's circumference to its diameter.
I agree with that definition, but not all distance has to be measured by a flexible string.

Take the ratio that you propose represents the ratio of a given circle's circumference to that circle's diameter of your proposed "circle".
Yes and my proposed circle is formed as described here (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/).

You state that your comparison fails on a gross level:  by over 20%.  Ergo your interpretation of your "circle's" dimensions fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles.
That conclusion is non-sequitur.
This disparity just proves that physical circles have different properties from abstract geometric circles.
Instead of vaguely attacking my "interpretation" maybe you could point out concrete errors in my measurements of the circumference of my circle (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/).

You are free to set about trying to prove all that: your "circle" that according to your evaluation grossly fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles is really a circle, and your measurement of the circumference is correct, and your measurement of the diameter is correct.  Good luck with all that.
That's why I wrote it would be fun.
Instead of brushing it off, try to prove that my circle (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/) is not a real circle or that your abstract geometric circle and my physical circle are the same, because if they are not then you cannot expect them to have the same properties and use that disparity to prove/disprove anything.

Failure to distinguish between abstract geometric circles and physical circles led to the Explorer 1 anomaly.
"The launch of Explorer 1 in 1958, presided over by none other than Werner von Braun, provided an orbit that was more than 1/3 higher than expected. The orbit was so much larger that the rocket was at first thought to be lost. The expected signal was late, not by a few seconds, but by 12 minutes. Later that decade, Explorers 3 and 4 confirmed the anomaly, as did the three navy rockets of the Vanguard program."
Since then that 27% error was buried in a constant.

You can read more about it here (http://milesmathis.com/pi4.html) or just brush it off as an inconvenient piece of data that does not fit your preconceptions.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 18, 2014, 02:31:41 AM

Quote
Quote

Quote from: MarkE on May 17, 2014, 07:48:11 PM

Begin with the definition:  Pi is the ratio of a given circle's circumference to its diameter.

I agree with that definition, but not all distance has to be measured by a flexible string.
Straw man:  No one has stated that that "all distance has to be measured by a flexible string.
Quote

Quote from: MarkE on May 17, 2014, 07:48:11 PM

Take the ratio that you propose represents the ratio of a given circle's circumference to that circle's diameter of your proposed "circle".

Yes and my proposed circle is formed as described here.[/quote]
The proposal literally goes off the track with the statement associated with Diag. 3.  In order to establish a circular path, a continuous acceleration must be centripetal:  orthogonal to the instant velocity which directs it to the center of a circle.
Quote
Quote

Quote from: MarkE on May 17, 2014, 07:48:11 PM

You state that your comparison fails on a gross level:  by over 20%.  Ergo your interpretation of your "circle's" dimensions fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles.

That conclusion is non-sequitur.

Hardly:  Pi is defined as the ratio of the length of a circle's circumference to its diameter.  By your own account your proposed geometry fails to adhere to that ratio.
Quote

This disparity just proves that physical circles have different properties from abstract geometric circles.
You make the claim that there are "physical circles" that are somehow different than "abstract geometric circles" without first establishing that these so called "physical circles" meet the criteria for any circle.  You then by your own account show that these "physical circles" fail to satisfy a basic property of circles:  that the circumference and the diameter satisfy an established ratio.
Quote

Instead of vaguely attacking my "interpretation" maybe you could point out concrete errors in my measurements of the circumference of my circle.
Does your "circle" satisfy the relation that all points on the circumference are equidistant from the center?  Does it satisfy the relation that the circumference is a closed path?  That is for you to show.  The fact that you state that the ratio of the length of the circumference and the diameter doesn't satisfy the established ratio for such an object strongly suggests that the points on your circumference are not all equidistant from the center.
Quote
Quote

Quote from: MarkE on May 17, 2014, 07:48:11 PM

You are free to set about trying to prove all that: your "circle" that according to your evaluation grossly fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles is really a circle, and your measurement of the circumference is correct, and your measurement of the diameter is correct.  Good luck with all that.

That's why I wrote it would be fun.
Then have at it.  It is up to you.
Quote

Instead of brushing it off, try to prove that my circle is not a real circle or that your abstract geometric circle and my physical circle are the same, because if they are not then you cannot expect them to have the same properties and use that disparity to prove/disprove anything.
You make the extraordinary claim of the existence of some "physical circle" that is a circle yet fails to satisfy a basic property of circles.  You can prove your outlandish claim or not.
Quote

Failure to distinguish between abstract geometric circles and physical circles led to the Explorer 1 anomaly.
"The launch of Explorer 1 in 1958, presided over by none other than Werner von Braun, provided an orbit that was more than 1/3 higher than expected. The orbit was so much larger that the rocket was at first thought to be lost. The expected signal was late, not by a few seconds, but by 12 minutes. Later that decade, Explorers 3 and 4 confirmed the anomaly, as did the three navy rockets of the Vanguard program."
Quote
Since then that 27% error was buried in a constant.
That is an assertion of yours that whether or not it is correct, you have done nothing to connect it to your claim of these "physical circles".
Quote

You can read more about it here or just brush it off as an inconvenient piece of data that does not fit your preconceptions.
An unexpected orbit means that the path taken did not match the path expected based on the presumed forces.  The author of your citation admits in that citation that he merely assumes that NASA took up his odd idea.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 18, 2014, 05:32:55 AM

Failure to distinguish between abstract geometric circles and physical circles led to the Explorer 1 anomaly.
"The launch of Explorer 1 in 1958, presided over by none other than Werner von Braun, provided an orbit that was more than 1/3 higher than expected. The orbit was so much larger that the rocket was at first thought to be lost. The expected signal was late, not by a few seconds, but by 12 minutes. Later that decade, Explorers 3 and 4 confirmed the anomaly, as did the three navy rockets of the Vanguard program."

If you read about Von Braun, and claim to know anything about orbital mechanics, you would know that a higher orbit is caused by a higher velocity.  This is basic orbital mechanics 101.  So, all that happened was that the vehicle that carried Explorer 1 went a bit faster than required.  They engineered in a fudge factor to ensure that it made orbit.  Orbital velocity is 17,500 mph and if you were in charge of that mission, you too would have added a bit more juice to make sure it exceeded that velocity.  If you erred on the slower side, no orbit would have been achieved.  The higher the orbit, the faster the vehicle needs to go.

Read some books on the first rendezvous and the math required to pull that off.  The craft at the lower orbit had to speed up to meet the other craft even though the other craft was behind it.  You had to slow down to speed up and/or speed up to slow down.

Bill
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 18, 2014, 02:14:03 PM

Straw man:  No one has stated that that "all distance has to be measured by a flexible string.

Placing a square around the circle and using the perimeter of the square as a base to measure the distance instead of a flexible string gives Pi = 4.  A perimeter is defined as the length of an enclosing curve.  Also, a perfect circle will be inscribed within, by rotating the surrounding square 1/4.  This example is known as Taxicab geometry or rectilinear distance.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 18, 2014, 04:30:48 PM
If you read about Von Braun, and claim to know anything about orbital mechanics, you would know that a higher orbit is caused by a higher velocity.  This is basic orbital mechanics 101.  So, all that happened was that the vehicle that carried Explorer 1 went a bit faster than required.  They engineered in a fudge factor to ensure that it made orbit.  Orbital velocity is 17,500 mph and if you were in charge of that mission, you too would have added a bit more juice to make sure it exceeded that velocity.  If you erred on the slower side, no orbit would have been achieved.  The higher the orbit, the faster the vehicle needs to go.

Read some books on the first rendezvous and the math required to pull that off.  The craft at the lower orbit had to speed up to meet the other craft even though the other craft was behind it.  You had to slow down to speed up and/or speed up to slow down.

Bill
Nope. Higher orbits require _less_ velocity than lower orbits. To orbit lower, you must speed up, not slow down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 18, 2014, 04:33:09 PM
Placing a square around the circle and using the perimeter of the square as a base to measure the distance instead of a flexible string gives Pi = 4.  A perimeter is defined as the length of an enclosing curve.  Also, a perfect circle will be inscribed within, by rotating the surrounding square 1/4.  This example is known as Taxicab geometry or rectilinear distance.

Gravock
It's known as "taxicab geometry" because taxis are confined to streets, usually, and can only travel rectilinearly. Also, it's a guess but probably true that many taxicab drivers have not been exposed to two years of calculus study and problem solving in institutes of higher education.
This does NOT mean that "pi=4", since pi is not defined that way in the first place, and I think you are just being silly.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 18, 2014, 05:03:00 PM
Placing a square around the circle and using the perimeter of the square as a base to measure the distance instead of a flexible string gives Pi = 4.  A perimeter is defined as the length of an enclosing curve.  Also, a perfect circle will be inscribed within, by rotating the surrounding square 1/4.  This example is known as Taxicab geometry or rectilinear distance.

Gravock
Only if the work is done wrong does it come out to four.  Only at the eight points on the circumference that lie on arcs that are multiples of pi/4 radians are the the insets from the inscribed box equidistant in X and in Y.  In all other locations the distances are unequal, invalidating the premise that the perimeter length of each successive approximation remains the same as that of the original inscribed square.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 18, 2014, 05:32:12 PM
It's known as "taxicab geometry" because taxis are confined to streets, usually, and can only travel rectilinearly. Also, it's a guess but probably true that many taxicab drivers have not been exposed to two years of calculus study and problem solving in institutes of higher education.
This does NOT mean that "pi=4", since pi is not defined that way in the first place, and I think you are just being silly.

I must say, your post is not a scientific argument and is totally meaningless.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 18, 2014, 07:09:04 PM
Only if the work is done wrong does it come out to four.  Only at the eight points on the circumference that lie on arcs that are multiples of pi/4 radians are the the insets from the inscribed box equidistant in X and in Y.  In all other locations the distances are unequal, invalidating the premise that the perimeter length of each successive approximation remains the same as that of the original inscribed square.

If there's an increase in X, then there will be a proportional decrease in Y which maintains the same distances and perimeter.  Also, you're trying to derive 3.14 as Pi in this example by using radians where a full circle equals 2 * 3.14 or Tau.  This is no different than me saying 2 * 4  = 8 to represent the eight points on the circumference that lie on arcs that are multiples of 4/4 or 1.

There's a reason why the taxicab geometry correctly represents the true value of Pi being four in a real circle with a time variable.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 18, 2014, 07:26:12 PM
I must say, your post is not a scientific argument and is totally meaningless.

Gravock

Oh, really?

Let's consider my post carefully.
Quote
It's known as "taxicab geometry" because taxis are confined to streets, usually, and can only travel rectilinearly.
True, or not true? Do you dispute this statement of mine? Please provide evidence for your disputation, since you are concerned with "scientific arguments" and "meanings".
Quote
Also, it's a guess but probably true that many taxicab drivers have not been exposed to two years of calculus study and problem solving in institutes of higher education.
True, or not true? Do you dispute this statement of mine? Please provide evidence for your disputation, since you are concerned with "scientific arguments" and "meanings".
Quote
This does NOT mean that "pi=4", since pi is not defined that way in the first place
True, or not true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
http://www.math.com/tables/constants/pi.htm
http://www.icoachmath.com/math_dictionary/pi.html
Do you dispute this statement of mine? Please provide evidence for your disputation, since you are concerned with "scientific arguments" and "meanings".
Quote
... and I think you are just being silly.

Definitely true. Do you deny that you are being silly? Then please provide some credible references that support your viewpoint and your claim that pi=4. Also, you could use your value for pi in some dimensional calculations, like area or volumes of cylinders or spheres, and see if you come up with the correct answers. Please show your workings, since you are interested in providing scientific arguments.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 18, 2014, 07:56:22 PM
It's known as "taxicab geometry" because taxis are confined to streets, usually, and can only travel rectilinearly.

How taxis are confined to streets is not a scientific argument against Pi = 4 in circles with a time variable.

Also, it's a guess but probably true that many taxicab drivers have not been exposed to two years of calculus study and problem solving in institutes of higher education.

The level of education of many taxicab drivers is totally off-topic and is not a scientific argument against the "taxicab geometry".

This does NOT mean that "pi=4", since pi is not defined that way in the first place, and I think you are just being silly.

It has already been established that Pi = 3.14... for abstract geometry circles with no time variable.  However, what you fail to realize, is Pi = 4 for real circles with time variables.  Also, you asserting I am being silly isn't a scientific argument either, and is nothing more than a psychological projection.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 18, 2014, 08:00:20 PM
How taxis are confined to streets is not a scientific argument against Pi = 4 in circles with a time variable.

The level of education of many taxicab drivers is totally off-topic and is not a scientific argument against the "taxicab geometry".

It has already been established that Pi = 3.14... for abstract geometry circles with no time variable.  However, what you fail to realize, is Pi = 4 for real circles with time variables.  Also, you asserting I am being silly isn't a scientific argument either, and is nothing more than a psychological projection.

Gravock
Let's try it with a "time variable" then. Draw a big circle and a square around it. You walk around the square and I'll walk around the circle, at the same speed. Who will walk completely around, first?

(And I note that you did not provide a single credible reference or support for your position. Nor did you provide an example of problem-solving using your value.)
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 18, 2014, 08:27:08 PM
Let's try it with a "time variable" then. Draw a big circle and a square around it. You walk around the square and I'll walk around the circle, at the same speed. Who will walk completely around, first?

(And I note that you did not provide a single credible reference or support for your position. Nor did you provide an example of problem-solving using your value.)

You conveniently left out the first four steps.  We'll start walking at the same speed in the fifth tile or the fifth step in the illustration below, and we'll finish at the same time.

In addition to this, references and support for my position has been provided.  Your disagreement with those references doesn't make them not credible!  You have only asserted those references aren't credible without providing one scientific argument against any of those references posted in this thread.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 18, 2014, 08:35:26 PM
If there's an increase in X, then there will be a proportional decrease in Y which maintains the same distances and perimeter.  Also, you're trying to derive 3.14 as Pi in this example by using radians where a full circle equals 2 * 3.14 or Tau.  This is no different than me saying 2 * 4  = 8 to represent the eight points on the circumference that lie on arcs that are multiples of 4/4 or 1.

There's a reason why the taxicab geometry correctly represents the true value of Pi being four in a real circle with a time variable.

Gravock
For any finite path approximation by turning the corners instead of traveling from vertex to vertex that are closest to the circumference you artificially increase your travel distance.  For every approach towards the circumference you make a matching turn away from it.  If you make enough and small enough squares subtracting the area they consume from the inset square will give you an approximation of the circle's area.  The more and smaller squares you use, the better the area approximation.  Because you keep turning away from the circumference your estimate of the perimeter length never improves.  If the method took the diagonal paths then the path approximation would improve with more and smaller squares and eventually approach Pi*D.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 18, 2014, 08:38:01 PM
You conveniently left out the first four steps.  We'll start walking at the same speed in the fifth tile or the fifth step in the illustration below, and we'll finish at the same time.

In addition to this, I have provided references and support for my position.  Your disagreement with those references doesn't make them not credible!

Gravock
TinselKoala wins every time following the circular path.  You keep turning away from the perimeter and have to go back over and over again increasing your travel distance to 4/Pi Tinsel Koala's.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 18, 2014, 08:46:27 PM
For any finite path approximation by turning the corners instead of traveling from vertex to vertex that are closest to the circumference you artificially increase your travel distance.  For every approach towards the circumference you make a matching turn away from it.  If you make enough and small enough squares subtracting the area they consume from the inset square will give you an approximation of the circle's area.  The more and smaller squares you use, the better the area approximation.  Because you keep turning away from the circumference your estimate of the perimeter length never improves.  If the method took the diagonal paths then the path approximation would improve with more and smaller squares and eventually approach Pi*D.

TinselKoala wins every time following the circular path.  You keep turning away from the perimeter and have to go back over and over again increasing your travel distance to 4/Pi Tinsel Koala's.

TK does not win, for the square will be as uniform as the circle itself at the planck length.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 18, 2014, 09:25:13 PM
TK does not win, for the square will be as uniform as the circle itself at the planck length.

Gravock
No, making the diversionary steps forced by the squares method you have specified smaller increases the number of diversionary steps.  By your own assertion, the length of such a path remains stuck at 4*D.  The path length of the circumference is Pi*D which has been approximated to eight digits as 3.1415953.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 18, 2014, 09:41:27 PM
No, making the diversionary steps forced by the squares method you have specified smaller increases the number of diversionary steps.  By your own assertion, the length of such a path remains stuck at 4*D.  The path length of the circumference is Pi*D which has been approximated to eight digits as 3.1415953.

No, because a real circle with a time variable will have a path length which is also stuck at 4*D at the planck scale as it traverses through space-time in a zig-zag or rectilinear motion.  The path length of the circumference is 4*D with no approximation.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 18, 2014, 09:53:58 PM
No, because a real circle with a time variable will have a path length which is also stuck at 4*D at the planck scale due to traversing through space-time in a zig-zag or rectilinear motion.  The path length of the circumference is 4*D with no approximation.

Gravock
If you want to keep ignoring reality, you are free to do so.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 18, 2014, 09:59:05 PM
If you want to keep ignoring reality, you are free to do so.

Again, your post is not a scientific argument.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Farmhand on May 18, 2014, 10:08:43 PM
You conveniently left out the first four steps.  We'll start walking at the same speed in the fifth tile or the fifth step in the illustration below, and we'll finish at the same time.

In addition to this, references and support for my position has been provided.  Your disagreement with those references doesn't make them not credible!  You have only asserted those references aren't credible without providing one scientific argument against any of those references posted in this thread.

Gravock

Tile 5 or step 5 is impossible to achieve.  ???

.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 18, 2014, 10:14:35 PM
Tile 5 or step 5 is impossible to achieve.  ???

.

This is possible to achieve.  Step 5 only needs to be repeated down to the planck length and not repeated to infinity as the illustration says.  Step 5 should say, "repeat to the planck length".

Gravock.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 18, 2014, 10:15:54 PM
Again, your post is not a scientific argument.

Gravock
LOL, I've covered why the squares method taken to its limit converges on the area but not the circumference.  And your scientific counterargument was?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 18, 2014, 10:38:23 PM
LOL, I've covered why the squares method taken to its limit converges on the area but not the circumference.  And your scientific counterargument was?

Look up Planck's constant - matter/energy is quantized. A circle is theoretical, there's no perfect circle in nature anywhere.  A real circle with a time variable is quantized at the planck scale with a zig-zag or rectilinear circumference, just as you find with the square in the squares method.  This is how there is a convergence on the rectilinear circumference at the planck scale.

Edit:  Also, in step two of the squaring method, we can see there are four points of the square which converge on the rectilinear circumference of the circle.  In each successive step of the squaring method, more and more points converge exponentially.  At the planck scale, all points will have converged on the rectilinear circumference of the circle.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 18, 2014, 11:52:03 PM
In order to establish a circular path, a continuous acceleration must be centripetal:  orthogonal to the instant velocity which directs it to the center of a circle.
I was away today and regrettably I could not participate in the ongoing discussion about circular motion.

I just saw the statement above made by MarkE and I disagree with him that a centripetal force directed at the center of the circle depicted in Diag.4 (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/) will result in circular path without violating Newton's 1st law.
This is because an orthogonal force & acceleration cannot change any velocity component that is perpendicular to it.

This problem is germane to the discussion about Pi in kinematic circles and I invite everyone to discuss it before we return to the Pi issue.

I remind everyone that Newton 1st law pertains to the innate vector of motion as well to any components of that motion.
Please study the diagram attached below *

And let's keep the discussion civil and scientific.  It is OK to call attention to a Straw Man when one sees it but please do not immediately assume that it is constructed maliciously.  It can be a result of misunderstanding.
Since not everyone reading this discussion might be familiar with the names of these debating fallacies please link them to their definitions at RationalWiki.org (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man)

P.S.
@TinselKoala
You might find this (http://milesmathis.com/manh.pdf) paper about Taxicab geometry enjoyable.

@TinselKoala, @MileHigh, @Farmhand
I guarantee that the problem of circular motion illustrated here (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/) will bring you many minutes (or hours) of intellectual enjoyment even if you are a practical guy that prefers knobs and molten solder.  I welcome you to disagree with me since you make a good opponent.

Please begin by stating whether in your opinion Diag.3 or Diag.4 or Diag.5 (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/) correctly depicts reality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legend to the diagram below ( its hi-res version is here (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138598/) ) :
VT(t0): Tangential velocity at time t0.
V(t1) : Velocity at the time t1 that is parallel to the tangential velocity at the previous time (t0).
V(t1) : Velocity that is perpendicular to the velocity V(t1) at the time t1.

Example statements:
│VT(t0)│= │VT(t1)│= │VT(t2)│= etc... : A statement meaning that the magnitude of all tangential velocities is equal in all times t0, t1, t2, etc...
V(t1) ║ VT(t0): A statement meaning that velocity V(t1) is parallel to velocity VT(t0).
V(t1) < VT(t0): A statement meaning that the velocity V(t1) is smaller than the velocity VT(t0).
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 05:25:54 AM
Look up Planck's constant - matter/energy is quantized. A circle is theoretical, there's no perfect circle in nature anywhere.  A real circle with a time variable is quantized at the planck scale with a zig-zag or rectilinear circumference, just as you find with the square in the squares method.  This is how there is a convergence on the rectilinear circumference at the planck scale.

Edit:  Also, in step two of the squaring method, we can see there are four points of the square which converge on the rectilinear circumference of the circle.  In each successive step of the squaring method, more and more points converge exponentially.  At the planck scale, all points will have converged on the rectilinear circumference of the circle.

Gravock
Look up limits.  Each one of your jaunts along two edges of the approximating squares travels along one segment towards the perimeter and one away from it.    Dividing into a larger quantity of smaller squares does not change the path length.  It does not make the path a better approximation of the circumference. Y * X/X is still Y even for very large and very small values of X.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 05:28:14 AM
I was away today and regrettably I could not participate in the ongoing discussion about circular motion.

I just saw the statement above made by MarkE and I disagree with him that a centripetal force directed at the center of the circle depicted in Diag.4 (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/) will result in circular path without violating Newton's 1st law.
This is because an orthogonal force & acceleration cannot change any velocity component that is perpendicular to it.
Wrong and wrong.  This is basic calculus and physics.
Quote

This problem is germane to the discussion about Pi in kinematic circles and I invite everyone to discuss it before we return to the Pi issue.

I remind everyone that Newton 1st law pertains to the innate vector of motion as well to any components of that motion.
Please study the diagram attached below *

And let's keep the discussion civil and scientific.  It is OK to call attention to a Straw Man when one sees it but please do not immediately assume that it is constructed maliciously.  It can be a result of misunderstanding.
Since not everyone reading this discussion might be familiar with the names of these debating fallacies please link them to their definitions at RationalWiki.org (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man)

P.S.
@TinselKoala
You might find this (http://milesmathis.com/manh.pdf) paper about Taxicab geometry enjoyable.

@TinselKoala, @MileHigh, @Farmhand
I guarantee that the problem of circular motion illustrated here (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/) will bring you many minutes (or hours) of intellectual enjoyment even if you are a practical guy that prefers knobs and molten solder.  I welcome you to disagree with me since you make a good opponent.

Please begin by stating whether in your opinion Diag.3 or Diag.4 or Diag.5 (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/) depict reality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legend to the diagram below ( its hi-res version is here (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138598/) ) :
VT(t0): Tangential velocity at time interval t0.
V(t1) : Velocity at the time interval t1 that is parallel to the tangential velocity at the previous time interval (t0).
V(t1) : Velocity that is perpendicular to the velocity V(t1) at the time interval t1.

Example statements:
│VT(t0)│= │VT(t1)│= │VT(t2)│= etc... : A statement meaning that the magnitude of all tangential velocities is equal in all time intervals t0, t1, t2, etc...
V(t1) ║ VT(t0): A statement meaning that velocity V(t1) is parallel to velocity VT(t0).
V(t1) < VT(t0): A statement meaning that the velocity V(t1) is smaller than the velocity VT(t0).
Invented math and physics yield nonsense answers.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 19, 2014, 08:19:59 AM
Each one of your jaunts along two edges of the approximating squares travels along one segment towards the perimeter and one away from it.    Dividing into a larger quantity of smaller squares does not change the path length.
That was Gravityblock's whole point.  The path length does not change with finer subdivision - only area does.
You were supposed to be a good opponent and refute his observation that real physical circles have the same circumference as physical squares - not agree with Gravityblock.

BTW:  A real physical circle must be defined by some real physical process, not an abstract one.

You still have not replied directly which diagram (Diag.3 or Diag.4 or Diag.5 (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/dlattach/attach/138597/)) correctly depicts reality in this physical process, in your opinion.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 19, 2014, 08:42:42 AM
Wrong and wrong.  This is basic calculus and physics.Invented math and physics yield nonsense answers.
Refute my statements rigorously.  Show me the error in logic or math.
An argument by assertion (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion) is not the way to do it.

First of all:  How can V(t1) be smaller than the tangential velocity VT(t0) if the force acting on it was always perpendicular between t0 and t1 ?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 08:44:13 AM
Quote
Quote
Wrong and wrong.  This is basic calculus and physics.Invented math and physics yield nonsense answers.

Refute my statements rigorously.  Show me the error in logic or math.
An argument by assertion is not the way to do it.

First of all:  How can V║(t1) be smaller than the tangential velocity VT(t0) if the force acting on it was always perpendicular between t0 and t1 ?

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node6.html
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 19, 2014, 09:02:35 AM
Refute my statements rigorously.  Show me the error in logic or math.
An argument by assertion (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion) is not the way to do it.

First of all:  How can V║(t1) be smaller than the tangential velocity VT(t0) if the force acting on it was always perpendicular between t0 and t1 ?
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node6.html (http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node6.html)
That theory page does not show rigorously that when "the direction of the centripetal acceleration is inwards along the radius vector"  then circular motion is produced - it just asserts it, like you.

The question how can V(t1) be smaller than the tangential velocity VT(t0) if the force acting on it was always perpendicular between t0 and t1, still stands unanswered.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 10:11:29 AM
That was Gravityblock's whole point.  The path length does not change with finer subdivision - only area does.
You were supposed to be a good opponent and refute his observation that real physical circles have the same circumference as physical squares - not agree with Gravityblock.

BTW:  A real physical circle must be defined by some real physical process, not an abstract one.
LOL, you can enjoy yourself misstating what I have said if that pleases you.

Gravityblock's method does not reproduce the path of travel along the circumference.  The path that his method generates constantly approaches and then turns away from the circumference.  With enough and small enough square elements, his method can accurately approximate the circle's area and outline using the vertices that touch or approach the circumference.  As his method constantly turns away from the circumference it never improves its approximation of the circumference's path.  It doesn't matter how small or how many elements he uses.

The shortest path between two points is only orthogonal line segments when one of those segments is zero length.  The distance following a Manhattan route between vertices on the circumference is therefore always greater than the straight line distance between the same vertices.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 10:19:35 AM
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node6.html (http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node6.html)

That theory page does not show rigorously that when "the direction of the centripetal acceleration is inwards along the radius vector"  then circular motion is produced - it just asserts it, like you.

The question how can V(t1) be smaller than the tangential velocity VT(t0) if the force acting on it was always perpendicular between t0 and t1, still stands unanswered.
http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 19, 2014, 10:55:31 AM
LOL, you can enjoy yourself misstating what I have said if that pleases you.
It does not please me to misstate you, but drawing conclusions from your statements and synthesizing a larger statement from several of your statements is not a misstatement. It is an acceptable way of conducting conversation.  If I make an error along the way I expect you to point it out.

Gravityblock's method does not reproduce the path of travel along the circumference.  ...

The shortest path between two points is only orthogonal line segments when one of those segments is zero length.  The distance following a Manhattan route between vertices on the circumference is therefore always greater than the straight line distance between the same vertices.
This is the same as stating that at the limit the chord approaches the curve/arc.
BTW: Note that this is a condensation and interpretation of your words and your animation - a valid debating technique, not a misstatement.

And you would be correct if all of the points on the curve/circle had the same time coordinates - like in an abstract geometric circle.
But neither Gravityblock not I are analyzing abstract circles.  We are analyzing real circles made by real physical processes where the points on the circle do not have the same temporal coordinates.
In such real circles, the chord does not approach the curve and this very issue is the subject of this paper (http://milesmathis.com/lemma.html).

You are welcome to prove your assertion that at the limit the chord approaches the curve/arcs created by real physical processes.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 11:11:44 AM
It does not please me to misstate you, but drawing conclusions from your statements and synthesizing a larger statement from several of your statements is not a misstatement. It is an acceptable way of conducting conversation.  If I make an error along the way I expect you to point it out.
LOL, no that's called making things up.  If you can't win the point, just build a man of straw to slay.
Quote

This is the same as stating that at the limit the chord approaches the curve/arc.
BTW: Note that this is a condensation and interpretation of your words and your animation - a valid debating technique, not a misstatement.

And you would be correct if all of the points on the curve/circle had the same time coordinates - like in an abstract geometric circle.
Plane geometry does not involve time.
Quote

But neither Gravityblock not I are analyzing abstract circles.  We are analyzing real circles made by real physical processes where the points on the circle do not have the same temporal coordinates.
Here we go:  A special pleading to "circles" that are not "circles" except when you two want them to be circles.  Yet they fail tests for basic properties of circles.
Quote
In such real circles, the chord does not approach the curve and this very issue is the subject of this paper (http://milesmathis.com/lemma.html).
Neither you nor Gravityblock have established that your special "circles" are in fact circles.
Quote

You are welcome to prove your assertion that at the limit the chord approaches the curve/arcs created by real physical processes.
LOL, now you don't believe first semester calculus.  You are free at any time to as you say use actual facts to argue your specious and silly case.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 19, 2014, 12:58:20 PM
Plane geometry does not involve time.
But we are not discussing abstract timeless plane geometry.  You are assertions about Pi are correct in abstract time geometry.
We are not discussing abstract geometry, we are discussing real physical problems from the start.

http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml (http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml)
This link you posted refers to an article describing a physical circle, created by real forces acting on a real mass.  There is no avoiding the time variables in this one.

That article states:
"Note that in both cases, Δv points to the center of the circle reflecting that the acceleration is also directed towards the center of the circle"
..but it is just an empty assertion.

That article does not prove that the acceleration vector and force that causes the circle lays on a line that passes through the center of the circle.
That article correctly subtracts two tangent velocity vectors.  On my diagram that is VT(t0) - VT(t1) but it fails to prove that the result of this subtraction lays on a line that passes through the center of the circle.
What proof did you or that article give that the acceleration/force vector lays on such line?  What proof did you or that article give that the acceleration/force vectors do not lay on the dashed lines depicted on the diagram below that does not pass through the center ?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 19, 2014, 01:09:30 PM
Each one of your jaunts along two edges of the approximating squares travels along one segment towards the perimeter and one away from it.  Dividing into a larger quantity of smaller squares does not change the path length.  It does not make the path a better approximation of the circumference.

MarkE,

The plot of a convergent sequence {an} is shown in blue in the illustration below. Visually we can see the sequence is converging to the limit 0 as n increases.  Similarly, we can visually see the exponentially larger quantity of smaller squares in each successive squaring method is converging while the path length does not change.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 01:14:59 PM
But we are not discussing abstract timeless plane geometry.  You are assertions about Pi are correct in abstract time geometry.
Circles are basic constructs of plane geometry.  [/quote]
We are not discussing abstract geometry, we are discussing real physical problems from the start.  [/quote]Citing the rantings of internet cranks as reference "papers" hardly seems like a discussion of anything real.
Quote

This link you posted refers to an article describing a physical circle, created by real forces acting on a real mass.  There is no avoiding the time variables in this one.
Here we go back to your special pleadings of "abstract" and "physical" circles.  Until such time as you can actually delineate what it is that makes a circle:  "physical", distinct from textbook circles, and still qualifies them as circles, you might as well say "brominsmores".
Quote

That article states:
"Note that in both cases, Δv points to the center of the circle reflecting that the acceleration is also directed towards the center of the circle"
..but it is just an empty assertion.
That article does not prove that the acceleration vector and force that causes the circle lays on a line that passes through the center of the circle.
So you assert.  Read it again.
Quote
That article correctly subtracts two tangent velocity vectors.  On my diagram that is VT(t0) - VT(t1) but it fails to prove that the result of this subtraction lays on a line that passes through the center of the circle.
What proof did you or that article give that the acceleration/force vector lays on such line?  What proof did you or that article give that the acceleration/force vectors do not lay on the dashed lines depicted on the diagram below that does not pass through the center ?
Let's see your vector math that can actually hold an object on a circular path while the accelerating force does not point radially through the center of that circle.  Be sure that whatever "circle" you use satisfies the requirements: a closed path where all points on the circumference are equidistant from the center.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 19, 2014, 01:20:21 PM
Here we go:  A special pleading to "circles" that are not "circles" except when you two want them to be circles.
...
Neither you nor Gravityblock have established that your special "circles" are in fact circles
I was clear from the first post about the difference between abstract circles and physical circles.
Are you claiming that the circle in that article you quoted (http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml) is not a circle?

Yet they fail tests for basic properties of circles.
They don't.
Your argument that Pi=3.14 defines a circle instead of the circle defining the Pi is putting the cart before the horse and it is a fallacy.  But I thank you for sensitizing me to this line of argument reversal.  I will be ready for it with other opponents.

Until such time as you can actually delineate what it is that makes a circle:  "physical", distinct from textbook circles, and still qualifies them as circles, you might as well say "brominsmores".
A circle is a set of equidistant points on a spatial plane from the center of the circle.  The difference between an abstract and physical circle is whether these points have time coordinates or not.  Physical circles do and those coordinates are not the same.  Time is hard to diagram and most likely that's why you are confused about the distinction.

Citing the rantings of internet cranks as reference "papers" hardly seems like a discussion of anything real.
That paper is relevant because it discusses the approach of the chord to the arc in real physical circles at the limit.
Attack author's arguments not the author.  We are beyond burning Brunos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno) and the likes of him.

LOL, now you don't believe first semester calculus.
Actually I don't thing that's applicable in case of physical circles.

You are free at any time to as you say use actual facts to argue your specious and silly case.
Mathis proves that the chord does not approach the arc at the limit in kinematic circles quite exhaustively with rigorous arguments.  I shouldn't have to repost his paper here - a link should be sufficient.
If you are resorting to ridiculing his rigorous analysis instead of refuting his arguments, that means that you have run out of ammunition.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 01:31:42 PM
MarkE,

The plot of a convergent sequence {an} is shown in blue in the illustration below. Visually we can see the sequence is converging to the limit 0 as n increases.  Similarly, we can see the exponentially larger quantity of smaller squares in each successive squaring method is converging while the path length does not change.

Gravock
Which does absolutely nothing for getting the path traveled following orthogonal segments to better approximate the path length of the circumference.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 19, 2014, 01:43:00 PM
Which does absolutely nothing for getting the path traveled following orthogonal segments to better approximate the path length of the circumference.

The path length isn't changing as it converges, and we can visually see this, so this is the exact path length of the circumference.  The "better" approximation you speak of simply doesn't exist as you wrongly assert.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 01:44:19 PM
I was clear from the first post about the difference between abstract circles and physical circles.
Really?  What is that difference?  What qualifies a "physical circle" to be a circle and what properties may it have that are different than an "abstract circle"?
Quote

Are you claiming that the circle in that article you quoted (http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml) is not a circle?
You are off in the bushes again.
Quote

Your argument that Pi=3.14 defines a circle instead of the circle defining the Pi is putting the cart before the horse and it is a fallacy.  But I thank you for sensitizing me to this line of argument reversal.  I will be ready for it with other opponents.
Slay those men of straw.  I have stated clearly that Pi is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and the mutual claim you make with GravityLock that the ratio is numerically equal to four is patently false.
Quote

A circle is a set of equidistant points on a plane from the center of the circle.  The difference between an abstract and physical circle is whether these points have time coordinates or not.  Physical circles do and those coordinates are not the same.
"Those coordinates" are not the same as what?  A plane has two axes.  A circle is a construct of plane geometry.  Be sure that your "physical circle" conforms to those requirements.
Quote
Time is hard to diagram and most likely that's why you are confused about the distinction.
Again, a circle is a construct of plane geometry.  There are only two dimensions.  If you cannot draw it on a piece of paper then it isn't plane geometry.
Quote
The paper is relevant because it discusses the approach of the chord to the arc in real physical circles at the limit.
The paper's premise is utter and total BS.  Mathis introduces the line RBD which never appears in Lemma VI.  Lemma VI declares that as B approaches A that the angle subtended between B-A-D approaches zero.  This is visibly obvious.  As B approaches A, B rises to A and the line between B and A comes closer and closer to being parallel with the line between A and D.  Ergo in the limit the slope of the line between A and B becomes tangent to the circle, parallel to the line between A and D and the subtended angle:  B-A-D goes to zero.  Ergo the cited article is in error.
Quote
Attack author's arguments not the author.  We are beyond burning Brunos and the likes of him.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 01:45:59 PM
The path length isn't changing as it converges, and we can visually see this, so this is the exact path length of the circumference.  The "better" approximation you speak of simply doesn't exist as you wrongly assert.

Gravock
Indeed the Manhattan path length does not change.  Neither does it converge with the circumferential path length.  The outline formed by the inner square vertices converges with the circumference.  Those points are not the path.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 19, 2014, 01:57:44 PM
Indeed the Manhattan path length does not change.  Neither does it converge with the circumferential path length.  The outline formed by the inner square vertices converges with the circumference.  Those points are not the path.

Again, we can visually see in each successive squaring method the number of inner square vertices are also exponentially increasing around the circumference, and at the planck length, the inner square vertices will be at all points on the rectilinear circumference of the circle itself.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 19, 2014, 02:02:03 PM
Really?  What is that difference?  What qualifies a "physical circle" to be a circle and what properties may it have that are different than an "abstract circle"?

You are off in the bushes again.

Slay those men of straw.  I have stated clearly that Pi is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter,
That's not what I am disagreeing with.
You have also stated that if Pi so defined is not 3.14 then the circle fails to have the property of the circle that you are familiar with and because of that is not a real circle.
You also disqualified a physical circle as a circle because physical circle is not a two-dimensional figure.  These two are not Straw Men.

I asked you whether that circle in the article (http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml) you quoted qualified as a circle and if not then what is it in your opinion.   I still have not received a direct answer.

and the mutual claim you make with GravityLock that the ratio is numerically equal to four is patently false.
Prove it for kinematic circles.

"Those coordinates" are not the same as what?
"Not the same" as in "not identical".  Not the same time coordinate for each point.

A plane has two axes.  A circle is a construct of plane geometry.  Be sure that your "physical circle" conforms to those requirements.Again, a circle is a construct of plane geometry.  There are only two dimensions.  If you cannot draw it on a piece of paper then it isn't plane geometry.
In abstract geometry - yes. All of the points belonging to an abstract geometric figure exist at the same instance in time, so the time can be disregarded.
In physics time cannot be disregarded and a physical circle is not a strictly 2D object.

The paper's premise is utter and total BS.
Did you pay attention which limit is reached first?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 19, 2014, 02:09:15 PM
Indeed the Manhattan path length does not change.  Neither does it converge with the circumferential path length.  The outline formed by the inner square vertices converges with the circumference.  Those points are not the path.
That is the correct analysis for abstract timeless circles only.  It should be added that the Manhattan area converges to the area of the abstract circle, too.

@Gravityblock
MarkE is correct that the Manhattan path does not converge with the circumference of an abstract timeless circle at the limit.  In an abstract circle, the chords (or hypotenuses) converge with the circle/arc - not the catheti of the right triangles.  Please remember that when you discuss this issue with him or he will eat you alive.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 19, 2014, 02:27:37 PM
That is the correct analysis for abstract timeless circles only.  It should be added that the Manhattan area converges to the area of the abstract circle, too.

@Gravityblock
MarkE is correct that the Manhattan path does not converge with the circumference of an abstract timeless circle at the limit.  In an abstract circle, the chords (or hypotenuses) converge with the circle/arc - not the catheti of the right triangle.  Please remember that when you discuss this issue with him or he will eat you alive.

Matter doesn't move in a continuous motion, it moves in discrete jumps at the planck length.  When the squaring method reaches the planck length, the inner square vertices will be at all points on the rectilinear circumference of the circle itself, which is not continuous and is made of discrete jumps.  The Manhattan path does correctly simulate the time variable in real circles at the planck length!

Edited for better clarification.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 03:03:12 PM
Again, we can visually see in each successive squaring method the number of inner square vertices are also exponentially increasing around the circumference, and at the planck length, the inner square vertices will be at all points on the rectilinear circumference of the circle itself.

Gravock
That is both true and irrelevant.  Since we can connect the inner vertices with chords, as the number of chords tends towards a large number, such as 1/lP, all the vertices being on the circumference, the chords will closely approximate the path of the circumference.  If they did not, then the area approximation established by those vertices would not match the area of the circle.  Ergo the path formed by taking a straight line between those vertices closely approximates the true circumferential path length.  Since that path length converges towards ~3.1415953 and not 4.0, the claim that the sum of 1/lP diversions from the circumference and back matches the path length of the circumference fails.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 19, 2014, 03:13:49 PM
That is both true and irrelevant.  Since we can connect the inner vertices with chords, as the number of chords tends towards a large number, such as 1/lP, all the vertices being on the circumference, the chords will closely approximate the path of the circumference.  If they did not, then the area approximation established by those vertices would not match the area of the circle.  Ergo the path formed by taking a straight line between those vertices closely approximates the true circumferential path length.  Since that path length converges towards ~3.1415953 and not 4.0, the claim that the sum of 1/lP diversions from the circumference and back matches the path length of the circumference fails.

No, the inner vertices at the planck length can not be connected with chords in a real circle with a time variable.  By connecting the inner vertices at the planck length with chords, then you are saying matter moves in a continuous motion and not in discrete jumps.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 03:22:15 PM
I have yet to see any such description.  If you think you have provided one kindly point at the post that provides it.
Quote

That's not what I am disagreeing with.
You have also stated that if Pi so defined is not 3.14 then the circle fails to have the property of the circle that you are familiar with and because of that is not a real circle.
You also disqualified a physical circle as a circle because physical circle is not a two-dimensional figure.  These two are not Straw Men.
Once again you misstate what I have said.  Pi is a defined relationship.  The value of that relationship has been reliably approximated to eight decimal digits as: ~3.1415953.  I have said that a geometric object that purports to have a circumference to diameter ratio that does not conform within the measured and/or calculated error bands to a correspondingly precise expression of Pi, then the the object fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles.  This tortured idea that an object that fails to demonstrate a circumference to diameter ratio in close accord with a reliably approximated value of Pi is completely silly.  How long do you two intend to keep this nonsense up?

Circles are plane geometry objects.  They exist in two dimensions.  That is not my doing.  That is the accepted definition.
I have yet to see a definition of a "physical circle" from you that allows for the special pleadings that you make that such an object has a time component or any other property distinct from the plane geometry object known as a circle.
Quote

I asked you whether that circle in the article (http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml) you quoted qualified as a circle and if not then what is it in your opinion.   I still have not received a direct answer.
Even the form of the question is silly.
Quote
Prove it for kinematic circles.
What is a kinematic circle?
Quote
"Not the same" as in "not identical".  Not the same time coordinate for each point.
Time is irrelevant to plane geometry.
Quote
In abstract geometry - yes. All of the points belonging to an abstract geometric figure exist at the same instance in time, so the time can be disregarded.
Time never entered.  It is not a matter of disregarding something that is not significant. Time plays no part.
Quote
In physics time cannot be disregarded and a physical circle is not a strictly 2D object.
Kindly provide an academic link that identifies and describes one of these time dependent "physical circles".

Did you pay attention which limit is reached first?
[/quote]Apparently among other things, Mr. Mathis did not.  If you wish to attempt to show by deriving the limit of the chord slope that the limit is other than zero, feel free to show your math.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 03:25:15 PM
No, the inner vertices at the planck length can not be connected with chords in a real circle with a time variable.  By connecting the inner vertices at the planck length with chords, then you are saying matter moves in a continuous motion and not in discrete jumps.

Gravock
A plane geometry object has nothing to do with time.  Plane geometry is a field of mathematics.  If you want to play:  "You can't do XYZ in the physical world" then you are already stuck with much bigger problems than whether chords can be mapped between presumed squares with presumed vertices at static positions in space.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 03:26:24 PM
Matter doesn't move in a continuous motion, it moves in discrete jumps at the planck length.  When the squaring method reaches the planck length, the inner square vertices will be at all points on the rectilinear circumference of the circle itself, which is not continuous and is made of discrete jumps.  The Manhattan path does correctly simulate the time variable in real circles at the planck length!

Edited for better clarification.

Gravock
That's rubbish.  The Manhattan path has no time element to it.  It is plane geometry.  How long are you going to insist on this silly game?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 19, 2014, 03:44:16 PM
A plane geometry object has nothing to do with time.  Plane geometry is a field of mathematics.  If you want to play:  "You can't do XYZ in the physical world" then you are already stuck with much bigger problems than whether chords can be mapped between presumed squares with presumed vertices at static positions in space.

Plane geometry must also obey the laws of physics when dealing with the physical world.  In other words, if you want to use geometry to analyse the motion of a physical object, then a circle should be drawn in discrete jumps to represent the discrete jumps in the physical world.  If the physical world says matter moves in discrete jumps at the planck scale, then the geometry must correctly represent this.  If not, then you are using geometry to break the laws of physics.  Now, if you're analysing an abstract circle with no time variable, then you are free to show a continuous motion by connecting the inner vertices with chords to show a continuous motion.  However, this is not the case for a real circle with a time variable.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 19, 2014, 03:58:18 PM
That's rubbish.  The Manhattan path has no time element to it.  It is plane geometry.  How long are you going to insist on this silly game?

The Manhattan path does have a time element to it when we are at the planck scale.  The planck time is the amount of time it takes light to move one planck length.  Since we can't go beyond the planck length in the Manhattan path without breaking the laws of physics, then the planck length correctly represents the time as points in those discrete jumps

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 04:21:52 PM
Plane geometry must also obey the laws of physics when dealing with the physical world.  In other words, if you want to use geometry to analyse the motion of a physical object, then a circle should be drawn in discrete jumps to represent the discrete jumps in the physical world.  If the physical world says matter moves in discrete jumps at the planck scale, then the geometry must correctly represent this.  If not, then you are using geometry to break the laws of physics.  Now, if you're analysing an abstract circle with no time variable, then you are free to show a continuous motion by connecting the inner vertices with chords to show a continuous motion.  However, this is not the case for a real circle with a time variable.

Gravock
That is some really tortured boot strapping.  You have as far as I know been arguing that Pi = 4 based on the plane geometry of a circle.  The behaviors of a circle do not change because of how you might want to apply a circle in a model or an experiment.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 04:22:51 PM
The Manhattan path does have a time element to it when we are at the planck scale.  The planck time is the amount of time it takes light to move one planck length.  Since we can't go beyond the planck length in the Manhattan path without breaking the laws of physics, then the planck length correctly represents the time as points in those discrete jumps

Gravock
Two dimensional geometry has no time element.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 19, 2014, 04:30:02 PM
I have yet to see any such description.
If you think you have provided one kindly point at the post that provides it.
The definition was in this post (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/msg403043/#msg403043).
"A circle is a set of points on a spatial plane equidistant from the center of the circle. The difference between an abstract and physical circle is whether these points have time coordinates or not.  Physical circles do and those coordinates are not the same" - Later you even asked me what the phrase "not the same" referred to.

Once again you misstate what I have said.  Pi is a defined relationship
No I do not.  You are plainly stating that a circle is not a circle if the relationship of circumference to diameter is not ~3.1415953 while failing to define the circumference of a physical circle and conflating it with the circumference of an abstract circle.
By doing it you are letting ~3.1415953 define the circle instead of letting the Circle define the ratio between its circumference and diameter.  Such reversal makes a conclusion out of the premise.
I agree with you you that Pi=c/d but I disagree with you how c & d are measured physically.

The value of that relationship has been reliably approximated to eight decimal digits as: ~3.1415953.  I have said that a geometric object that purports to have a circumference to diameter ratio that does not conform within the measured and/or calculated error bands to a correspondingly precise expression of Pi, then the the object fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles.
This is the reversal. You are attempting to prove that circle is not a circle because it does not conform to your expected ratio of circumference to diameter.

This tortured idea that an object that fails to demonstrate a circumference to diameter ratio in close accord with a reliably approximated value of Pi is completely silly.  How long do you two intend to keep this nonsense up?
Silly is only your insistence on conflating the circumference of an abstract circle to a circumference of a physical circle and using the same measuring processes for both.
I will keep it up a long time if you won't answer my questions directly.

Circles are plane geometry objects.  They exist in two dimensions.  That is not my doing.  That is the accepted definition.
This is true of abstract circles only.
What is "that" in the article you quoted (http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml) ?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 19, 2014, 04:33:14 PM
Two dimensional geometry has no time element.

Below is an illustration showing two dimensional geometry that has a time element.  Each dot represents 1 meter, and the space between each dot represents one second.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 04:37:55 PM
Below is an illustration showing two dimensional geometry that has a time element.  Each dot represents 1 meter, and the space between each dot represents one second.

Gravock
Plane geometry is independent of time.  This has all gotten very silly.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 19, 2014, 04:38:48 PM
Did you pay attention which limit is reached first?
Apparently among other things, Mr. Mathis did not.

Mathis clearly shows that the angle ABD reaches 90º before the angle BAD reaches 0º. Thus the tangent never equal the chord.
You can even see the animation of that approach here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6veuCFCXls).

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 19, 2014, 04:39:59 PM
Plane geometry is independent of time.  This has all gotten very silly.
Abstract plane geometry does not represent physical problems.
Curved motion without time is silly.  Physics without time is silly.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 19, 2014, 04:44:41 PM
Plane geometry is independent of time.  This has all gotten very silly.

Prove my illustration is wrong instead of simply asserting geometry is independent of time.  Is the illustration 2D?  Yes it is!  Does it have a time element?  Yes it does!  Does it correctly represent the real world and physics with time?  Yes it does!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 04:58:36 PM
The definition was in this post (http://www.overunity.com/14605/the-charged-field-of-a-resonant-quantum-energy-generator-tcf-qeg/msg403043/#msg403043).
"A circle is a set of points on a spatial plane equidistant from the center of the circle. The difference between an abstract and physical circle is whether these points have time coordinates or not.  Physical circles do and those coordinates are not the same" - Later you even asked me what the phrase "not the same" referred to.
You have jumped from a "spatial plane" to an undefined space that has a time dimension.  Circles are two dimensional planar objects.  This has fully degenerated into a nonsense fest.
Quote

No I do not.  You are plainly stating that a circle is not a circle if the relationship of circumference to diameter is not ~3.1415953 while failing to define the circumference of a physical circle and conflating it with the circumference of an abstract circle.
A "physical circle" is some imaginary construct of yours where time has entered into plane geometry.  If you can locate an academic reference that supports your idea then kindly link it.  Otherwise, you are simply making up nonsense.
Quote

By doing it you are letting ~3.1415953 define the circle instead of letting the Circle define the ratio between its circumference and diameter.  Such reversal makes a conclusion out of the premise.
No, Pi follows the relationship of the geometric plane object known as a circle.  That relationship has been quantified to great precision.  A claim that some object alters that quantity by a large value is silly and specious.  The proposed object by failing to conform with the known ratio fails to demonstrate a basic property of the plane geometry object known as a circle.  A dog is not a kangaroo with a very small pouch.
Quote

I agree with you you that Pi=c/d but I disagree with you how c & d are measured physically.
When a measurement is inconsistent with the established properties of an object, then either the object is not what is believed, or the measurements are in error.  Who do you think you can sell on this silly boot strapping game of trying to redefine a circle so that you can subsequently redefine Pi?  This exercise is getting beyond tedious.
Quote

This is the reversal. You are attempting to prove that circle is not a circle because it does not conform to your expected ratio of circumference to diameter.
It's not my expected ratio.  It is a well established ratio.  The burden is on you to establish that this thing you call a "physical circle" is anything other than an invented construct of yours.  It is up to you to show that even though it fails to demonstrate a well established property of circles that it is in fact a circle.
Quote

Silly is only your insistence on conflating the circumference of an abstract circle to a circumference of a physical circle and using the same measuring processes for both.
I will keep it up a long time if you won't answer my questions directly.
This is the definition of abstract circles only.
What is "that" in the article you quoted (http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=CircularMotion_CentripetalAcceleration.xml) ?
A circle is a circle is a circle is a plane geometry object.  A circular path is a trajectory that follows the plane geometry of a circle.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 05:00:24 PM
Prove my illustration is wrong instead of simply asserting geometry is independent of time.  Is the illustration 2D?  Yes it is!  Does it have a time element?  Yes it does!  Does it correctly represent the real world and physics with time?  Yes it does!

Gravock
Pick up a geometry primer.  There is no time element in your 2D figure.  The figure itself does not in any practical sense change with time.  You have chosen to use a 2D figure to represent some temporal relationship.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 19, 2014, 05:11:46 PM
Pick up a geometry primer.  There is no time element in your 2D figure.  The figure itself does not in any practical sense change with time.  You have chosen to use a 2D figure to represent some temporal relationship.

If a car took the path of the dots from left to right, then we know the car was travelling one meter per second.  We also know how many meters the car travelled along this particular path by counting the dots.  It doesn't matter if the figure changes or not, but rather what the figure is representing in the real world.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 19, 2014, 05:16:59 PM
You have jumped from a "spatial plane" to an undefined space that has a time dimension.  Circles are two dimensional planar objects.  T
The equidistance constraint is a spatial constraint. The existence of this constraint in the definition does not preclude the existence of temporal aspect of a circle.

A "physical circle" is some imaginary construct of yours where time has entered into plane geometry.  If you can locate an academic reference that supports your idea then kindly link it.
Appeals to authority do not work on me.
The mainstream science has been ignorant about this issue since Newton and in my eyes they deserve no respect for that.
I do not expect to find there a rigorous distinguishment between an abstract geometric circle and circular path.

A circular path is a trajectory that follows the plane geometry of a circle.
Since you had finally given me an acceptable name to you for a physical circle.  From now on I will call it a "circular path" instead of "physical circle" to make you happy.

It still does not change anything, though.
I still claim that the ratio of the circumference of a "circular path" to its diameter is 4, when measured inertially.
And I still claim that a "circular path" of a massive object is not formed by an acceleration/force that lays on lines passing through the center of this "circular path".

I guess I still owe you vector math with special attention to intervals and observation points that prove the above claim.
Mathis has already shown exhaustively that the angle ABD reaches the 90º limit before the angle BAD reaches 0º so I will not repeat that.

@Gravityblock.
Do you realize that this is provable empirically by some computer controlled airpucks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyZTJtAxOCI) on a smooth level surface?
Empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 06:09:13 PM
The equidistance constraint is a spatial constraint. The existence of this constraint in the definition does not preclude the existence of temporal aspect of a circle.
Plane geometry does not have anything to do with time.
Quote
Appeals to authority do not work on me.
Without a reference your quirky ideas of circles that aren't circles lack foundation.
Quote
The mainstream science has been ignorant about this issue since Newton and in my eyes they deserve no respect for that.
LOL, sure you lack evidence but it is the whole world of science that has been wrong for centuries.  Good luck with that.
Quote

I do not expect to find there a rigorous distinguishment between an abstract geometric circle and circular path.
Since you had finally given me an acceptable name to you for a physical circle.  From now on I will call it a "circular path" instead of "physical circle" to make you happy.
Now your problem is to show how a circular path doesn't have the identical geometry of the "abstract circles" you keep claiming that it differs from while still being circular.
Quote

It still does not change anything, though.
I still claim that the ratio of the circumference of a "circular path" to its diameter is 4, when measured inertially.
Then you are utterly and completely wrong.
Quote

And I still claim that a "circular path" of a massive object is not formed by an acceleration/force that lays on lines passing through the center of this "circular path".
Then once again you are completely wrong.
Quote

I guess I still owe you vector math with special attention to intervals and observation points that prove the above claim.
Yes, valid vector math might provide useful evidence.  If you do it right, you should see your errors.
Quote

Mathis has already shown exhaustively that the angle ABD reaches the 90º limit before the angle BAD reaches 0º so I will not repeat that.
Mathis has been disproven.  His objection to Lemma VI is highly contorted.
Quote

@Gravityblock.
Do you realize that this is provable empirically by some computer controlled airpucks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyZTJtAxOCI) on a smooth level surface?
Empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.
Experiment triumphs theory when adequate controls are in place and proper care has been taken to ensure that the observations are what they appear to be.  One can mess up an experiment as easily as getting any theory wrong.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 20, 2014, 07:18:29 AM
MarkE,

Take a square with a perimeter of 4, such as in step 2 of the illustration we have been discussing.  When you rotate this square by a 1/4, do you agree a "circular path" will be inscribed within?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 20, 2014, 01:45:33 PM
MarkE,

Take a square with a perimeter of 4, such as in step 2 of the illustration we have been discussing.  When you rotate this square by a 1/4, do you agree a "circular path" will be inscribed within?

Gravock
Take any object with one or more points that are at a fixed distance from the center, and rotate that object about its center.  The points remaining a fixed distance from the center by definition follow the same circular path.   The path between those points around the original shape has nothing to do with the rotation of that object.

Pop quiz:  Take any solid object that is a close approximation to a circle:  soda can, pill bottle, whatever you like.  Place it on a piece of paper and carefully draw a square that the circular end of the object inscribes.  Next wrap a string around circle, and cut that string where it meets the start.  Now lay the string out and see how much of the perimeter of your square you can cover.  Are we done with this mindless game yet?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 20, 2014, 07:59:27 PM
Next wrap a string around circle, and cut that string where it meets the start.  Now lay the string out and see how much of the perimeter of your square you can cover.  Are we done with this mindless game yet?
No, I've been pointing out that a circumference of a geometric circle measured by a string yields different length than circumference of a circular path measured inertially.

I agree with that definition, but not all distance has to be measured by a flexible string
Straw man:  No one has stated that that "all distance has to be measured by a flexible string.

@Gravityblock
MarkE is correct in his diagram about the measurements of a geometric timeless circle (in his diagram the string comes up short) but he is incorrect about a circular path traversed by a massive object.
In the latter the time to complete one revolution is 4 times longer than the time to traverse the diameter by velocity whose magnitude is equal to tangential velocity.
If you let him conflate the static situation with the dynamic one, he will be successful in refuting your postulate.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 20, 2014, 08:00:47 PM
Plane geometry does not have anything to do with time.
But a circular path laying on a plane does.

LOL, sure you lack evidence but it is the whole world of science that has been wrong for centuries.
There is not much theoretical work done on the subject of proportions in circular path of motion because people like you summarily dismiss the difference between circular motion and an abstract geometric circle devoid of the time aspect, before even looking into the issue.
I don't need to have a thousand publications to convince me - one is enough.  A mind like you can also convince me with logical arguments either way.
The ultimate evidence would come from a well constructed experiment measuring a circular motion, as well as good logical analysis without prejudice.

Now your problem is to show how a circular path doesn't have the identical geometry of the "abstract circles" you keep claiming that it differs from while still being circular.
I don't see it as a big problem.
The points belonging to abstract geometric circles do not involve time, while the circular paths of motion - do.  ( by the very definition of motion ).
The difference is very clear and nonproblematic.

Then you are utterly and completely wrong.Then once again you are completely wrong.
Don't repeat I'm wrong without an accompanying proof regarding this issue in circular paths of motion.

Yes, valid vector math might provide useful evidence.  If you do it right, you should see your errors.
My simple question to you "how can a force that is always perpendicular to the tangent velocity can change a parallel component of that velocity" is a beginning of such vector analysis.

Mathis has been disproven.
Where can I read a rigorous critique of his paper ?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 20, 2014, 08:09:09 PM
No, I've been pointing out that a circumference of a geometric circle measured by a string yields different length than circumference of a circular path measured inertially.
There is only one kind of circle.  Despite all gentle efforts to guide you and GravityBlock you insist on flunking fourth grade math.  If it's a game of yours and GravityBlocks, it is a silly and tedious one.
Quote
Straw man:  No one has stated that that "all distance has to be measured by a flexible string.
Straw man:  no such statement was made.  If you object to the idea that a flexible string can be used to measure either the circumference of a circle or the perimeter of a square, then you are free to offer such an objection no matter how inane it might be.
Quote

@Gravityblock
MarkE is correct in his diagram about the measurements of a geometric timeless circle (in his diagram the string comes up short) but he is incorrect about a circular path traversed by a massive object.
A path is circular if it maps out to a circle.  If it did the circle that the path maps out, like all circles would have a C/D ratio of a circle, which is far from 4.0.
Quote
In the latter the time to complete one revolution is 4 times longer than the time to traverse the diameter by velocity whose magnitude is equal to tangential velocity.
Quote
If you let him conflate the static situation with the dynamic one, he will be successful in refuting your postulate.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 20, 2014, 08:12:27 PM
Where can I read a rigorous critique of his paper ?
One particularly humorous one can be found by Googling:  "Miles Pantload Mathis".
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: verpies on May 20, 2014, 08:30:07 PM
There is only one kind of circle.
An abstract timeless circle - yes.
...but a circular path of motion is something different.

Straw man:  no such statement was made.  If you object to the idea that a flexible string can be used to measure either the circumference of a circle or the perimeter of a square...
I don't object to measuring the circumference of an timeless geometric circle by a string (nor a perimeter of a geometric square).
I object to applying it to a circular path of motion (...or a square path).  Motion should be measured with motion - not a string.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 20, 2014, 08:36:29 PM
Earth's orbital radius = about 149.6 million km. Duration of one full orbit is of course one sidereal year, 365.256 days or about 31,558,118 seconds.
(wikipedia).

The tangential velocity of the Earth in its orbit is 29814 meters per second, derived from v2=GMs/r.

Now let us calculate.
The circumference of the orbit (assuming pi = 3.1416 and a circular orbit) is 2 x pi x 149.6 million km, or about 939.97 million km.

The tangential speed computed from the radius and the conventional value of pi is therefore 939.97 million km / 31,558,118 seconds or about 29785 meters/second.

The diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds.  Curiously.... 10035553 x  3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.

Conclusion.....  The value of pi, for the real figure of the Earth's orbit, taking TIME and velocity into account, must be very close to 3.1416, and not close at all to 4.

Please feel free to show a working that demonstrates otherwise.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 20, 2014, 10:46:10 PM
An abstract timeless circle - yes.
...but a circular path of motion is something different.
If a path does not map out a circle, then it is not a circular path.
Quote

I don't object to measuring the circumference of an timeless geometric circle by a string (nor a perimeter of a geometric square).
Then as any fourth grader can be successfully taught you can learn that the circumference of a circle is much less than the perimeter of the square it inscribes.
Quote

I object to applying it to a circular path of motion (...or a square path).  Motion should be measured with motion - not a string.
Object all you want.  Howl at the moon if you want.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 21, 2014, 01:12:42 AM
Take any object with one or more points that are at a fixed distance from the center, and rotate that object about its center.  The points remaining a fixed distance from the center by definition follow the same circular path.   The path between those points around the original shape has nothing to do with the rotation of that object.

Pop quiz:  Take any solid object that is a close approximation to a circle:  soda can, pill bottle, whatever you like.  Place it on a piece of paper and carefully draw a square that the circular end of the object inscribes.  Next wrap a string around circle, and cut that string where it meets the start.  Now lay the string out and see how much of the perimeter of your square you can cover.  Are we done with this mindless game yet?

According to your definition in the bold portion above, the square does inscribe a circular path within.  Also, a circular path is a real physical circle with a time variable according to your definition.  So, according to your logic and definitions, this circular path inscribed by the rotation of the square by 1/4 has a time element?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 21, 2014, 05:27:29 AM
According to your definition in the bold portion above, the square does inscribe a circular path within.  Also, a circular path is a real physical circle with a time variable according to your definition.  So, according to your logic and definitions, this circular path inscribed by the rotation of the square by 1/4 has a time element?

Gravock
Read the words again.  Take whatever time that you like.

Quote
Take any object with one or more points that are at a fixed distance from the center, and rotate that object about its center.  The points remaining a fixed distance from the center by definition follow the same circular path.  The path between those points around the original shape has nothing to do with the rotation of that object.

There is no such thing as a "physical circle" distinct from a circle.  A circle is a plane geometry object.  It has no time dependency.  Be my guest and find any academic citation that states that a circle has a time element.

Do you understand the difference between a path and motion along a path?

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 21, 2014, 09:44:06 AM
Read the words again.  Take whatever time that you like.

There is no such thing as a "physical circle" distinct from a circle.  A circle is a plane geometry object.  It has no time dependency.  Be my guest and find any academic citation that states that a circle has a time element.

Do you understand the difference between a path and motion along a path?

In a "physical circle", the motion itself forms the path from the perimeter and the path is formed over a period of time, while the path itself is not formed by a single point or center.  The path of a physical circle forms a single point, the center.  In other words, it is not an instantaneous circle, thus it has both a time element and a path to measure.  In an abstract geometrical circle, the perimeter is formed from a single point that has no time period, the center, and is without motion, and both the center and the perimeter of the abstract circle is formed instantaneously without a time element and has no path to measure.  A physical circle and an abstract circle are the inverse of each other.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 21, 2014, 11:35:56 AM
@Gravityblock
MarkE is correct in his diagram about the measurements of a geometric timeless circle (in his diagram the string comes up short) but he is incorrect about a circular path traversed by a massive object.
In the latter the time to complete one revolution is 4 times longer than the time to traverse the diameter by velocity whose magnitude is equal to tangential velocity.
If you let him conflate the static situation with the dynamic one, he will be successful in refuting your postulate.

MarkE is trying to use plane geometry, which has left the time element out in it's current form, in order to measure a physical circle that does have a time element.  He tells me I can't use the Manhattan path to measure Pi = 4 in a physical circle because the Manhattan path has no time element, which I disagree with when the points are at the planck scale.  However, he is doing what he said I couldn't do in plane geometry.  The summation of his own logic and his own definitions are conflicted and contradictory to each other in every way.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 21, 2014, 01:26:47 PM
In a "physical circle",
This is an invention of yours.
Quote

the motion itself forms the path

Motion follows a path.  The path can be in one two or three dimensions.  The motion is fully time dependent.  The geometry of the path is itself timeless.  The geometry does not change, before, during or after the motion of the object that traverses it. When the path followed conforms to the plane geometry shape known as a circle, then the path is circular.  When the path followed violates any of the constraints of the plane geometry shape known as a circle, then the path is not circular.  The path that some object follows does not redefine plane geometry.
Quote

from the perimeter and the path is formed over a period of time, while the path itself is not formed by a single point or center.  The path of a physical circle forms a single point, the center.  In other words, it is not an instantaneous circle, thus it has both a time element and a path to measure
Quote
In an abstract geometrical circle,
This is another invention of yours.  There is no such thing as either a "physical circle" or an "abstract geometrical circle" distinct from the plane geometry shape known as a "circle".
Quote
the perimeter is formed from a single point that has no time period, the center, and is without motion, and both the center and the perimeter of the abstract circle is formed instantaneously without a time element and has no path to measure.  A physical circle and an abstract circle are the inverse of each other.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 21, 2014, 01:36:13 PM

What's the matter, too much actual math? Did you "Pi=4" claimants not notice that I have proven you wrong, YET AGAIN, using a real physical circle with time element involved?

Earth's orbital radius = about 149.6 million km. Duration of one full orbit is of course one sidereal year, 365.256 days or about 31,558,118 seconds.
(wikipedia).

The tangential velocity of the Earth in its orbit is 29814 meters per second, derived from v2=GMs/r.

Now let us calculate.
The circumference of the orbit (assuming pi = 3.1416 and a circular orbit) is 2 x pi x 149.6 million km, or about 939.97 million km.

The tangential speed computed from the radius and the conventional value of pi is therefore 939.97 million km / 31,558,118 seconds or about 29785 meters/second.

The diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds.  Curiously.... 10035553 x  3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.

Conclusion.....  The value of pi, for the real figure of the Earth's orbit, taking TIME and velocity into account, must be very close to 3.1416, and not close at all to 4.

Please feel free to show a working that demonstrates otherwise.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 22, 2014, 01:04:52 AM
MarkE is trying to use plane geometry, which has left the time element out in it's current form, in order to measure a physical circle that does have a time element.  He tells me I can't use the Manhattan path to measure Pi = 4 in a physical circle because the Manhattan path has no time element, which I disagree with when the points are at the planck scale.  However, he is doing what he said I couldn't do in plane geometry.  The summation of his own logic and his own definitions are conflicted and contradictory to each other in every way.

Gravock
There is no time dependency of any kind in plane geometry.  You keep promoting the fallacy that by making the segments smaller, that the Manhattan estimate of the circumference path length improves.  It does not because for every segment, no matter how long or how short that returns to the circumference, a matching segment turns away from the circumference.  Making the segments smaller inversely increases the number of segments, including all those segments that turn away from the circumference.   One can easily come up with star burst patterns where the inner vertices approximate the outline of a circle better and better with more and smaller sections but where the path length does not converge towards that of the circle's circumference.  Using the inane Mathis argument that you have borrowed for the Manhattan path for a star burst path, one could erroneously claim Pi = 5 or even 500.  In order to converge on the length of a path each segment must point back to the curve.  Alternately, applying the Manhattan path to a right triangle would lead to the bull shit conclusion that the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the sides instead of equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the sides.

In the meantime, whether one uses Archimedes' method or any variation on it, the approximation to the demonstrable circumference length quickly converges towards ~3.14159265358979.  A simplified form of Archimedes' method reaches 3.14 on the fourth iteration, 3.141593 on the eleventh iteration, and 3.14159265358979 on the twenty-third iteration.

Your claim that Pi = 4 fails when performing a comparison of circumference to the perimeter of a square any fourth grader can handle with a string.  It fails if one compares the volume of a square cross section vessel with the volume of a cylinder of the same height where the ID is the same as the width of the square cross section vessel.  It fails when one compares the transit time of an object following a circular path at a tangential velocity: V1 compared to the same object following a square path that the circular path inscribes at the same tangential velocity V1.  It fails when one checks the published revolutions per mile of any automobile tire.  IOW, it is a complete fail.

Are you Mathis?  Or do you just have an acute desire to insist on similar crackpot ideas as Mathis?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 22, 2014, 02:08:36 AM
What's the matter, too much actual math? Did you "Pi=4" claimants not notice that I have proven you wrong, YET AGAIN, using a real physical circle with time element involved?

I don't agree with your calculations and your values for those calculations.  For example, I can show how the orbit time is an exact lunar year of 30591067.1428570401.  I can also tie it to gravity and the speed of light:  G * Z or 9.80 * 30,591,067.1428570401 = 299,792,458 (speed of light).  Also, your math doesn't take into account the helical orbit of earth.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 22, 2014, 03:00:13 AM
deleted...

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 22, 2014, 03:25:48 AM
I don't agree with your calculations and your values for those calculations.  For example, I can show how the orbit time is an exact lunar year of 30591067.1428570401.  I can also tie it to gravity and the speed of light:  G * Z or 9.80 * 30,591,067.1428570401 = 299,792,458 (speed of light).  Also, your math doesn't take into account the helical orbit of earth.

Gravock
You are once again claiming things you are not showing. I showed my work and where I got my numbers from, remember? And I didn't use false precision either.

You can agree with me or not, but if you don't, you have the rather daunting task of explaining how people who DO agree with me -- or rather, whom I agree with -- were able to land a robot spacecraft on Titan, after years of travel time and complicated slingshot maneouvers, with only a few midcourse corrections.  For just a single example.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 22, 2014, 03:26:24 AM
MarkE,

Your last few posts gave me some valuable insight into how you think.  You perceive time as not being real and is a man made concept used for measurement.  I don't agree!  However, by knowing how you perceive things, it will allow me to have a more productive debate with you from here on out.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 22, 2014, 04:41:08 AM
MarkE,

Your last few posts gave me some valuable insight into how you think.  You perceive time as not being real and is a man made concept used for measurement.  I don't agree!  However, by knowing how you perceive things, it will allow me to have a more productive debate with you from here on out.

Gravock
Time has nothing to do with plane geometry.  It doesn't matter how many times you try and redefine mathematics or physics in some contrived style such as Mathis, you've placed yourself on the wrong end of well demonstrated facts.  If this is all an exercise in performance art, you are putting on a very tedious show.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 22, 2014, 10:08:18 AM
Time has nothing to do with plane geometry.  It doesn't matter how many times you try and redefine mathematics or physics in some contrived style such as Mathis, you've placed yourself on the wrong end of well demonstrated facts.  If this is all an exercise in performance art, you are putting on a very tedious show.

You didn't confirm or deny my statement on how you perceive time as not being real and is only a man made concept used for measurement.  You are keeping the show very tedious by an exercise in performance art in how muddy you can muddy a topic.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 22, 2014, 10:58:35 AM
A plane geometry object has nothing to do with time.  Plane geometry is a field of mathematics.

Distance or space is a form of measurement and is used in mathematics.  Since plane geometry is a field of mathematics, then distance or space is relevant in plane geometry according to the definition given by.  Likewise, Time is a form of measurement and is used in the field of mathematics, regardless if it is real or not, thus Time is relevant in plane geometry by your definition.  Just because plane geometry in its current form makes no use of Time, doesn't mean Time is irrelevant in plane geometry and has no place in it.  I even provided you with an illustration in how Time can be used in plane geometry in the same fashion as distance is used in plane geometry.  You can not confine or place limits on plane geometry, or anything else, according to your limited process of thinking.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 22, 2014, 02:37:27 PM
Zzzzzzzz.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 23, 2014, 01:15:47 AM
You are once again claiming things you are not showing. I showed my work and where I got my numbers from, remember? And I didn't use false precision either.

You did not show where you got your numbers from.  The tangential velocity in your post is not based on empirical data or a real physical measurement.  How did you calculate the tangential velocity?  Please provide the equation you used for this.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 23, 2014, 03:29:30 AM
You did not show where you got your numbers from.  The tangential velocity in your post is not based on empirical data or a real physical measurement.  How did you calculate the tangential velocity?  Please provide the equation you used for this.

Gravock

Having trouble reading? Here, I'll quote the post again. Note what it says in the first few sentences.  If you try very hard I'll bet you might be able to follow through the math.
I see that reference frames also confuse you. Hint: There is a reference frame in which the orbit of the Earth about the sun is not a helix, but rather is a closed ellipse of very low eccentricity.

Quote
Earth's orbital radius = about 149.6 million km. Duration of one full orbit is of course one sidereal year, 365.256 days or about 31,558,118 seconds.
(wikipedia).

The tangential velocity of the Earth in its orbit is 29814 meters per second, derived from v2=GMs/r. (That is, from PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS.)

Now let us calculate.
(EVERYTHING AFTER THIS POINT IS CALCULATION AS SHOWN, WITH UNITS INCLUDED.)
Quote
The circumference of the orbit (assuming pi = 3.1416 and a circular orbit) is 2 x pi x 149.6 million km, or about 939.97 million km.

The tangential speed computed from the radius and the conventional value of pi is therefore 939.97 million km / 31,558,118 seconds or about 29785 meters/second.

The diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds.  Curiously.... 10035553 x  3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.

Conclusion.....  The value of pi, for the real figure of the Earth's orbit, taking TIME and velocity into account, must be very close to 3.1416, and not close at all to 4.

Please feel free to show a working that demonstrates otherwise.

Please feel free to SHOW A WORKING that demonstrates otherwise. Be sure to include your units, and try to avoid fake precision.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 23, 2014, 08:23:49 AM
Earth's orbital radius = about 149.6 million km. Duration of one full orbit is of course one sidereal year, 365.256 days or about 31,558,118 seconds.
(wikipedia).

The tangential velocity of the Earth in its orbit is 29814 meters per second, derived from v2=GMs/r.

Now let us calculate.
The circumference of the orbit (assuming pi = 3.1416 and a circular orbit) is 2 x pi x 149.6 million km, or about 939.97 million km.

The tangential speed computed from the radius and the conventional value of pi is therefore 939.97 million km / 31,558,118 seconds or about 29785 meters/second.

The diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds.  Curiously.... 10035553 x  3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.

Conclusion.....  The value of pi, for the real figure of the Earth's orbit, taking TIME and velocity into account, must be very close to 3.1416, and not close at all to 4.

Please feel free to show a working that demonstrates otherwise.

@ All,

I do not agree with the calculations and the values used by TK.  Now, pay close attention.  Pi = 4 is the ratio between the Distance + Time of the circumference and the diameter.  However, Pi = 3.14 is the ratio between only the distance of the circumference and the diameter.  Below is the mathematical proof and it is based on Frank Znidarsic's quantum transitional speed of 1.0939 MHz meters or 1,094,000 m/s.  We'll use the values in which TK has provided.  Then we'll reconcile the differences between his values and the values in which I accept in a later post, assuming of course he concedes from his current positon.

According to TK's values, the diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds.  Curiously.... 10035553 x  3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.

4 * 10035553 seconds = 40,142,212 seconds, and 3.1416 * 10035553 seconds = 31,527,693 seconds

40,142,212 seconds / 31,527,693 seconds = 1.27200906 or 4 / 3.14 = 1.27...
4 - 3.14 = 0.86
1.27200906 * 0.86 = 1.093927791, which is equal to the quantum transitional speed of 1.094 MHz meters or 1,094,000 m/s.  The quantum transitional speed is directly tied to the Planck's constant, the fine structure constant, the speed of light, the speed of sound in the nuclear structure of the atom, etc.

The taxicab geometry is showing the distance + the Time of the circumference is 4 times longer than the distance + the Time of the diameter.  MarkE is trying to eliminate "Time" by connecting the inner square vertices with chords in the squaring method of the taxicab geometry in order to get the conventional Pi of 3.14, which is the ratio of the distance only.  By doing so, then he his left with only the distance of the circumference without Time.  Space-Time is inseparable, and it is a shame how plane geometry in it's current form conveniently leaves Time out of the mathematical equation.  This is proof that Time is real and is more than a man made concept used solely for the purpose of measurement.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 23, 2014, 09:00:16 AM
Zzzzzzzz.

It appears from my last post that you have some waking up to do.  You need to get true to yourself.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 23, 2014, 09:52:02 AM
@ All,

I do not agree with the calculations and the values used by TK.  Now, pay close attention.  Pi = 4 is the ratio between the Distance + Time of the circumference and the diameter.  However, Pi = 3.14 is the ratio between only the distance of the circumference and the diameter.  Below is the mathematical proof and it is based on Frank Znidarsic's quantum transitional speed of 1.0939 MHz meters or 1,094,000 m/s.  We'll use the values in which TK has provided.  Then we'll reconcile the differences between his values and the values in which I accept in a later post, assuming of course he concedes from his current positon.

According to TK's values, the diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds.  Curiously.... 10035553 x  3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.

4 * 10035553 seconds = 40,142,212 seconds, and 3.1416 * 10035553 seconds = 31,527,693 seconds

40,142,212 seconds / 31,527,693 seconds = 1.27200906 or 4 / 3.14 = 1.27...
4 - 3.14 = 0.86
1.27200906 * 0.86 = 1.093927791, which is equal to the quantum transitional speed of 1.094 MHz meters or 1,094,000 m/s.  The quantum transitional speed is directly tied to the Planck's constant, the fine structure constant, the speed of light, the speed of sound in the nuclear structure of the atom, etc.

The taxicab geometry is showing the distance + the Time of the circumference is 4 times longer than the distance + the Time of the diameter.  MarkE is trying to eliminate "Time" by connecting the inner square vertices with chords in the squaring method of the taxicab geometry in order to get the conventional Pi of 3.14, which is the ratio of the distance only.  By doing so, then he his left with only the distance of the circumference without Time.  Space-Time is inseparable, and it is a shame how plane geometry in it's current form conveniently leaves Time out of the mathematical equation.  This is proof that Time is real and is more than a man made concept used solely for the purpose of measurement.

Gravock

Wheeler clearly pointed out that matter and space continually interact. Quoting Wheeler: "Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. In turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve."

Pi = 4 for the ratio between the Distance + the Time of the circumference and the diameter, clearly reflects Wheeler's quote on how matter and space continually interact.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 23, 2014, 10:55:44 AM
@ All,

I do not agree with the calculations and the values used by TK.  Now, pay close attention.  Pi = 4 is the ratio between the Distance + Time of the circumference and the diameter. ...

Gravock
LOL.  Other than the established crackpot Miles Mathis there are few who would continue to fight your many times lost battle with reality.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 23, 2014, 11:04:11 AM
Please note, the 1.094 in my previous calculation has no units and is a dimensionless number since it is based on a ratio.  The dimensionless number of 1.094 is also based on a ratio between the speed of light in a vacuum and the speed of sound in the nuclear structure of the atom. Velocity may be expressed in units of megahertz-meters. This dimensional frequency expresses a relationship between the size and frequency of the transitional quantum state. Expressing velocity in units of megahertz-meters is useful in describing the transitional state of non-centric systems.  So, in essence, TK has no legitimate argument with the dimensionless number of 1.094 being used as 1.094 MHz meters or 1,094,000 m/s.

The megahertz-meter relationship describes the process of quantum transition. The quantum transition involves a strong interaction involving all of the natural forces. Strong interactions require strong mediating forces. The strength of the electrical force, the nuclear force, and the gravitational force converge at a displacement equal to n times the classical radius of the electron 2rp.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 23, 2014, 11:13:03 AM
LOL.  Other than the established crackpot Miles Mathis there are few who would continue to fight your many times lost battle with reality.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 23, 2014, 11:27:48 AM
Quote
4 * 10035553 seconds = 40,142,212 seconds, and 3.1416 * 10035553 seconds = 31,527,693 seconds

40,142,212 seconds / 31,527,693 seconds = 1.27200906 or 4 / 3.14 = 1.27...
DIMENSIONLESS, since you are taking the ratio of two quantities of SECONDS.
Quote
4 - 3.14 = 0.86
1.27200906 * 0.86 = 1.093927791,
Two more DIMENSIONLESS numbers, the ratio and the product of DIMENSIONLESS numbers, not to mention the FALSE PRECISION and the nonsensical subtraction of two ratios.
Quote
which is equal to the quantum transitional speed of 1.094 MHz meters or 1,094,000 m/s.
Where did these "meters per second" units come from? A DIMENSIONLESS number is NOT EQUAL to a velocity or a "MegaHertzMeters" made-up quantity.
YOU FAIL at this step because your UNITS do not compute properly.  "SIX" does not equal "Half a dozen EGGS".  Is six o'clock equal to a six-pack of cola? That is what you are claiming here. DIMENSIONS, aka UNITS, matter and must work out algebraically just as the numbers themselves must. YOU FAIL in this.
Quote
The quantum transitional speed is directly tied to the Planck's constant, the fine structure constant, the speed of light, the speed of sound in the nuclear structure of the atom, etc.

I can make up all kinds of numbers too. If the UNITS do not work out, as they do not work out in your pretend calculation above .... they are wrong.

You are playing some pretty silly games with numbers there.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 23, 2014, 11:31:17 AM
DIMENSIONLESS, since you are taking the ratio of two quantities of SECONDS. Two more DIMENSIONLESS numbers, the ratio and the product of DIMENSIONLESS numbers, not to mention the FALSE PRECISION and the nonsensical subtraction of two ratios.Where did these "meters per second" units come from? A DIMENSIONLESS number is NOT EQUAL to a velocity or a "MegaHertzMeters" made-up quantity.
YOU FAIL at this step because your UNITS do not compute properly.  "SIX" does not equal "Half a dozen EGGS".  Is six o'clock equal to a six-pack of cola? That is what you are claiming here. DIMENSIONS, aka UNITS, matter and must work out algebraically just as the numbers themselves must. YOU FAIL in this.
I can make up all kinds of numbers too. If the UNITS do not work out, as they do not work out in your pretend calculation above .... they are wrong.

You are playing some pretty silly games with numbers there.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 23, 2014, 11:35:40 AM

Gravock
Dimensionless crap? The DIMENSIONLESS NUMBERS came from your post, didn't they?

Do you now dispute the FACT that units, aka dimensions, MUST work out properly in any calculation? Let's see you give some support for THAT.

Now please show your COMPLETE calculations, as I have done, that also show the units/dimensions working out properly.

But of course  you cannot.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 23, 2014, 11:37:16 AM
Dimensionless crap? The DIMENSIONLESS NUMBERS came from your post, didn't they?

Do you now dispute the FACT that units, aka dimensions, MUST work out properly in any calculation? Let's see you give some support for THAT.

Now please show your COMPLETE calculations, as I have done, that also show the units/dimensions working out properly.

But of course  you cannot.

It now reads "dimensionless argument" instead of "dimensionless crap".  Satisfied now?  I'm running late for work.  When I get back from work, then I'll give more details on the units/dimensions and how they work out.  Wait for it...

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on May 23, 2014, 12:38:44 PM
Here, have some more fun with numbers:

Quote
If the photon comprises two magnetic dipoles, then the dipole in the field would, logically,  be half the size of the photon. Velocity and mass have an inverse proportionate relationship. So, if the photon moves at the speed of light (C) then the velocity of the dipoles in the field would be 2C.  Velocity and mass are inversely proportional.  So.  If the mass of the photon were given as 1, then the dipole in the field would be 0.5. If the electron comprises 3 composite dipoles from that flux,  then its mass would be 0.5 for each of those three composites.  And, if the proton is simply a composite of three electrons then, each vanishing charge, those quarks, would continually interact with the 'field'.  This because its mass/velocity would be coincident with the mass/velocity of the dipoles in the surrounding field of strings.  Which means that each of its quarks would also have a mass/velocity of 0.5.  Four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the pion is 1.5 x 4 = 6. And four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the gluon is 6 x 4 = 24. The pion and the gluon only have two dimensions of volume as they manifest within a prescribed space, that string scaffold referred to in the field description. Therefore, 3 second pions, having only length and breadth is 6 x 6 x 3 = 108.  And 3 gluons having only length and breadth is 24 x 24 x 3 = 1728.  This gives a mass of 1837.5.  Minus 1.5 for the quarks that have neither volume or mass, gives a total of 1836.  Some variation of this number is, no doubt, required to accommodate the spherical shape of the dipoles, but it's complex - a 2 dimensional sphere.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 23, 2014, 02:48:30 PM

Gravock
Please find someone who will help you regain your lost grip on reality.  Your idiocy has been disproven many times now.  If you want to rave like a lunatic, then rave like a lunatic.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 24, 2014, 07:55:44 AM
Quantum Transitional Speed of 1,094,000 m/s

G*Z:  9.80 m/s2 * 30,585,600 seconds = 299,792,458 (speed of light)
299,792,458 m/s  / 274 m/s2 (sun's gravitational acceleration at the surface) = 1,094,000 seconds (based on quantum transitional speed)
274 x 1094000 m/s = speed of light

1 / 3.14 = 0.318309
0.318309 * 1,094,000 m/s = 348,231 m/s (aether's linear velocity according to Ionnis Xydous)
3.14 * 348,422 m/s = 1,094,000 m/s

The aether's linear velocity is 861 times less than the speed of light or 1000 times the sound velocity in air.

Wavelength (860.48 meters) = velocity (speed of light) / frequency (348,422 Hz) <---------Quantum Transitional Velocity is hidden inside this equation.
860.48 meters / 274.8 = 3.14 meters

I will continue this later when I have more time and tie everything together.  As you can see by this quick peak, the dimensionless numbers are fading away and changing into units/dimensions.  Wait for it......

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 24, 2014, 08:00:07 AM
Please find someone who will help you regain your lost grip on reality.  Your idiocy has been disproven many times now.  If you want to rave like a lunatic, then rave like a lunatic.

Another psychological projection and another assertion by you.  It is you, who is raving like a lunatic without any scientific rebuttals.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on May 24, 2014, 08:26:15 AM
I see that your election is to rave.  If you are not the crackpot Miles Mathis, it seems you are intent to give him a run for his money to see who might be a bigger crackpot.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 24, 2014, 09:04:24 AM
I see that your election is to rave.  If you are not the crackpot Miles Mathis, it seems you are intent to give him a run for his money to see who might be a bigger crackpot.

Another psychological projection.  It is you, who is the crackpot, and your lack of scientific rebuttals and your election to rave is evidence of this.  You are spamming this thread!  Please grow up and stop!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 25, 2014, 07:14:03 AM
Quantum Transitional Speed of 1,094,000 m/s

G*Z:  9.80 m/s2 * 30,585,600 seconds = 299,792,458 (speed of light)
299,792,458 m/s  / 274 m/s2 (sun's gravitational acceleration at the surface) = 1,094,000 seconds (based on quantum transitional speed)
274 x 1094000 m/s = speed of light

1 / 3.14 = 0.318309
0.318309 * 1,094,000 m/s = 348,231 m/s (aether's linear velocity according to Ionnis Xydous)
3.14 * 348,422 m/s = 1,094,000 m/s

The aether's linear velocity is 861 times less than the speed of light or 1000 times the sound velocity in air.

Wavelength (860.48 meters) = velocity (speed of light) / frequency (348,422 Hz) <---------Quantum Transitional Velocity is hidden inside this equation.
860.48 meters / 274.8 = 3.14 meters

I will continue this later when I have more time and tie everything together.  As you can see by this quick peak, the dimensionless numbers are fading away and changing into units/dimensions.  Wait for it......

Gravock

continuing....

860.48 meters / 1,094,000 seconds = 7.8654×10-4 m/s

1 km / 7.8654×10-4 m/s = 1.2714×106 seconds or 1,271,400 seconds
1,271,400 seconds * 0.86048 meters = 1,093404 meter seconds

Remember, 4 / 3.14 = 1.27 and we find this in the numbers above highlighted in bold.  Remember 4 - 3.14 = 0.86 and we also find this in the numbers highlighted above.

1,093,404 meter (distance) seconds (time) shows the relationship between the ratio of the distance and time around the circumference to the distance and time across the diameter.

In case you haven't noticed, all of these numbers are in perfect harmony with one another and have a direct relationship.  There is a video I would like to discuss with you, but before I present this video to you, it must be under the condition that you either accept Pi = 4 in a real circle with a time variable, or at least have an open mind.  I feel I have presented enough information in order for you to look further into this for yourself.  If you're still not partially convinced, then I will expand further on this and/or take another route.  Let's work together, and not against one another.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 25, 2014, 07:40:43 AM
A Revaluation of Time (and VELOCITY) (http://milesmathis.com/time.html), by Miles Mathis

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 25, 2014, 03:36:24 PM
The Ether (http://milesmathis.com/ether.html) (aether), by Miles Mathis

Below is a snapshot of the publication above.  Please note, it is possible to construct a rectilinear mathematical field underlying the curved field equations, giving us simplified calculations.  Once again, we see the term "rectilinear", just as the taxicab geometry and the squaring method is rectilinear.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 25, 2014, 03:48:49 PM
A Correction to a=v2/r (http://milesmathis.com/avr.html) (and a refutation of Newton's Lemmae VI, VII & VIII). In this paper, Mathis exposes the errors in the derivation of a=v2/r, one of the bedrock equations of circular motion. In doing so, he falsifies Newton's famous Lemmae VI, VII & VIII from the Principia.

A Clarification of the Equation a=v2/ (http://milesmathis.com/avr2.html)r.  Mathis imports new information from his Pi papers to extend his findings regarding orbits. He also shows that the centripetal acceleration is not instantaneous.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 25, 2014, 04:22:14 PM
I see that your election is to rave.  If you are not the crackpot Miles Mathis, it seems you are intent to give him a run for his money to see who might be a bigger crackpot.

I am not Miles Mathis.  However, it would be interesting to invite Miles Mathis, Frank Znidarsic, and Ioannis Xydous to this discussion.  In the past, I have communicated with both Znidarsic and Xydous, so this is not out of the realm of possibilities.  While I'm at it, I'll see if Frank Wilczek will join us also.  Wilczek is considered one of the world’s most eminent theoretical physicists. He is known, among other things, for the discovery of asymptotic freedom, the development of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the invention of axions, and the discovery and exploitation of new forms of quantum statistics (anyons). Frank Wilczek is a Nobel Prize Winner, and is also an official advisor to CERN and to Daedalus.  Within the next few days or when I find more time, I will send an invite to them.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 25, 2014, 04:42:23 PM
In this 23 part video series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y356PNQw-mM&list=PL9D5148C5838569A4&index=1), Lane Davis explains Frank Znidarsic's quantum transitional velocity of 1,094,000 m/s in great detail.  I will send an invite to Davis as well.  Quantum Cold-Case Mysteries Revisited (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/davis.pdf), By Lane Davis.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 25, 2014, 07:52:44 PM
Planck's Constant and Quantization, a Mechanical Explanation (http://milesmathis.com/planck.html) by Miles Mathis.

Both Mathis and Znidarsic with his quantum transitional velocity of 1,094,000 m/s provides a mechanical explanation of quantization.  Quantum mechanics is not, and has not been mechanical and is a misnomer.  Mathis shows the exact mechanical cause both of the wave and of the duality.  See the snapshots below of the above publication.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on May 26, 2014, 04:28:40 AM
How Relativity Has Hidden the Charge Field (http://milesmathis.com/prinrel.pdf), by Miles Mathis.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Rigel4 on May 26, 2014, 11:58:26 AM
Here, have some more fun with numbers:

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 02, 2014, 08:16:23 PM
MarkE is trying to use plane geometry, which has left the time element out in it's current form,
This reminds me of some crackpot I read in my 30's...can't remember who though.  Wasn't Time Cube (http://www.timecube.com/) but sounds a little like him.

To me the word "path" always means a projection onto a plane.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 12:43:38 AM
This reminds me of some crackpot I read in my 30's...can't remember who though.  Wasn't Time Cube (http://www.timecube.com/) but sounds a little like him.

To me the word "path" always means a projection onto a plane.

How many seconds are in a meter?  Also, in the image below, which car wins the race, the yellow or the green car?  Or, is it a tie?  Remember, both cars start at the same height and end at the same height, so the net fall is the same for both cars and gravity shouldn't give one car an advantage over the other.  In addition to this, which car travels the greatest distance?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 12:55:47 AM
This reminds me of some crackpot I read in my 30's...can't remember who though.  Wasn't Time Cube (http://www.timecube.com/) but sounds a little like him.

To me the word "path" always means a projection onto a plane.
GB has posted a number of references to the established crackpot Miles Mathis.  Mathis seems to be the source of GB's inspiration for posting nonsense BS.  To get an idea of just what kind of hogwash that guy Mathis spills onto the www you can check:  http://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/.  Or you can go directly to Mathis' FB page.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 12:56:43 AM
How many seconds are in a meter?

Gravock
Blue
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 01:13:28 AM
How many seconds are in a meter?

Gravock

Blue

Light goes 300 million meters in a second, and that leads us to the answer.  In one meter, there are 1/300 million seconds.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 01:18:53 AM
MarkE

In reply #152, which car wins the race?  The yellow car or the green car?  Or, is it a tie?  Oh, maybe the blue car wins the race?  Also, which car travels the greatest distance?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 01:33:35 AM

Light goes 300 million meters in a second, and that leads us to the answer.  In one meter, there are 1/300 million seconds.

Gravock
LOL.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 01:36:35 AM
MarkE

In reply #152, which car wins the race?  The yellow car or the green car?  Or, is it a tie?  Oh, maybe the blue car wins the race?  Also, which car travels the greatest distance?

Gravock
The red gerbil that takes a brachistochrone path wins.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 01:54:29 AM
How many seconds are in a meter?
Wow....A Koan.  Your question does not contain enough information to answer usefully.
Quote
Also, in the image below, which car wins the race
Neither since no force has been applied to them.  They both stay where they are until acted on by an external force.
GB has posted a number of references to the established crackpot Miles Mathis.  Mathis seems to be the source of GB's inspiration for posting nonsense BS.  To get an idea of just what kind of hogwash that guy Mathis spills onto the www you can check:  http://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/.  Or you can go directly to Mathis' FB page.
I saw your earlier mention and I looked that up.  Pretty funny stuff.

I think my favorite bit is (http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg).  There's a pretty obvious contradiction there.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 02:32:05 AM
Yes, Mathis' derivation of Pi = 4 is wonderful parody.  GB has done what he could to try and carry on the joke well past its expiration.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 02:54:44 AM
High Road Low Road Race (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX6eQgraqbg) (video).  The yellow car wins and travels the longest distance.  The shortest distance between two points is a straight path, and the shortest time between two points is a curved path.  Mass travels faster on a curve, than it does a straight path.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 02:55:12 AM
Yes, Mathis' derivation of Pi = 4 is wonderful parody.  GB has done what he could to try and carry on the joke well past its expiration.
Especially since he also proves (perhaps inadvertently) that the pythagorean theorem can't possibly be true.  Something we have something like a hundred distinct proofs for.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 02:59:30 AM
Especially since he also proves (perhaps inadvertently) that the pythagorean theorem can't possibly be true.

This is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal, and is an argument by assertion with nothing to back up your false claims.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 03:06:06 AM
GB has posted a number of references to the established crackpot Miles Mathis.  Mathis seems to be the source of GB's inspiration for posting nonsense BS.  To get an idea of just what kind of hogwash that guy Mathis spills onto the www you can check:  http://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/ (http://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/).  Or you can go directly to Mathis' FB page.

Mathis is not the source of my inspiration.  However, logic and truth is my source for inspiration.  In case you haven't noticed, I have made references to Frank Znidarsic, Ioannis Xydous, Frank Wilczek, Lane Davis in addition to Miles Mathis along with videos, references, graphs, publications, images, etc.  You provide no references, and only post arguments by assertions with nothing to back up your false claims.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 03:07:49 AM
Yes, Mathis' derivation of Pi = 4 is wonderful parody.  GB has done what he could to try and carry on the joke well past its expiration.

The joke is on you, since you couldn't predict which car would win the race.  Your statement is nothing more than another psychological projection by you.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 03:11:02 AM
This is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal, and is an argument by assertion with nothing to back up your false claims.
Shut.  The FUCK. Up.

It was actually an exercise left for the reader.  Yes what I made WAS an assertion but if you had learned logic from somewhere other than the internet you would have realized that not every assertion IS an argument.

But now I guess it's on...

Are you saying that Miles Mathis use of "steps" to demonstrate that Pi=4 (Effectively this:http://jamiehubball.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tumblr_lbxrvck4pk1qbylvso1_400.png?w=549 (http://jamiehubball.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tumblr_lbxrvck4pk1qbylvso1_400.png?w=549)) is correct?

Quote from: Miles Mathless
We can draw eight steps or 64 steps or an infinity of steps, and it will not change a thing.

Is this a correct way to find the length of the arc?

Also notice how I take time to get you to put your thesis in words we agree upon before I kick the living crap out of it.  A habit you might want to pick up.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 03:14:21 AM

Quote
Quote from: sarkeizen on Today at 02:55:12 AM

Especially since he also proves (perhaps inadvertently) that the pythagorean theorem can't possibly be true.

This is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal, and is an argument by assertion with nothing to back up your false claims.

Gravock
LOL.  Now you're playing the role of  a Pythagorean Theorem Truther?  Are you a member of Internet Nutters for Pythagorean Truth?  Have you circulated a petition demanding to investigate the conspiracy behind various proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 03:17:28 AM
Mathis is not the source of my inspiration.  However, logic and truth is my source for inspiration.  In case you haven't noticed, I have made references to Frank Znidarsic, Ioannis Xydous, Frank Wilczek, Lane Davis in addition to Miles Mathis along with videos, references, graphs, publications, images, etc.  You provide no references, and only post arguments by assertions with nothing to back up your false claims.

Gravock
Oooh baiting!!!  It's a fun game for all on the internet.  You assert that I make false claims.  Where is your proof?  Oopsie daisy!!!
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 03:18:10 AM
The joke is on you, since you couldn't predict which car would win the race.  Your statement is nothing more than another psychological projection by you.

Gravock
Oooh, more baiting!
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 03:53:38 AM
Shut.  The FUCK. Up.

It was actually an exercise left for the reader.  Yes what I made WAS an assertion but if you had learned logic from somewhere other than the internet you would have realized that not every assertion IS an argument.

But now I guess it's on...

Are you saying that Miles Mathis use of "steps" to demonstrate that Pi=4 (Effectively this:http://jamiehubball.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tumblr_lbxrvck4pk1qbylvso1_400.png?w=549 (http://jamiehubball.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tumblr_lbxrvck4pk1qbylvso1_400.png?w=549)) is correct?

Quote from: Mathis
We can draw eight steps or 64 steps or an infinity of steps, and it will not change a thing.

Is this a correct way to find the length of the arc?

Also notice how I take time to get you to put your thesis in words we agree upon before I kick the living crap out of it.  A habit you might want to pick up.

Do you disagree with Mathis's statement of, "we can draw eight steps or 64 steps or an infinity of steps, and it will not change a thing?  If you disagree with his statement, then please show how the perimeter changes after each step.  Your method for finding the length of the arc is not applicable for a circular path with a time variable.

Al-right, then once again let me get your thesis in words before we begin, as I previously did with the car race.  Do you think pi is a dimensionless constant?  Also, do you think the circumference is only a length and/or only a distance in a circular path with a time element?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 03:56:32 AM
Oooh baiting!!!  It's a fun game for all on the internet.  You assert that I make false claims.  Where is your proof?  Oopsie daisy!!!

My proof is your lack of references, your lack of mathematical rebuttals, and your lack of scientific rebuttals to back up your assertions.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 04:14:28 AM
Oooh, more baiting!

More spam, by the spam bot!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 04:15:58 AM

Is this a correct way to find the length of the arc?

Also notice how I take time to get you to put your thesis in words we agree upon before I kick the living crap out of it.  A habit you might want to pick up.

Do you disagree with Mathis's statement of, "we can draw eight steps or 64 steps or an infinity of steps, and it will not change a thing?  If you disagree with his statement, then please show how the perimeter changes after each step.  Your method for finding the length of the arc is not applicable for a circular path with a time variable.

Al-right, then once again let me get your thesis in words before we begin, as I previously did with the car race.  Do you think pi is a dimensionless constant?  Also, do you think the circumference is only a length and/or only a distance in a circular path with a time element?

Gravock
LOL.  "Pee Wee's Playhouse" went off the air but you give us this.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 04:17:23 AM
My proof is your lack of references, your lack of mathematical rebuttals, and your lack of scientific rebuttals to back up your assertions.

Gravock
LOL.  Your statements are all ... wait for it ... assertions!
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 04:21:37 AM
LOL.  Your statements are all ... wait for it ... assertions!

The two "wait for it" statements were not assertions, and were backed up with mathematical rebuttals.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 04:25:42 AM
LOL.  "Pee Wee's Playhouse" went off the air but you give us this.

Another psychological projection.  It's obvious you try to bury your posts behind a bunch of spam when the debate isn't going in your favour.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 04:31:24 AM
The two "wait for it" statements were not assertions, and were backed up with mathematical rebuttals.

Gravock
LOL.   Somewhere your "mathematical rebuttals" were devoid of any math, or any actual data that supported your assertions.  We all know that you are playing a game for LULZ.  Do you think you are doing well?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 04:32:30 AM
Another psychological projection.  It's obvious you try to bury your posts behind a bunch of spam when the debate isn't going in your favour.

Gravock
Debate?  Where is the debate?  You deny the Pythagorean Theorem.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 04:35:39 AM
Quote from: sarkeizen
Is this a correct way to find the length of the arc?
Just pointing out that you have avoided answering my question but of course you will demand that I answer yours, then perhaps lie a little or pretend that you have.  Is there a reason that the deliberately ignorant all act this way?
Do you disagree with Mathis's statement of, "we can draw eight steps or 64 steps or an infinity of steps, and it will not change a thing?"
Yes.  In the specific sense that it is meaningful to the problem at hand - which is measuring the arc.  You could apply the identical principle to the hypotenuse and end up with a contradiction to the pythagorean theorem.  However since we know the pythagorean theorem to be true by other means we know that this can not be a correct measure.  QED.

Next?
Quote
Your method for finding the length of the arc is not applicable for a circular path with a time variable.
At what point did I mention "my method".  I'm just saying that Mathis could have his head cut off and do math nearly as well as he currently does.
Quote
Al-right, then once again let me get your thesis in words before we begin, as I previously did with the car race.
Actually you didn't.  You didn't explain either question well and you didn't answer my questions.   Go ahead and look.  Nope.  At no point did you find out what I think about the actual problem you were positing.  Do you usually delude yourself like this?
Quote
Do you think pi is a dimensionless constant?
Define "dimensionless constant" using only the lemmas of ZF(C).
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 04:39:28 AM
LOL.   Somewhere your "mathematical rebuttals" were devoid of any math, or any actual data that supported your assertions.  We all know that you are playing a game for LULZ.  Do you think you are doing well?

I showed mathematically how those numbers were not dimensionless as TK wrongly asserted, and I also provided actual data and mathematics to where those numbers came from in order to back up my statements.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 04:59:15 AM
Just pointing out that you have avoided answering my question but of course you will demand that I answer yours, then perhaps lie a little or pretend that you have.

I did not deliberately avoid answering your question, but instead took your advice to get your thesis in words before we began, as I previously did in the car race.  If you want to play the stupid card and say I didn't provide enough information for the race, then so be it.  However, I think most readers would disagree with you on this point.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 05:08:34 AM
Do you disagree with Mathis's statement of, "we can draw eight steps or 64 steps or an infinity of steps, and it will not change a thing?  If you disagree with his statement, then please show how the perimeter changes after each step.  Your method for finding the length of the arc is not applicable for a circular path with a time variable.

Gravock

Yes.  In the specific sense that it is meaningful to the problem at hand - which is measuring the arc.  You could apply the identical principle to the hypotenuse and end up with a contradiction to the pythagorean theorem.  However since we know the pythagorean theorem to be true by other means we know that this can not be a correct measure.  QED.

This is not what I asked you.  I asked you, "If you disagree with his statement, then please show how the perimeter changes after each step."  You once again try to take a circular path with a time element and turn it into a circle or an identical principle with no time element.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 05:26:09 AM
Define "dimensionless constant" using only the lemmas of ZF(C).

In the context of geometry, pi is assumed to be a dimensionless constant.  Pi transforms one length to another.  This is clear from the basic equation: C = 2πr.  You can see that pi takes us from one length to another and therefore is dimensionless.  Do you think pi is dimensionless in geometry? Do you think pi is dimensionless in the real world?  Do you think the circumference is only a length and/or only a distance in both geometry and in the real world?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 05:26:36 AM
I showed mathematically how those numbers were not dimensionless as TK wrongly asserted, and I also provided actual data and mathematics to where those numbers came from in order to back up my statements.

Gravock
LOL.  Now in attempting to defend your silly assertions with respect to your empty assertions directed at me, you're referencing your empty assertions made some time ago to TK.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 05:36:56 AM
LOL.  Now in attempting to defend your silly assertions with respect to your empty assertions directed at me, you're referencing your empty assertions made some time ago to TK.

Please show where my rebuttal to TK's dimensionless argument were devoid of any math, and devoid of where the actual data came from.  I clearly showed how the original dimensionless numbers faded away and changed into units/dimensions.  Please show me otherwise, instead of asserting.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 05:39:33 AM
Did you answer my question?  Nope.  Did you do so accidentally?  Nope.  Anything that is not accidental is deliberate right?

QED.
Quote
I asserted how the Mathless-Wonder used a technique which has a consequence which should be obviously incorrect to someone with high-school math.  You, without asking even a single question declared that I was a) Making an argument and b) that it was wrong.

(Worth noting that you without hearing any evidence at all considered the position to be false.  Don't you think that kind of outs you as someone who has zero capability to critically examine their own beliefs?)

So I asked you again and you avoided the question.  You're still avoiding it now.  Here I'll ask you again:  Do you think this is a CORRECT way to get the length of the arc?  Yes? No? Don't know?  Keep on avoiding that question.

Quote
as I previously did in the car race.
In the car race post you asked two questions. One was meaningless to me.  I told you so and the other was not put clearly enough for you and I to be talking about the same thing. Hence you did not get me to state my thesis in mutually agreed on terms.  Which, again if you read the relevant part of this thread.  You'll see that's what I was asking you to do and what you utterly failed to do for me. :D

Quote
However, I think most readers would disagree with you on this point.
Which is, of course irrelevant.  The statement in contention was "Did you ask me questions to get me to state my thesis in mutually agreed on terms."   Clearly the answer is no.   There wasn't even a single round of you directly responding to my statements.   Just stop trying to rescue your ego or whatever nonsense is going on here.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 05:41:10 AM
In the context of...
Not what I asked.  Can you do what I asked or do you not know what I'm talking about?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 05:46:54 AM
Did you answer my question?  Nope.  Did you do so accidentally?  Nope.  Anything that is not accidental is deliberate right?

Yes.  In the specific sense that it is meaningful to the problem at hand - which is measuring the perimeter of a circular path with a time element.  Satisfied?  Now, if you are willing to proceed, you will answer this question for me by falling flat on your face.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 05:55:02 AM
Not what I asked.  Can you do what I asked or do you not know what I'm talking about?

It is you who is not doing what I ask.  Do you think pi is a dimensionless constant, or not?  Do you think the circumference is only a length and/or only a distance in both geometry and in the real world?  Please provide your definition of dimensionless, then answer the questions.  Or, do you not know what you are asking of me?  The thing is, you want to mix geometry that has taken the time element out of the equation and apply it to the real world which has a time element.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 06:03:41 AM
Yes.  In the specific sense that it is meaningful to the problem at hand - which is measuring the perimeter of a circular path with a time element.  Satisfied?
Nope.  The problem at hand was what the Mathless-Wonder stated, he makes no mention of a time element in that part of his argument.  In fact, if you read it you'll see he's refuting the way an ordinary person would reason.  However I think you can see that he is wrong.

So why not just admit it?  Is the Mathless-wonder somehow perfect?  Is he infallible?

He was wrong.  He was stupid.  He was an idiot.  It happens.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 06:08:49 AM
It is you who is not doing what I ask.
Man did I have you pegged.
Just pointing out that you have avoided answering my question but of course you will demand that I answer yours
It's always the same with you guys.  :D
Quote
Do you think pi is a dimensionless constant, or not?
I asked you to define that in terms that are useful to me.  You have refused to do so and have refused to admit you don't understand. Why is that?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 06:10:43 AM
Nope.  The problem at hand was what the Mathless-Wonder stated, he makes no mention of a time element in that part of his argument.  In fact, if you read it you'll see he's refuting the way an ordinary person would reason.  However I think you can see that he is wrong.

So why not just admit it?  Is the Mathless-wonder somehow perfect?  Is he infallible?

He was wrong.  He was stupid.  He was an idiot.  It happens.

The rectilinear path in the taxicab geometry correctly simulates a time element, and his rectilinear mathematical equations proves this.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 06:12:54 AM
The rectilinear path in the Manhattan path correctly simulates a time element
However again, if you READ the portion you'll see that he's not talking about a time element, in this part of his argument.

Sorry, it's just the facts.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 06:19:08 AM
However again, if you READ the portion you'll see that he's not talking about a time element, in this part of his argument.

Sorry, it's just the facts.

In the taxicab geometry, Pi = 4!  This and the rectilinear mathematical equations is evidence of a time element.  It doesn't matter if he's talking about a time element or not, since the taxicab geometry is evidence for there being a time element involved, which plane geometry doesn't take into account.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 06:22:29 AM
Man did I have you pegged.It's always the same with you guys.  :DI asked you to define that in terms that are useful to me.  You have refused to do so and have refused to admit you don't understand. Why is that?

There is no better definition that is more useful to you, other than your own definition, and you have refused to provide this.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 06:24:23 AM
the rectilinear mathematical equations is evidence of a time element.
If by "rectilinear mathematical equations" you mean his use of drawing "steps" and claiming (or at least appearing to) that this correctly measures the arc.   Then it's not evidence of anything if it doesn't do that and I think you know that it doesn't.

Are you saying that you don't see how this would come up with a different value for the pythagorean theorem?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 06:30:31 AM
There is no better definition that is more useful to you, other than your own definition, and you have refused to provide this.
Are you high?  What we are talking about is YOUR concept.  How can you demand that I provide a definition for YOUR concept?

All I did was ask you to frame it in a manner grounded in Axiomatic Set Theory.  The point of using ZF(C) is so that mathematics has a common understanding of how things are proven.  One that is free of ambiguity.

So either you don't know how to do this and are too much of an enormous gaping asshole to admit it OR you are deliberately dragging your heels (or perhaps something else but the first one seems the most likely. :D :D :D ).
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 06:37:08 AM

This is not what I asked you.  I asked you, "If you disagree with his statement, then please show how the perimeter changes after each step."  You once again try to take a circular path with a time element and turn it into a circle with no time element.

Gravock
LOL, as has been pointed out to you as well as Miles Mathis, the method fails to correctly determine the length of even a single line segment that is not parallel to one of the ordinate axes.  The perimeter of the object doesn't change:  It is what it is.  And the hapless Mathis method of determining that perimeter starts with an inaccurate estimate and never improves.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 07:00:20 AM
If by "rectilinear mathematical equations" you mean his use of drawing "steps" and claiming (or at least appearing to) that this correctly measures the arc.   Then it's not evidence of anything if it doesn't do that and I think you know that it doesn't.

Are you saying that you don't see how this would come up with a different value for the pythagorean theorem?

Why are you trying to change the subject by bringing in Pythagorean theorem?  The  Pythagorean theorem does not hold in a non-Euclidean geometry.  Google it!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 07:08:50 AM
Are you high?  What we are talking about is YOUR concept.  How can you demand that I provide a definition for YOUR concept?

All I did was ask you to frame it in a manner grounded in Axiomatic Set Theory.  The point of using ZF(C) is so that mathematics has a common understanding of how things are proven.  One that is free of ambiguity.

So either you don't know how to do this and are too much of an enormous gaping asshole to admit it OR you are deliberately dragging your heels (or perhaps something else but the first one seems the most likely. :D :D :D ).

It is you, who is high.  Pi is not my concept and neither is a dimensionless constant a concept of mine.  I am not demanding that you provide a definition of MY concept as you wrongly asserted.  Is pi a dimensionless constant or not?  Is the circumference only a length, and/or only a distance in a circular path with a time element?  It is you, who is deliberately dragging your heels in answering these simple questions.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 07:19:28 AM
It's just too bad for you that you eschew proven methods that can determine very accurate approximations for straight line and arc lengths for a method that is a proven failure for the same tasks.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 07:22:52 AM
It's just too bad for you that you eschew proven methods that can determine very accurate approximations for straight line and arc lengths for a method that is a proven failure for the same tasks.

Another useless statement and another assertion made by you.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 07:39:19 AM
Why are you trying to change the subject by bringing in Pythagorean theorem?
I'm not.  Have you done ANY math?  This is just a simple high-school level proof by contradiction.  Assume that your hero the Mathless-Wonder's assertion is true: That drawing steps accurately determines the length of an arc.  Which would imply that it correctly measures a line segment.  However it can not correctly measure the hypotenuse of a triangle.  Which we know is true through approximately 100 other proofs.

QED.  He is wrong about this.  I get that the first time is hard but the next time you doubt your god...or whatever it will be easier.

Pi is not my concept and neither is a dimensionless constant a concept of mine.
I asked you to define what YOU mean.  Do you understand that bit?  Do I need to use smaller words?  If not, how is it possible that you do not understand that idea in your head that you label "dimensionless number" is YOUR CONCEPT of a "dimensionless number".  Not only that but it is the version of the term that can be most usefully argued with YOU.
Quote
I am not demanding that you provide a definition of MY concept as you wrongly asserted.
Either you don't know what you are talking about (entirely possible) or we are discussing an idea that is in your head.  If it's in your head.  Then it is, for the purposes of this discussion YOUR CONCEPT.  I can't be asked to usefully define that any more than I can be asked to determine how much head trauma was required for you to accept Mathis's claims.

It seems pretty clear that you don't understand what I'm asking you for.  It is also pretty clear you are too much of an asshole to admit it. :D
Quote
It is you, who is deliberately dragging your heels in answering these simple questions
Please just stop showing how little you know about math.  You were not elected, at any time to the high-council of what gets decided on as simple.  Is 1+1 simple?  There are proofs for that range from 50 lemmas long to the one in Principa Mathematica which is hundreds of pages long.  The point of a set-theoretic approach is to avoid ambiguity.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 07:46:17 AM
Another useless statement and another assertion made by you.

Gravock
LOL.  Archimedes method for determining the circumference in relation to a circle's diameter is excellent.  His method starts out with barely 1% path length error  in the first pass, 0.07% in the third pass and 0.004% in the fifth pass that he worked out by hand 2000 years ago.  This is an easily verified historical and mathematical fact.    On the other hand  as is readily demonstrated with a string, some thumb tacks, a ruler and a soda can or any other cylinder by any fourth grader, your path length estimate comes out with an initial error of over 25%.  A string of length 4 * D wraps the cylinder base one full turn and more than another 90 degrees.  By your own admission your inept method does not improve from that very inaccurate estimate no matter how many iterations one takes.

You can check these numbers on a calculator of your choice.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 08:07:23 AM
LOL.  Archimedes method for determining the circumference in relation to a circle's diameter is excellent.  His method starts out with barely 1% path length error  in the first pass, 0.07% in the third pass and 0.004% in the fifth pass that he worked out by hand 2000 years ago.  This is an easily verified historical and mathematical fact.    On the other hand  as is readily demonstrated with a string, some thumb tacks, a ruler and a soda can or any other cylinder by any fourth grader, your path length estimate comes out with an initial error of over 25%.  A string of length 4 * D wraps the cylinder base one full turn and more than another 90 degrees.  By your own admission your inept method does not improve from that very inaccurate estimate no matter how many iterations one takes.

You can check these numbers on a calculator of your choice.

Once again, you have taken the time element out of the equation, and this does not represent the real world!  Why did the yellow car win the race, even though it travelled a greater distance while having the same net fall as the green car?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 08:30:20 AM
Once again, you have taken the time element out of the equation, and this does not represent the real world!  Why did the yellow car win the race, even though it travelled a greater distance while having the same net fall as the green car?

Gravock
LOL, I didn't take out what was not there in the first place.  You cannot show that your hapless Manhattan method correctly estimates the path length of an arc, or even the length of a single line segment that is not parallel to one of the ordinate axes.  So much for your math.

Now, you are back to trying to change the subject again.  True to form, you have not established by equation or demonstration that either car won the race.  Given the dimensions, and taking certain simplifying assumptions we could solve the equations of motion and find the expected winner.  The car on the steeper track accelerates faster and has a higher average speed.  When the track horizontal run is long enough that average speed makes up for the increased path length.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 08:45:41 AM
LOL, I didn't take out what was not there in the first place.  You cannot show that your hapless Manhattan method correctly estimates the path length of an arc, or even the length of a single line segment that is not parallel to one of the ordinate axes.  So much for your math.

Now, you are back to trying to change the subject again.  True to form, you have not established by equation or demonstration that either car won the race.  Given the dimensions, and taking certain simplifying assumptions we could solve the equations of motion and find the expected winner.  The car on the steeper track accelerates faster and has a higher average speed.  When the track horizontal run is long enough that average speed makes up for the increased path length.

The video clearly demonstrates which car wins the race, and that is the yellow car which takes the longest path.  This is not changing the subject.  This has to do with acceleration and distance.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 09:02:41 AM
The video clearly demonstrates which car wins the race, and that is the yellow car which takes the longest path.  This is not changing the subject.  This has to do with acceleration and distance.

Gravock
LOL, the video?  You posted a static .png picture without any links.  It is still off the subject.  It is still well understood.  It still has nothing to do with your silly proposition that a Manhattan route yields a correct perimeter distance.

See if you can find a flaw in the following experiment that any fourth grader can perform. What does the fact that a string wrapped around the base of the cylinder only makes it about 79% around the square tell you?  What does the fact that a string wrapped tightly around the square makes it all the way around the circle and more than another 90 degrees tell you?

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on June 03, 2014, 12:47:04 PM
If by "rectilinear mathematical equations" you mean his use of drawing "steps" and claiming (or at least appearing to) that this correctly measures the arc.   Then it's not evidence of anything if it doesn't do that and I think you know that it doesn't.

Are you saying that you don't see how this would come up with a different value for the pythagorean theorem?

I think it would be rather hilarious to take a walk in the city with gravock. When you come to that vacant lot and want to cut across the diagonal to get over to the next Starbuck's... he will be constrained to make little right-angled segments that are parallel to the streets, while you simply walk the diagonal and get your decaf nonfat Grande Latte halfway drunk by the time he walks in the door.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 01:50:51 PM
LOL, the video?  You posted a static .png picture without any links.  It is still off the subject.  It is still well understood.  It still has nothing to do with your silly proposition that a Manhattan route yields a correct perimeter distance.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 02:16:52 PM
Post 152 has only the .png.

The video is really weak.  I thought at least there was a track closer to the wall that went all the way down and back up at different angles than the track in the foreground.  Instead, the track closest to the wall is just slightly tilted.  That doesn't even make the contest interesting.  If they were going to do that they could have made the track in back flat and the blue car would never arrive.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 03:11:25 PM
I'm not.  Have you done ANY math?
Perhaps this needs to be spelled out a bit for our friend.

i) "Drawing those little steps" accurately measures a curve
ii) If i) then it must also accurately  measure a line segment.
iii) The hypotenuse is a line segment.
iv) If ii) and iii) then the results of "drawing those little steps" will match the pythagorean theorem.
v) iv) is false by virtue of far too many proofs to count.
vi) i) can not be true.

Now, there's my thesis.  All spelled out in plain English.  If there's a problem with it, then I'm happy to entertain discussion

By contrast gravityblock has...

Summarily stated that something I said was false without even hearing or looking for one sentence on the subject of my argument.
Demanded I answer a question but refused to define the term in his question and then implied that I was being uncooperative.
Constantly switches terms and uses needlessly imprecise language.
At least once has appealed to popularity for his point
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 04:02:01 PM
I think it would be rather hilarious to take a walk in the city with gravock. When you come to that vacant lot and want to cut across the diagonal to get over to the next Starbuck's... he will be constrained to make little right-angled segments that are parallel to the streets, while you simply walk the diagonal and get your decaf nonfat Grande Latte halfway drunk by the time he walks in the door.

Obviously you, sarkeizen, and MarkE would jump into the green car and take the straight and shortest path, while I jump into the yellow car taking the curved and longest path and win the race!  In your example above, you once again conveniently left out the time element by not allowing me to have the same acceleration along the rectilinear path as one would have by travelling a curved path in the real world with a time variable.  You on the other hand would only have a velocity across the diameter.  You do not win TK, for there is no such thing as an orbital velocity.  It is an acceleration along the perimeter or circumference of a curved path and only a velocity across the diameter.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 04:30:56 PM
Obviously you, sarkeizen, and MarkE would jump into the green car and take the straight and shortest path, while I jump into the yellow car taking the curved and longest path and win the race!
It's funny how any person with working synapses, and who is not just trolling for responses could reach such a conclusion after I have explained that the experiment could have just as easily leveled the blue track and the blue car would never reach its destination.  Readers can decide for themselves why it is that you have offered such a conclusion.
Quote

In your example above, you once again conveniently left out the time element by not allowing me to have the same acceleration along the rectilinear path as one would have by travelling a curved path in the real world with a time variable.
LOL, here we go again with you trying to introduce movement into static geometry.
Quote
You on the other hand would only have a velocity across the diameter.  You do not win TK, for there is no such thing as an orbital velocity.  It is an acceleration along the perimeter or circumference of a curved path and only a velocity across the diameter.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
It's funny how any person with working synapses, and who is not just trolling for responses could reach such a conclusion after I have explained that the experiment could have just as easily leveled the blue track and the blue car would never reach its destination.  Readers can decide for themselves why it is that you have offered such a conclusion.LOL, here we go again with you trying to introduce movement into static geometry.That was quite a load.  Are your pants full yet?

TK's example was based on movement and not static geometry, but he conveniently left out the time variable which is found in the real world, just as plane geometry conveniently leaves time out of the equation.  My reply to his example did not use static geometry.  Please show me otherwise!  Also, there are many high road low road videos showing the same result.  Also, I clearly stated that both cars had the same net fall in my original post, so you can not say you thought one track was level and the blue car would never reach its destination.  It is your pants that is full, and this is another psychological projection by you.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 04:49:47 PM
Obviously you, sarkeizen, and MarkE would jump into the green car and take the straight and shortest path, while I jump into the yellow car taking the curved and longest path and win the race!
LOL. Why am I in any car? I asserted exactly one thing.  That Mathis wrote something which, if correct disproves the pythagorean theorem.  You jumped up and down and hollered and whined like an infant about how I was wrong (without asking a single question!).   I've provided a clear, jargon-free proof of my point.  If there's a problem with my logic, then please point out the precise lemma (that's a math term you know!) where I made my error.  Blanket statements like "But it's just not Timey enough" are arguments by assertion by-the-by. :D :D

Mathis got tripped up by an apparent paradox that every O-Level calculus student gets to see.   Please stop making yourself more stupid...or you know what...don't keep being stupid.  I'm rather confident you're of little value to society as you are.   I tend to think that crackpots like Philip, Profitis and gravityblock are, in part expressing some self-esteem issues.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 04:53:41 PM
TK's example was based on movement and not static geometry, but he conveniently left out the time variable which is found in the real world, just as plane geometry conveniently leaves time out of the equation.  My reply to his example did not use static geometry.  Please show me otherwise!  Also, there are many high road low road videos showing the same result.  Also, I clearly stated that both cars had the same net fall in my original post, so you can not say you thought one track was level and the blue car would never reach its destination.  It is your pants that is full, and this is another psychological projection by you.

Gravock
Yes, your pants are very full.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 04:56:14 PM
I tend to think that crackpots like Philip, Profitis and gravityblock are, in part expressing some self-esteem issues.

It is you who has self-esteem issues and not able to handle the truth.  Your post below is evidence of this.

This is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal, and is an argument by assertion with nothing to back up your false claims.

Gravock

Shut.  The FUCK. Up.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 05:05:56 PM
It is you who has self-esteem issues and not able to handle the truth.  Your post below is evidence of this.
Because I told someone who wrongly called something an argument by assertion to shut the fuck up?   Didn't you deserve that?   Really seems like it.  In fact I personally believe that you have a serious deficiency in "shut the fuck up" and decided to supplement your clearly lacking diet.

Anyway again, I provided a proof, clear with no jargon.  You just have to show me which lemma is incorrect....or are you going to use my foul language as an excuse to avoid the fact that Mathis is wrong about something?

Really seems like it.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 05:08:57 PM
Yes, your pants are very full.

You have yet to show how my response to TK's example used static geometry as you wrongly and falsely asserted.  It is your pants which are very full.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 05:18:38 PM
You have yet to show
So dude, what is the hold up...there must be a clear problem with my proof right?  Or is Mathis...*GASP* wrong and fallible?

Again....

i) "Drawing those little steps" accurately measures a curve
ii) If i) then it must also accurately  measure a line segment.
iii) The hypotenuse is a line segment.
iv) If ii) and iii) then the results of "drawing those little steps" will match the pythagorean theorem.
v) iv) is false by virtue of far too many proofs to count.
vi) i) can not be true.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2014, 05:35:29 PM
Especially since he also proves (perhaps inadvertently) that the pythagorean theorem can't possibly be true.  Something we have something like a hundred distinct proofs for.

This is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal, and is an argument by assertion with nothing to back up your false claims.

Gravock

Shut.  The FUCK. Up.

You have wrongly assumed and asserted the Pythagorean theorem holds true in a non-Euclidean geometry, but it doesn't.  Your argument that Mathis inadvertently proves the Pythagorean theorem can't possibly be true, is only based on wrong assumptions and false assertions made by you.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 03, 2014, 05:46:29 PM
You have wrongly assumed and asserted the Pythagorean theorem holds true in a non-Euclidean geometry, but it doesn't.
Explain what part of this diagram is expressly stated as non-euclidian.  http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: minnie on June 03, 2014, 06:17:40 PM

Gravityblock, you're oh so very clever, like your argument add in time
and maturity should come.
John.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 03, 2014, 06:48:23 PM
You have yet to show how my response to TK's example used static geometry as you wrongly and falsely asserted.  It is your pants which are very full.

Gravock
LOL, no I don't have to play your games your way  just because you say so.  It's perfectly fine to stand back as you load up your pants and stay far back as you play with the contents.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: profitis on June 03, 2014, 07:07:51 PM
@gravityblock..did mathis have anything to say about the standing of the second law thermodynamics?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on June 03, 2014, 08:13:05 PM
TK's example was based on movement and not static geometry, but he conveniently left out the time variable which is found in the real world, just as plane geometry conveniently leaves time out of the equation.  My reply to his example did not use static geometry.  Please show me otherwise!  Also, there are many high road low road videos showing the same result.  Also, I clearly stated that both cars had the same net fall in my original post, so you can not say you thought one track was level and the blue car would never reach its destination.  It is your pants that is full, and this is another psychological projection by you.

Gravock

Don't lie.

Note the frequent appearance of the quantity "SECONDS".... a TIME VARIABLE found in the real world.

Quote
The circumference of the orbit (assuming pi = 3.1416 and a circular orbit) is 2 x pi x 149.6 million km, or about 939.97 million km.

The tangential speed computed from the radius and the conventional value of pi is therefore 939.97 million km / 31,558,118 seconds or about 29785 meters/second.

The diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds.  Curiously.... 10035553 x  3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.

Conclusion.....  The value of pi, for the real figure of the Earth's orbit, taking TIME and velocity into account, must be very close to 3.1416, and not close at all to 4.

Please feel free to show a working that demonstrates otherwise.

Or just continue to flail and flop about, gasping and protesting .... but your pants are developing a pretty smelly leak, when you have to start lying to try to support your silly points.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 12:07:48 AM
@gravityblock..did mathis have anything to say about the standing of the second law thermodynamics?

Mathis has an article on entropy (http://milesmathis.com/ent.html) and he defines heat as photon density.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 04, 2014, 12:12:45 AM
He has an article on entropy (http://milesmathis.com/ent.html).  Mathis defines heat as photon density.
So uh...when are you going to get back to me on my question.  It was clear, in plain English and somehow devoid of profanity. :)

In case you forgot, it's right here.
Explain what part of this diagram is expressly stated as non-euclidian.  http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg
I can give you an easier question if you can't answer this one.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 12:20:38 AM
sarkeizen,

Are you saying the taxicab geometry is euclidean?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 04, 2014, 12:28:51 AM
Are you saying the taxicab geometry is euclidean?
What I'm saying is that this diagram (http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) implies that pythagoras theorem is untrue.  You say I'm wrong because pythagorian theorem doesn't hold in non-euclidian geometry.

Do you understand that in order for your comment to be relevant something in that diagram must be in non-euclidian geometry?

If you do somehow understand that then please indicate what.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 12:29:50 AM

Gravityblock, you're oh so very clever, like your argument add in time
and maturity should come.
John.

Are you familiar with the "Reciprocal System" (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/ce/step/section_b.htm)?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 12:36:49 AM
What I'm saying is that this diagram implies that pythagoras theorem is untrue.  You say I'm wrong because pythagorian theorem doesn't hold in non-euclidian geometry.

Do you understand that in order for your comment to be relevant something in that diagram must be in non-euclidian geometry?

If you do somehow understand that then please indicate what.

Compare your diagram to the image below, then you should know how to distinguish between euclidean and non-euclidean geometry.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 04, 2014, 12:44:12 AM
Compare your diagram to the image below
So you're refusing to answer a clearly worded, plain English question again?

i) If I say that this diagram: http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg showing a bunch of "steps" implies that the pythagorean theorem is false.  Do you agree with me or not?
ii) If not, then is your basis for your objection that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry?.  Yes or no?
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry.  Agree or disagree?

If you disagree how can your objection to my proof about the diagram be unrelated to the diagram?  If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 01:24:11 AM
I think it would be rather hilarious to take a walk in the city with gravock. When you come to that vacant lot and want to cut across the diagonal to get over to the next Starbuck's... he will be constrained to make little right-angled segments that are parallel to the streets, while you simply walk the diagonal and get your decaf nonfat Grande Latte halfway drunk by the time he walks in the door.

Obviously you, sarkeizen, and MarkE would jump into the green car and take the straight and shortest path, while I jump into the yellow car taking the curved and longest path and win the race!  In your example above, you once again conveniently left out the time element by not allowing me to have the same acceleration along the rectilinear path as one would have by travelling a curved path in the real world with a time variable.  You on the other hand would only have a velocity across the diameter.  You do not win TK, for there is no such thing as an orbital velocity.  It is an acceleration along the perimeter or circumference of a curved path and only a velocity across the diameter.

Gravock

Don't lie.

Note the frequent appearance of the quantity "SECONDS".... a TIME VARIABLE found in the real world.

Quote from: TinselKoala
The circumference of the orbit (assuming pi = 3.1416 and a circular orbit) is 2 x pi x 149.6 million km, or about 939.97 million km.

The tangential speed computed from the radius and the conventional value of pi is therefore 939.97 million km / 31,558,118 seconds or about 29785 meters/second.

The diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds.  Curiously.... 10035553 x  3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.

Conclusion.....  The value of pi, for the real figure of the Earth's orbit, taking TIME and velocity into account, must be very close to 3.1416, and not close at all to 4.

Please feel free to show a working that demonstrates otherwise.

It is you who is trying to mislead the reader.  The Starbuck's example I am now referring to, which conveniently had no appearance of quantity of seconds or a time variable in order to give me an acceleration, has nothing to do with a previous post made by you which does have quantity "seconds" or a time variable.  There is no doubt the reader will see this deliberate misdirection made by you.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 04, 2014, 01:36:04 AM

Is answering a few clear, plain English, yes/no questions so hard?  Here they are again, in case you forgot...

i) If I say that this diagram: http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg showing a bunch of "steps" implies that the pythagorean theorem is false.  Do you agree with me or not?
ii) If not, then is your basis for your objection that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry?.  Yes or no?
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry.  Agree or disagree?

If you disagree how can your objection to my proof about the diagram be unrelated to the diagram?  If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 01:37:19 AM
So you're refusing to answer a clearly worded, plain English question again?

i) If I say that this diagram: http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) showing a bunch of "steps" implies that the pythagorean theorem is false.  Do you agree with me or not?
ii) If not, then is your basis for your objection that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry?.  Yes or no?
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry.  Agree or disagree?

If you disagree how can your objection to my proof about the diagram be unrelated to the diagram?  If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.

If you are not able to distinguish between euclidean and non-euclidean geometry, then you are beyond help.  I can not see the relevant parts for you, it is something you must see for yourself.  In your diagram, you are trying to use euclidean geometry to prove a non-euclidean geometry to actually be euclidean.  The fact that the Pythagorean theorem is proven false, should be a good indicator for you that it is not euclidean geometry and is actually non-euclidean.  You are caught in a contradiction, and there is no way out for you, except to assert that you do not see the relevant parts of your diagram which expressly states it as being non-euclidean.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 04, 2014, 01:46:27 AM
it is not euclidean geometry and is actually non-euclidean.
So in other words this diagram http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg is non-euclidean right?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 01:50:48 AM
So in other words this diagram http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) is non-euclidean right?

It has both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry in it.  Your question wrongly implies it has one or the other, when in fact it has both.  This is a deliberate misdirection made by you.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 04, 2014, 02:01:42 AM
Your question wrongly implies it has one or the other, when in fact it has both.  This is a deliberate misdirection made by you.
So let's just clarify something here.  You think that I am deliberately misleading (somebody) by implying that the diagram must be either euclidean or non-euclidean in it's entirety.   Right?  So clearly this terrible bias of mine would show up in this thread?  Let's look shall we....

If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.
If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.
Do you understand that in order for your comment to be relevant something in that diagram must be in non-euclidian geometry?

If you do somehow understand that then please indicate what.
Explain what part of this diagram is expressly stated as non-euclidian.  http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg

Apparently my diabolical master plan was to ask you no less than FIVE TIMES to show me which parts were non-euclidean (and five times you did not show me).

So the question still stands.  What part of that diagram is non-euclidean geometry and what parts are not?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 03:06:44 AM
It has both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry in it.  Your question wrongly implies it has one or the other, when in fact it has both.  This is a deliberate misdirection made by you.

Gravock
LOL.  Your pants are overflowing.  The EPA may soon declare you your very own SuperFund site.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 03:34:51 AM
sarkeizen,

Are you saying the taxicab geometry is euclidean?

Gravock

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 04, 2014, 04:06:45 AM
I'm not demanding anything in any useful sense of the word.  However there appears to be no rational reason for you to refuse to answer my questions.

Mathis made a mistake that an O-Level calculus student should have caught.  You think I'm wrong.  I've been nothing but open and honest and forthcoming about my argument for that point.  I've engaged you at every turn on this point.  I wish I could say the same for you.   It's taken me a considerable amount of time to get simple yes or no answers from you on well-defined points, on a topic you think is worth discussing and you claim to understand well.

Quote
while you refuse to answer my questions.
Quote
Are you saying the taxicab geometry is euclidean?
I answered that question clearly, fairly and honestly.  You asked me "Are you saying" and I clarified exactly what I was saying.  How was that insufficient?

My question still stands (now asked SIX times):  You say that the diagram contains both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry.  Which parts do you consider euclidean and which parts do you consider non-euclidean?

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 04:22:18 AM
I'm not demanding anything in any useful sense of the word.  However there appears to be no rational reason for you to refuse to answer my questions.

Mathis made a mistake that an O-Level calculus student should have caught.  You think I'm wrong.  I've been nothing but open and honest and forthcoming about my argument for that point.  I've engaged you at every turn on this point.  I wish I could say the same for you.   It's taken me a considerable amount of time to get simple yes or no answers from you on well-defined points, on a topic you think is worth discussing and you claim to understand well.

I answered that question clearly, fairly and honestly.  You asked me "Are you saying" and I clarified exactly what I was saying.  How was that insufficient?

My question still stands (now asked SIX times):  You say that the diagram contains both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry.  Which parts do you consider euclidean and which parts do you consider non-euclidean?
You will have to give GB some slack.  His pants have overflowed to the point that he can no longer see.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 05:39:26 AM
I answered that question clearly, fairly and honestly.  You asked me "Are you saying" and I clarified exactly what I was saying.  How was that insufficient?

My question still stands (now asked SIX times):  You say that the diagram contains both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry.  Which parts do you consider euclidean and which parts do you consider non-euclidean?

Please show me where you answered my question clearly, fairly and honestly.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 05:55:58 AM
ROFL
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 06:00:25 AM
So you're refusing to answer a clearly worded, plain English question again?

i) If I say that this diagram: http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) showing a bunch of "steps" implies that the pythagorean theorem is false.  Do you agree with me or not?
ii) If not, then is your basis for your objection that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry?.  Yes or no?
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry.  Agree or disagree?

If you disagree how can your objection to my proof about the diagram be unrelated to the diagram?  If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.

i) Yes, this implies the pythagorean theorem is false on the basis that it is non-euclidean.  In other words, the pythagorean theorem is false and doesn't hold in non-euclidean geometry.
ii) N/A due to my previous answer.
iii) Yes, the pythagorean theorem being false in the diagram represents something in non-euclidean geometry.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 06:04:55 AM
ROFL

At least sarkeizen has a legitimate rebuttal and is contributing to this thread, unlike yourself.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 06:08:32 AM
LOL.  You do realize don't you that now that you say that the geometry is non-Euclidean you are stuck both with stating what geometry system is represented and why under that geometry Mathis' taxi cab path has any validity?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 06:09:58 AM
At least sarkeizen has a legitimate rebuttal and is contributing to this thread, unlike yourself.

Gravock
LOL, are you still trying to convince anyone that you are serious?  You lost that battle a long time ago.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 06:30:23 AM
LOL.  You do realize don't you that now that you say that the geometry is non-Euclidean you are stuck both with stating what geometry system is represented and why under that geometry Mathis' taxi cab path has any validity?

I never said the geometry in the diagram is all non-euclidean as you wrongly assert.  At its simplest, traditional taxicab geometry changes the Euclidean distance formula to the metric proposed by Herman Minkowski where the distance between two points (x1,y1) and (x2,y2) is dt = |x2 - x1| + |y2 - y1|

The idea behind this distance formula is that the distance between two points is not measured on a straight line, but on horizontal and vertical lines.  This definition leaves other geometric features such as points, lines, and angles as Euclidean. Until 1996, this was the form in which the geometry was investigated, discussed, and used. It was around this time that Thompson and Kaya independently began research into angles that natively belong to taxicab geometry thus launching investigations into a purer form of taxicab geometry.

Traditionally, taxicab geometry has included elements that are not native to the geometry. The primary example is Euclidean angles. Since angles are defined as arc length along a circle and the taxicab circle is quite different than the Euclidean circle, native taxicab angles are not Euclidean. Pure taxicab geometry uses angles that are native and natural to the geometry.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on June 04, 2014, 07:18:49 AM
So now you are doing plagiarism, too? You'd think you could at least rephrase your stolen excerpts.

http://taxicabgeometry.net/general/definitions.html (http://taxicabgeometry.net/general/definitions.html)
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 07:50:10 AM
So now you are doing plagiarism, too? You'd think you could at least rephrase your stolen excerpts.

http://taxicabgeometry.net/general/definitions.html (http://taxicabgeometry.net/general/definitions.html)

fair use
noun
noun: fair use; plural noun: fair uses

(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.

I don't have the time nor the energy to rephrase the excerpts that is being used for teaching and research purposes.  The excerpts are not stolen and falls under fair use, and is not plagiarism as you wrongly asserted.  Also, the formula of dt = |x2 - x1| + |y2 - y1| is an in-line image on the website, and I choose not to copy this image, but to type it out.   I find it interesting how you throw plagiarism at me for exposing your deliberate misdirection in one of your previous posts.  You have now exposed your immaturity and how you are a very vindictive person.  Also, this is totally off-topic, and is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal in any sense.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 08:44:03 AM
I never said the geometry in the diagram is all non-euclidean as you wrongly assert.  At its simplest, traditional taxicab geometry changes the Euclidean distance formula to the metric proposed by Herman Minkowski where the distance between two points (x1,y1) and (x2,y2) is dt = |x2 - x1| + |y2 - y1|

The idea behind this distance formula is that the distance between two points is not measured on a straight line, but on horizontal and vertical lines.  This definition leaves other geometric features such as points, lines, and angles as Euclidean. Until 1996, this was the form in which the geometry was investigated, discussed, and used. It was around this time that Thompson and Kaya independently began research into angles that natively belong to taxicab geometry thus launching investigations into a purer form of taxicab geometry.

Traditionally, taxicab geometry has included elements that are not native to the geometry. The primary example is Euclidean angles. Since angles are defined as arc length along a circle and the taxicab circle is quite different than the Euclidean circle, native taxicab angles are not Euclidean. Pure taxicab geometry uses angles that are native and natural to the geometry.

Gravock
LOL.  You wish to propose a system of plane geometry that cannot distinguish the length between paths taken directly between two points and paths taken circuitously around to travel between those points to describe ... wait for it ... the distance along of the direct paths.  Have your pants exploded yet?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 08:50:07 AM
fair use
noun
noun: fair use; plural noun: fair uses

(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.

I don't have the time nor the energy to rephrase the excerpts that is being used for teaching and research purposes.  The excerpts are not stolen and falls under fair use, and is not plagiarism as you wrongly asserted.  Also, the formula of dt = |x2 - x1| + |y2 - y1| is an in-line image on the website, and I choose not to copy this image, but to type it out.   I find it interesting how you throw plagiarism at me for exposing your deliberate misdirection in one of your previous posts.  You have now exposed your immaturity and how you are a very vindictive person.  Also, this is totally off-topic, and is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal in any sense.

Gravock
It's little wonder that with your pants so full you don't understand the difference between plagiarism and copyright violation.  The latter is about obtaining permission to republish another's work.  The former is about crediting the source.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 08:53:02 AM
LOL.  You wish to propose a system of plane geometry that cannot distinguish between two slopes to describe ... wait for it ... the distance along sloped lines and arcs.  Have your pants exploded yet?

Taxicab geometry only fails one of the axioms or postulates of Euclidean geometry, ... wait for it... and this is not one of them.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 09:07:09 AM
Taxicab geometry only fails one of the axioms or postulates of Euclidean geometry, ... wait for it... and this is not one of them.

Gravock
LOL.  Funny how you are drawing Euclidean circles and saying that you are measuring them in taxicab geometry.  I'd warn the neighbors about those pants of yours.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 09:40:14 AM
It's little wonder that with your pants so full you don't understand the difference between plagiarism and copyright violation.  The latter is about obtaining permission to republish another's work.  The former is about crediting the source.

Another wrong assertion by you!

Plagiarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism) is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.  According to the fair use act, brief excerpts do not need permission to be republished if used for teaching and research purposes and is not considered wrongful appropriation, as you once again wrongly asserted.  I never claimed the excerpts as my own original work, and it is also not defined as stealing under the fair use act if used for teaching and research purposes.

Are you claiming the two images you provided in your previous posts are your own work?  If not, then I'm sure you didn't obtain permission to republish those copyrighted images.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 09:51:31 AM
LOL.  Funny how you are drawing Euclidean circles and saying that you are measuring them in taxicab geometry.  I'd warn the neighbors about those pants of yours.

Are you asserting euclidean circles drawn in taxicab geometry is the one postulate of Euclidean geometry in which it fails?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 10:04:51 AM
Another wrong assertion by you!

Plagiarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism) is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.  According to the fair use act, brief excerpts do not need permission to be republished if used for teaching and research purposes and is not considered wrongful appropriation, as you once again wrongly asserted.  I never claimed the excerpts as my own original work, and it is also not defined as stealing under the fair use act if used for teaching and research purposes.

Are you claiming the two images you provided in your previous posts are your own work?  If not, then I'm sure you didn't obtain permission to republish those copyrighted images.

Gravock
LOL, you really don't want to read do you?  Attribution is not the same as permission.  Plagiarism is a failure to attribute.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 10:09:05 AM
Are you asserting euclidean circles drawn in taxicab geometry is the one postulate of Euclidean geometry in which it fails?

Gravock
LOL, it's fun to watch you troll by making things up.  In case you didn't know: a taxicab "circle" is drawn as a Euclidean square.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 10:20:35 AM
LOL, you really don't want to read do you?  Attribution is not the same as permission.  Plagiarism is a failure to attribute.

Another wrong assertion and misdirection made by you.  Plagiarism is not a failure to attribute.  Plagiarism is wrongfully appropriating (borrowing without permission) and stealing and taking credit for someone else's work as your own.  According to the fair use act, brief excerpts do not need permission to be used for teaching or for research purposes, thus it does not fall under wrongful appropriation and/or stealing.  I also didn't take credit for someone else's work as my own.  It is you who don't want to read and this is another psychological projection made by you.  This is nothing more than another distraction to the main purpose of this thread.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 10:25:26 AM
Another wrong assertion and misdirection made by you.  Plagiarism is not a failure to attribute.  Plagiarism is wrongfully appropriating (borrowing without permission) and stealing and taking credit for someone else's work as your own.  According to the fair use act, brief excerpts do not need permission to be used for teaching or for research purposes, thus it does not fall under wrongful appropriation and/or stealing.  I also didn't take credit for someone else's work as my own.  It is you who don't want to read and this is another psychological projection made by you.  This is nothing more than another distraction to the main purpose of this thread.

Gravock
LOL, you've buried yourself with your own words.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 10:29:23 AM
LOL, it's fun to watch you troll by making things up.  In case you didn't know: a taxicab "circle" is drawn as a Euclidean square.

Once again, taxicab geometry has traditionally included elements that are not native to the geometry. The primary example is Euclidean angles. Since angles are defined as arc length along a circle and the taxicab circle is quite different than the Euclidean circle, native taxicab angles are not Euclidean. Pure taxicab geometry uses angles that are native and natural to the geometry.  I have already stated many times prior to this in regards to the diagram of sarkeizen that there was both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry in it.  You're not telling me anything I do not already know.  So, how can a euclidean circle in taxicab geometry fail one of the postulates of euclidean geometry?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 10:37:19 AM
LOL, you've buried yourself with your own words.

Another assertion by you without giving any details or information on how I buried myself with my own words.  This is getting ridiculous.  I am done with you, and will be putting you on my ignore list (troll list).  It also reminds me of something I said in another thread about you in regards to "your own words", as shown in the quotes below.  You have trolled me ever since, and this exposes your vindictive nature and immaturity.  You have nothing original or meaningful to say.

Gravock

There isn't a person alive who has testified against me in open court.

There's no need for any person alive to testify against you, for you'll convict yourself in an open court by your own words.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Another assertion by you without giving any details or information on how I buried myself with my own words.  This is getting ridiculous.  I am done with you, and will be putting you on my ignore list (troll list).  It also reminds me of something I said in another thread about you in regards to "your own words", as shown in the quotes below.  You have nothing original or meaningful to say.

Gravock
LOL, one need only read your words and comprehend them to see how you have buried yourself vis-a-vis plagiarism.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 10:45:25 AM
Once again, taxicab geometry has traditionally included elements that are not native to the geometry. The primary example is Euclidean angles. Since angles are defined as arc length along a circle and the taxicab circle is quite different than the Euclidean circle, native taxicab angles are not Euclidean. Pure taxicab geometry uses angles that are native and natural to the geometry.  I have already stated many times prior to this in regards to the diagram of sarkeizen that there was both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry in it.  You're not telling me anything I do not already know.  So, how can a euclidean circle in taxicab geometry fail one of the postulates of euclidean geometry?

Gravock
LOL.   Something that does not exist in a set cannot be evaluated by the rules that apply only to that set.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 10:48:28 AM
MarkE is now on the ignore list, as shown by the snapshot below, and will no longer receive a response by me.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: minnie on June 04, 2014, 11:08:54 AM

gravityblock I've been reading this since about 05 and you've got to be in the running
for one of the most boring ever. I hope your  life is a bit more fun!
John.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 11:40:41 AM

gravityblock I've been reading this since about 05 and you've got to be in the running
for one of the most boring ever. I hope your  life is a bit more fun!
John.

Then why are you reading and following this thread if I am so boring, this is my thread after all?  Makes absolutely no sense.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 04, 2014, 11:50:38 AM
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 04, 2014, 12:17:21 PM

And remember when doing your calculations for the wheel that Pi = 4,
then you can get it right first time!
John.

The above quote was posted by you in another thread.  You either believe Pi = 4 in kinematics, or it is a deliberate misdirection made by you.

John, do you believe Pi = 4 in kinematics or not?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: minnie on June 04, 2014, 01:01:26 PM

The whole mouse powered thing was just a bit of fun. As far as I know we've never
seen one watt yet, I keep on looking though.
The words "on my ignore list" don't go down well with me at all. You're obviously
working on a much higher level than most here, I'll just keep reading though and see
what transpires,
John.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 04, 2014, 01:20:23 PM
Please show me where you answered my question clearly, fairly and honestly.
Exactly where I posted my response.  You used the interrogative phrase "Are you saying" with a reference to a property (or non-property) of "taxicab geometry" .   Taxicab geometry is orthogonal or unnecessary to the point: If you object to something on the basis of some property then you must believe that that said property is relevant.  Which if you read my question you'll see that's what I was saying.

Hence the honest and fair thing to do is to respond with what I was actually saying.  Unless you by saying: "Are you saying" you weren't actually interested in what I was saying. :D If so that would be a little dishonest of you. :D

Again if there is anything dishonest, unclear or unfair about my answer I can't find it and you are either unable or unwilling to point it out.  If the former then your question is irrelevant and if the latter then you're being a bit unfair but I'll let it slide if you can manage to get back on the topic we were discussing.

My question still stands (now asked SEVEN times):  You say that the diagram contains both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry.  Which parts do you consider euclidean and which parts do you consider non-euclidean?

Or if for some reason you no longer think the terms euclidean and non-euclidean are sufficient to describe the diagram's geometry and were unable to form a sentence to communicate that.   Then please point out which features on the diagram are in a particular geometry.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 05, 2014, 04:42:08 AM
Or if for some reason you no longer think the terms euclidean and non-euclidean are sufficient to describe the diagram's geometry and were unable to form a sentence to communicate that.   Then please point out which features on the diagram are in a particular geometry.

Sarkeizen,

Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment, but before I do, please clarify if question 3 of the "If yes" portion is in reference to question 1 or question 2.

Thanks,

Gravock

Quote
i) If I say that this diagram: http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) showing a bunch of "steps" implies that the pythagorean theorem is false.  Do you agree with me or not?
ii) If not, then is your basis for your objection that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry?.  Yes or no?
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry.  Agree or disagree?

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 05, 2014, 05:13:12 AM
The illustration shown below (second image), courtesy of MarkE, is for a static circle with no motion or time element involved and there is no disagreement that pi = 3.14 in this case.  Now, let's give that static circle a motion where a curve is traced by a point on the rim or circumference of the circular wheel as the wheel rolls along a straight path to generate a cycloid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid) (first image below).  The arc of a cycloid is 8r, which pi is also replaced by 4, just as in the Manahattan metric.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 05, 2014, 05:20:08 AM
Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment, but before I do, please clarify if question 3 is in reference to question 1 or question 2.
You're going to have to be considerably more specific.  "in reference" doesn't mean anything to me other than "related".  Clearly some relation exists between all the questions since they are forming an argument.

While you're trying to gather the acumen to explain yourself.  You could try answering my question.  Which, as it happens still stands (now asked EIGHT times):  You say that the diagram contains both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry.  Which parts do you consider euclidean and which parts do you consider non-euclidean?  Again if for some reason you no longer think the terms euclidean and non-euclidean are sufficient to describe the diagram's geometry and were unable to form a sentence to communicate that.   Then please point out which features on the diagram are in a particular geometry.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 05, 2014, 05:27:59 AM
You're going to have to be considerably more specific.  "in reference" doesn't mean anything to me other than "related".  Clearly some relation exists between all the questions since they are forming an argument.

Quote
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry.  Agree or disagree?

Is the bold portion in question 3 in reference to question 1 or question 2?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 05, 2014, 05:30:18 AM
The illustration shown below, courtesy of MarkE, is for a static circle with no motion or time element involved and there is no disagreement that pi = 3.14 in this case.  Now, let's give that static circle a motion where a curve is traced by a point on the rim or circumference of the circular wheel as the wheel rolls along a straight line to generate a cycloid.  The arc of a cycloid is 8r, which pi is also replaced by 4, just as in the Manahattan metric.

Gravock
LOL. The path length on the rolling surface traversed as the wheel makes one complete rotation, ie maps out one circumference is identically still Pi*D, ~3.141593*D.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 05, 2014, 05:40:20 AM
Is the bold portion in question 3 in reference to question 1 or question 2?
Out of curiosity - is there a reason you can't construct sentences that completely contain your question?  For example....

When you say "If yes" in question 3.  Do you mean: "If the basis for your objection (to the implication of the diagram) is that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry then something in the diagram must represent something in non-euclidean geometry?"

Also: What things are non-euclidean in the diagram? (Now asked NINE times).  Clearly since you without a second thought were able to declare the diagram (by inspection) containing both kinds of geometry.  It should be trivial for you to point out which ones are which.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 05, 2014, 06:24:02 AM
Do we agree the arc of a cycloid generates a circular path which is larger than the circular wheel that generated it?  Let's say we have a wheel with a diameter of 1 with a circumference of 3.14....  and the circular path of the cycloid will have a circumference of 4.  Now, let's find the ratio between these two,  4 / 3.14 = 1.2714.  Now, let's find the difference between these two, 4 - 3.14 =  0.86048.  Now, let's multiply the ratio between the two with the difference between the two, 1.27 * 0.86 = 1.093404.  I have already shown the 1.093404 is related to the quantum transitional speed and how these dimensionless numbers in this example can have dimensions/units if we include them.  In other words, the ratio and the differences between the two is due to our expansion acceleration of 9.8m/s2.  In summary, this is evidence that we are expanding in all directions with an acceleration of 9.8m/s2.  It's like blowing a balloon up with air.  This is why you can't take the ratio of an acceleration along the circumference that is expanding to a velocity across the diameter that is also expanding and expect to get the same results as you would with something that is static and non-changing with no time element involved.  I am done with the Pi issue, for anyone with any common sense knows the dynamic is not the same as the static, and to use the same methods to compare the two is foolishness.

God will catch the wise in their own craftiness!

Gravock

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 05, 2014, 06:31:43 AM
Out of curiosity - is there a reason you can't construct sentences that completely contain your question?  For example....

When you say "If yes" in question 3.  Do you mean: "If the basis for your objection (to the implication of the diagram) is that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry then something in the diagram must represent something in non-euclidean geometry?"

Also: What things are non-euclidean in the diagram? (Now asked NINE times).  Clearly since you without a second thought were able to declare the diagram (by inspection) containing both kinds of geometry.  It should be trivial for you to point out which ones are which.

Out of curiosity - why can't you connect the dots for yourself?  Why do you need someone to spoon feed you every step of the way?  You know exactly what I am asking you, so don't play the stupid card and psychologically project it unto me.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 05, 2014, 08:20:07 AM
Do we agree the arc of a cycloid generates a circular path which is larger than the circular wheel that generated it?
No we don't:  A cycloid is not a circle.[/quote]

Let's say we have a wheel with a diameter of 1 with a circumference of 3.14....  and the circular path of the cycloid will have a circumference of 4.[/quote]
the cycloid path length is 4.  Since the cycloid is not a closed shape, it does not have a circumference.
Quote

Now, let's find the ratio between these two,  4 / 3.14 = 1.2714.  Now, let's find the difference between these two, 4 - 3.14 =  0.86048.  Now, let's multiply the ratio between the two with the difference between the two, 1.27 * 0.86 = 1.093404.  I have already shown the 1.093404 is related to the quantum transitional speed and how these dimensionless numbers in this example can have dimensions/units if we include them.

Your pants again explode.  All that you showed was that you could work up some algebraic identities.
Quote

In other words, the ratio and the differences between the two is due to our expansion acceleration of 9.8m/s2.  In summary, this is evidence that we are expanding in all directions with an acceleration of 9.8m/s2.  It's like blowing a balloon up with air.

No that is only your pants.
Quote

This is why you can't take the ratio of an acceleration along the circumference that is expanding to a velocity across the diameter that is also expanding and expect to get the same results as you would with something that is static and non-changing with no time element involved.

Pop!  There they go:  Bull shit argument leads out bull shit conclusion with the result that there is now bull shit everywhere.
Quote

I am done with the Pi issue, for anyone with any common sense knows the dynamic is not the same as the static, and to use the same methods to compare the two is foolishness.

God will catch the wise in their own craftiness!

Gravock
Completely cornered perhaps you will give up on this obscenely silly campaign.  We can only hope.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 05, 2014, 08:22:22 AM
Out of curiosity - why can't you connect the dots for yourself?  Why do you need someone to spoon feed you every step of the way?  You know exactly what I am asking you, so don't play the stupid card and psychologically project it unto me.

Gravock
That's nine times that Sarkeizen has asked you politely, and nine times that you have refused his simple request to state unambiguously specifically what you claim is Euclidean, and what you claim is not Euclidean in that diagram.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 05, 2014, 10:01:43 AM
Since there are those here who like to read and take things out of context, or to put things into a completely different context than there original meaning, then I will put it back into context for them.

iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry.  Agree or disagree?

Is the bold portion in question 3 in reference to question 1 or question 2?

Gravock

Out of curiosity - is there a reason you can't construct sentences that completely contain your question?  For example....

When you say "If yes" in question 3.  Do you mean: "If the basis for your objection (to the implication of the diagram) is that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry then something in the diagram must represent something in non-euclidean geometry?"

Out of curiosity - why can't you connect the dots for yourself?  Why do you need someone to spoon feed you every step of the way?  You know exactly what I am asking you, so don't play the stupid card and psychologically project it unto me.

Gravock

Now, let me connect the dots for you.  Question 1 is a yes or no answer, and question 2 is a yes or no answer.  So, does the "If yes" in question 3 refer to the answer for question 1 or does it refer to the answer for question 2?  It doesn't really matter, because I am done with the theoretical side of this and will move onto the empirical side for those who lack any kind of common sense.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 05, 2014, 10:28:26 AM
@Gravityblock.
Do you realize that this is provable empirically by some computer controlled airpucks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyZTJtAxOCI) on a smooth level surface?
Empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.

I agree empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.  I also agree that this is provable empirically by some computer controlled air pucks on a smooth level surface, in addition to empirically proving the expansion acceleration of matter.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 05, 2014, 01:20:36 PM
Out of curiosity - why can't you connect the dots for yourself?
This is really interesting from a psychological point-of-view.  If I was guessing, you're deliberately trying to stall the argument.  I wonder why?  Clearly I did "connect the dots" into *some* pattern.  The crazy thing is that you won't tell me if it's the right pattern.  I mean why would anyone interested in progressing the argument ever want to encourage ambiguity?

Check it...even in the portion of my post that you quoted I say:
Quote from: me
When you say "If yes" in question 3.  Do you mean: "If the basis for your objection (to the implication of the diagram) is that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry then something in the diagram must represent something in non-euclidean geometry?"
I'm asking if you are asking this question.  Which I created from inserting the relevant parts of questions 1 and 2 into a single question.
Why do you need someone to spoon feed you every step of the way?
You are asking me a question right?  What on earth is the problem with wanting to know if I understand it correctly? Laypeople who want to educate mathematicians in math always seem to wildly underestimate the amount of rigor required.  As I said earlier there are 200+ page proofs for 1+1 = 2.

So shall I ask my question a tenth time?  Would it matter? Again you present yourself in a way that leads me to believe that it would be trivial to answer.  You know the answer would be valuable for progressing the argument.

Why would you NOT wan't the argument to progress?  Especially if it costs you almost no time or energy to do so?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 05, 2014, 01:47:02 PM
Consider that someone who has painted themselves into a deep corner may hope that they can hide that fact in a shroud of ambiguity.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 05, 2014, 03:35:57 PM
Consider that someone who has painted themselves into a deep corner may hope that they can hide that fact in a shroud of ambiguity.

has the proof showing the same contradiction that I do (see disproof #2).  Funny, as I implied earlier this is something I saw in high-school.

Mathis mentions this but makes no response except to give a mild endorse ment to this guy: http://sagacityssentinel.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/a-reply-to-%E2%80%9Ca-reply-to-the-extinction-of-pi-the-short-version/

Who's counter-argument appears to be "You didn't do this exactly the same way Mathis did".

Which is interesting since it's only half an argument.  It's not sufficient, in my opinion to state that "this change may cause an error" that's the way politicians and health-food nutters argue.  What you need to do is show how this change explains the gap in the results.  Talking about potential error sources is simply an expectation and has very little statistical power.  Confirming that a prediction results in the expected difference in measurement is a met expectation and demands that we re-evaluate our premises.

That said, it's probably only half-an-argument because it's wrong. :D (at least as best as I can tell, as the argument has no useful level of formalism)

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 05, 2014, 04:09:16 PM
No doubt the day will bring a spate of claims that you have not used "scientific arguments" to explain something equivalent to why we don't use color saturation as a measure of the weight of solid objects.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 05, 2014, 04:40:24 PM
No doubt the day will bring a spate of claims that you have not used "scientific arguments" to explain something equivalent to why we don't use color saturation as a measure of the weight of solid objects.
Well I'm sure I'm capable of showing a non-uniform staircase ALSO not converging on the hypotenuse of a triangle.  It seems trivial enough.

I agree empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.
This probably comes down to some silly special definition on the term "proof" but this sounds a lot like "one magic trick should be more compelling than the proof that sqrt(2) is irrational"

I...will move onto the empirical side for those who lack any kind of common sense.
I'm probably reading this differently than gravityblock intended...
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 05, 2014, 11:13:47 PM
Well I'm sure I'm capable of showing a non-uniform staircase ALSO not converging on the hypotenuse of a triangle.  It seems trivial enough.
Yes, but what if the triangle is blue?  Does your geometry consider color?
Quote

This probably comes down to some silly special definition on the term "proof" but this sounds a lot like "one magic trick should be more compelling than the proof that sqrt(2) is irrational"
I'm probably reading this differently than gravityblock intended...
I doubt it.  It sounds like you have him pegged.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 06, 2014, 01:22:32 AM
Yes, but what if the triangle is blue?  Does your geometry consider color?
You're absolutely correct by Mathis logic: "The pencil must have some velocity or acceleration as it moves along the line or curve. "  A circle drawn in the REAL WORLD has a color, a nib width and even a depth (as ink is not 2-dimensional).  It's amazing that Mathis can mentally perform a projection onto a plane that is of uniform colour, depth, and thickness in his head but gets stuck on the time parameter.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 06, 2014, 01:58:17 AM
You're absolutely correct by Mathis logic: "The pencil must have some velocity or acceleration as it moves along the line or curve. "  A circle drawn in the REAL WORLD has a color, a nib width and even a depth (as ink is not 2-dimensional).  It's amazing that Mathis can mentally perform a projection onto a plane that is of uniform colour, depth, and thickness in his head but gets stuck on the time parameter.
And how does the pen nib feel?  Has anyone asked the nib if it feels car sick when pushed around a circle?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 07, 2014, 12:15:48 AM
And how does the pen nib feel?  Has anyone asked the nib if it feels car sick when pushed around a circle?
Where's Joe Blockhead?  Did we break him?  I was always too rough with my toys.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: minnie on June 07, 2014, 12:59:18 AM

I don't think he appreciates a joke,
John.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 07, 2014, 01:12:54 AM
Where's Joe Blockhead?  Did we break him?  I was always too rough with my toys.
I think that perhaps thankfully he may have finally gotten tired of trying to play a poor imitation of a Sacha Cohen character.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: neziekras on June 07, 2014, 04:37:54 AM
just been following along.  i don't understand how people aren't just seeing that pi=4 for normal geometry.  i read the short 'extinction' paper and it seems pretty much right.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 04:39:26 AM

I don't think he appreciates a joke,
John.

I can appreciate a joke, but not a joke that is being psychologically projected on to another.  The joke is now once again on them!

I will restore the original topic, without all of the spam and meaningless posts, when I have more time.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 07, 2014, 05:19:59 AM
I can appreciate a joke, but not a joke that is being psychologically projected on to another.  The joke is now once again on them!

I will restore the original topic, without all of the spam and meaningless posts, when I have more time.

Gravock

Great.  Yet another bogus topic that is a waste of bandwidth.  Why not try gardening instead?

Bill
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on June 07, 2014, 06:01:41 AM
I can appreciate a joke, but not a joke that is being psychologically projected on to another.  The joke is now once again on them!

I will restore the original topic, without all of the spam and meaningless posts, when I have more time.

Gravock

You are funny. If your lies and misrepresentations and fails don't work, you resort to censorship to silence your critics.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 06:07:46 AM
Great.  Yet another bogus topic that is a waste of bandwidth.  Why not try gardening instead?

Bill

It's not as bogus as some of your postings, such as your bogus claim in having to slow down to speed up and/or speed up to slow down, as shown in the bold portion of the quotes below from you and TinselKoala.  You're just another one of MarkE's minions at work on this forum.  I don't think it's a waste of bandwidth to expose and to bring to light nonsense, such as this.

If you read about Von Braun, and claim to know anything about orbital mechanics, you would know that a higher orbit is caused by a higher velocity.  This is basic orbital mechanics 101.  So, all that happened was that the vehicle that carried Explorer 1 went a bit faster than required.  They engineered in a fudge factor to ensure that it made orbit.  Orbital velocity is 17,500 mph and if you were in charge of that mission, you too would have added a bit more juice to make sure it exceeded that velocity.  If you erred on the slower side, no orbit would have been achieved.  The higher the orbit, the faster the vehicle needs to go.

Read some books on the first rendezvous and the math required to pull that off.  The craft at the lower orbit had to speed up to meet the other craft even though the other craft was behind it.  You had to slow down to speed up and/or speed up to slow down.

Bill

Nope. Higher orbits require _less_ velocity than lower orbits. To orbit lower, you must speed up, not slow down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed)
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 06:15:06 AM
You are funny. If your lies and misrepresentations and fails don't work, you resort to censorship to silence your critics.

Another assertion and misdirection by you!  How are you being silenced and censored?  You are in no way being silenced or censored and still have a voice.  Did I delete or suppress anything in this thread?  No, I did not.  I only moved and changed the title of this thread to better reflect the postings within it.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: d3x0r on June 07, 2014, 06:46:14 AM
ow I missed a lot of this thread... here's some more fun information skewed from academia :)

Dr. Ed Dowdye: Solar Gravitation and Solar Plasma Wave Propagatio.,., (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnvOybT2WwU)

there's no einstien rings around stars if gravity was responsible for light lensing
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 07, 2014, 06:50:46 AM

It's not as bogus as some of your postings...

Bogus?  Really?  Well, at least I know what Pi is and evidently you do not.  Try taking a 3rd grade math class and get back to us.

Bill

PS  So, I guess the gardening thing is out of the question then?  Too bad really.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 07:00:39 AM

Bogus?  Really?  Well, at least I know what Pi is and evidently you do not.  Try taking a 3rd grade math class and get back to us.

Bill

In case you didn't know, I don't dispute that Pi is equal to 3.14... for static circles that are non-changing without a time element involved.  However, I do dispute that Pi is equal to 3.14... for dynamic circles which have a time element and is changing due to our expansion acceleration.  It is you who is limited and stuck on 3rd grade math and not able to move beyond this level, and not me.

Bill's post is an example of a psychological projection used by MarkE and his minions.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 07:18:07 AM
PS  So, I guess the gardening thing is out of the question then?  Too bad really.

Yes, it is too bad thanks to people like you and your limited thinking and thought process, for reasons shown in the quotes below from another thread.

Gravock

Just use non-GMO seeds in your own garden and don't worry about it.  Raise your own food and you will not have to depend on others to do it for you.  Just my opinion.

Bill

No problem.  Just make sure you grow in a greenhouse to avoid GMO chemtrail spray from wafting onto your crop.

http://www.rense.com/general2/biotox.htm (http://www.rense.com/general2/biotox.htm)

Oh, and check your water supply....

col

In addition to the previous post, how will you avoid cross contamination from the gardens and fields of those who do use GMO seeds?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: d3x0r on June 07, 2014, 07:51:17 AM
Pi by definition is a constant, related to geometric circles, when computing some things ivolvong an apparent circle and radius the constant is 4 in certain applications, and not pi as one would expect...
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 07, 2014, 08:55:29 AM
I can appreciate a joke, but not a joke that is being psychologically projected on to another.  The joke is now once again on them!

I will restore the original topic, without all of the spam and meaningless posts, when I have more time.

Gravock
There are those cooking utensils again.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 07, 2014, 09:01:54 AM
Pi by definition is a constant, related to geometric circles, when computing some things ivolvong an apparent circle and radius the constant is 4 in certain applications, and not pi as one would expect...
The definition of Pi refers to the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle in Euclidean geometry.  It has been reliably computed to over a trillion places, the first nine:  3.14159153.  The hapless argument that Mathis offers and GB has taken up is complete silliness.  Is it really any wonder why GB refuses to state which elements of the example that he uses are Euclidean and which are non-Euclidean?  Is it any wonder that he operates in a confused state when he keeps talking about circles in Taxicab geometry which look like squares in Euclidean geometry but then invokes Euclidean circles?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: d3x0r on June 07, 2014, 09:19:06 AM
The definition of Pi refers to the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle in Euclidean geometry.  It has been reliably computed to over a trillion places, the first nine:  3.14159153.  The hapless argument that Mathis offers and GB has taken up is complete silliness.  Is it really any wonder why GB refuses to state which elements of the example that he uses are Euclidean and which are non-Euclidean?  Is it any wonder that he operates in a confused state when he keeps talking about circles in Taxicab geometry which look like squares in Euclidean geometry but then invokes Euclidean circles?
Right :)
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 07, 2014, 03:31:28 PM
I will restore the original topic, without all of the spam and meaningless posts, when I have more time.
Seriously?  Take a look at your posting pattern.  You yourself claimed....

At least sarkeizen has a legitimate rebuttal and is contributing to this thread, unlike yourself.

...and what do you spend virtually ALL your time doing?  Responding to people like this:

Yes, it is too bad thanks to people like you and your limited thinking and thought process, for reasons shown in the quotes below from another thread.

If there's anyone encouraging meaningless posts it is you.

So for the ELEVENTH time.   Please state clearly what parts of this diagram (http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) are in what geometries.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 05:11:23 PM
Seriously?  Take a look at your posting pattern.  You yourself claimed....

...and what do you spend virtually ALL your time doing?  Responding to people like this:

If there's anyone encouraging meaningless posts it is you.

So for the ELEVENTH time.   Please state clearly what parts of this diagram (http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg)) are in what geometries.

When are you going to answer my question, in regards to question 3, in which the "If yes" portion of question 3 could refer to either of the two previous questions?  You arranged and formed the questions in a way where there is no right answer.  Also, there was a rebuttal to the diagram in question, which you say the argument is "probably only half-an-argument because it's wrong. :D (at least as best as I can tell, as the argument has no useful level of formalism)".  You won't find any formalism in it until you realize how are calculus is wrong (http://milesmathis.com/are.html).  You use the phrases and words "probably", "half", "no useful level of formalism", "at least as best as I can tell", in order to assert the rebuttal is wrong.  You need to get real and true to yourself.  You need to reconcile this with yourself, and not with me.  I have enough wisdom to realize there is no way for me to convince you otherwise.  You will only change your views after it is accepted by the mainstream in the future.  History does repeat itself.  Just have a look at the small list below for another incredible example of inopportune opportunity for human opposition to Truth and Discovery.

Galileo (1600)

It was not the authorities who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. It was his fellow scientists!  They declared that using a telescope was a waste of time, for even if they did see evidence for his claims, it would only be because Galileo had unfairly bewitched them as he dare propose the evil Copernican viewpoint that the sun was the center of our galaxy.

William Harvey (1630)

The first western scientist to describe the circulatory system with the heart as its central pump.  Unfortunately he described it in the early 17th century and was nearly drummed out of the scientific community for doing so.  Yet he fared far better than Servetus who described the pulmonary circulatory system in the 1500's and was rewarded by being burned at the stake.

Andre Ampere (1800)

For 10 years the famous Mr. Andre Ampere's work was ridiculed and ignored including his grand discovery that force between current elements does not obey a simple inverse square law.  Today his name is the root of Electricity.

George Ohm (Ohm's Law) (1830)

Ohm's initial publication was met with ridicule and dismissal.  His work was called "fantasy".  Ten years passed before scientists finally recognized its great importance but definitely not before Ohm was forced to resign his job as a high school teacher.  After 10 years of “resistance”, the scientific community finally figured out that Ohm's law was absolutely correct.

Julius Mayer (The Law of the Conservation of Energy) (1850)

Mayer's original paper was contemptuously rejected by the leading physics journals of the time.  Guess what, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Man can neither create nor destroy; Mass, nor Gravity, nor Distance.

Nikola Tesla  (King of all Physicists) (1900)

Tesla was greatly ridiculed for his claim that the whole earth would resonate electrically at 7Hz, 14Hz, 21Hz, etc. all the way up into the tens of kilohertz.  He claimed to discover this phenomenon during his radio observations of lightning strikes.  The physicists of the time would have nothing to do with it.  Decades later in the 1950's after Tesla was safely dead, during investigations of the VLF radio signals produced by lightning it was discovered that indeed the whole earth resonates electrically at  7Hz, 14Hz, etc.

Jacobus Van't Hoff (Theory of 3D molecules) (1900)

As a relative newcomer and quite unknown, Jacobus was attacked and ridiculed for proposing that a 3D tetrahedral structure would explain many problems in chemistry.  His foes rapidly went silent as his ridiculous cardboard models won the first Nobel Prize in chemistry.

Barbara McClintlock (Transposons) (1983)

Barbara finally won the Nobel Prize in 1984 after enduring 32 years harsh ridicule and being ignored for her work on the mobility of genetic sequences of DNA that move to different positions within the genome.

The atomic bomb will never go off......and many more!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 07, 2014, 05:55:12 PM
When are you going to answer my question, in regards to question 3,
When it's clear to me what you are asking.   I've asked you to clarify.  You refused.  I posited a question which appears to be what you are asking.  You won't say if it's what you mean.

I have no problem with you asking questions but if you are only going to mock me or shut up when I try to understand what you are saying.  Then clearly you're not being very fair or honest in this process.

Quote
You arranged and formed the questions in a way where there is no right answer.
I arranged the questions to clarify what you mean.  If a diagram contains items from various geometries.  You should be able to point out which parts are which.  If you can't, you should be able to state why.

Quote
Also, there was a rebuttal to the diagram in question, which you say the argument is "probably only half-an-argument because it's wrong. :D
I asserted that the counter-argument, as best as I can understand it - is wrong.  The caveat is that the person doesn't appear to understand how theorems are proved in mathematics.  Neither do you or Mathis for that matter.

Quote
there is no way for me to convince you otherwise.
Where does this come from?  All I've done is ask you a few simple questions and all you have done is everything you could not to answer them.  I'm happy to answer your questions but you won't clarify anything AND when I attempt to restate you won't tell me if I'm right or what changes need to be made to correctly understand your question.

Clearly I am trying to understand your argument and I think you are trying hard not to be understood.

For the Twelfth time: What parts of http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg  this diagram are in which geometries?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 07, 2014, 06:46:24 PM

Clearly I am trying to understand your argument and I think you are trying hard not to be understood.

For the Twelfth time: What parts of http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg)  this diagram are in which geometries?

First, he is just bloviating gibberish and trying to sound intelligent.  Second, your question asked 12 times/3=4.  He seems to like the number 4 for some reason so now maybe he will answer you?

Bill
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 07, 2014, 06:58:05 PM
Also, Grav's sad attempt to tell me I was wrong about orbital mechanics missed the mark.

I said "  You have to speed up to slow down" and that is true.

"I like to sum this up in one statement, "In orbit, you speed up to slow down, and you slow down to speed up!" Crazy, huh!?! If your orbit is oval shaped (has a high eccentricity, then you will be traveling faster when your orbit is closer to the Earth and will slow down when you are farther from Earth. OK, let's move on."
http://smithplanet.com/stuff/orbiter/orbitaloperations.htm (http://smithplanet.com/stuff/orbiter/orbitaloperations.htm)

There are many other sites I can post here that all say the same thing and....since Gemini capsules were able to dock I would say that is proof enough.

Bill
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 07:04:01 PM
sarkeizen,

I have honestly tried to clarify my question to you in various ways without success.  Let's just agree to disagree on the theoretical side of the Pi issue for now.  In a way, I am at fault for allowing my thread to be hijacked by bringing the Pi issue into it.  It was off-topic and irrelevant to the main purpose and content of the thread.  I will restore the content that is relevant and not off-topic to the main purpose of the original thread at a later time so there may be a more meaningful discussion.  I do agree there is nothing wrong with a little heated debate, but let's not take it too far.  We need to realize when it's time to agree to disagree.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 07:10:29 PM
First, he is just bloviating gibberish and trying to sound intelligent.  Second, your question asked 12 times/3=4.  He seems to like the number 4 for some reason so now maybe he will answer you?

Bill

"You have to slow down to speed up and/or speed up to slow down", (Pirate Bill of Kentucky, 2014)

Pirate88179 = bogusinfinite * gibberishinfinte = Total and Complete Nonsense.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 07:20:03 PM
Also, Grav's sad attempt to tell me I was wrong about orbital mechanics missed the mark.

I said "  You have to speed up to slow down" and that is true.

"I like to sum this up in one statement, "In orbit, you speed up to slow down, and you slow down to speed up!" Crazy, huh!?! If your orbit is oval shaped (has a high eccentricity, then you will be traveling faster when your orbit is closer to the Earth and will slow down when you are farther from Earth. OK, let's move on."
http://smithplanet.com/stuff/orbiter/orbitaloperations.htm (http://smithplanet.com/stuff/orbiter/orbitaloperations.htm)

There are many other sites I can post here that all say the same thing and....since Gemini capsules were able to dock I would say that is proof enough.

Bill

Orbit and Expansion are One!

No, you missed the mark, in that I did not attempt to show how you were wrong about orbital mechanics, but instead it was TinselKoala.  Another misdirection by MarkE's minions.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 07:39:17 PM
Look how MarkE tried to deliberately mislead a junior member with a wrong answer to a very simple question by raburgeson (http://www.overunity.com/14632/magnetic-question/msg402433/#msg402433).  Also, take note on how some of MarkE's minions come to his rescue and who they are.  They include Pirate88179 (Pirate Bill of Kentucky), TinselKoala, and MileHigh.  What a way to be!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 07, 2014, 07:53:06 PM
Look how MarkE tried to deliberately mislead a junior member with a wrong answer to a very simple question by raburgeson (http://www.overunity.com/14632/magnetic-question/msg402433/#msg402433).  Also, take note on how some of MarkE's minions come to his rescue and who they are.  They include Pirate88179 (Pirate Bill of Kentucky), TinselKoala, and MileHigh.  What a way to be!

Gravock

So now I am a Minion?  Wow, I never even applied or anything.  This is quite an honor I must say.  No one even hinted to me of this promotion.  I will, to my best ability, perform the tasks and duties required of this new position.  Is there any additional compensation involved?  I could use the money.

Bill  (Pirate Bill From N.J., Hunterdon County to be precise)
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 08:20:06 PM
So now I am a Minion?  Wow, I never even applied or anything.  This is quite an honor I must say.  No one even hinted to me of this promotion.  I will, to my best ability, perform the tasks and duties required of this new position.  Is there any additional compensation involved?  I could use the money.

Bill  (Pirate Bill From N.J., Hunterdon County to be precise)

Or, should I say, "Pirate Bill of Bullshit"!

More lies and misdirections made by you.  A quick search reveals 27 references from you that you live in Kentucky, and the latest reference is in January 22, 2014.  However there is only one reference by you which is related to N.J., and that is of your father working in N.J.  You don't even know where you are, and who you are!  You are in a State of total confusion!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MileHigh on June 07, 2014, 08:31:21 PM
Gravityblock:

Quiting you, "Look how MarkE tried to deliberately mislead a junior member with a wrong answer to a very simple question by raburgeson (http://www.overunity.com/14632/magnetic-question/msg402433/#msg402433)."

Here is the question:  "If I take a clockwise wind air core magnet and replace it with a counter clockwise coil will it reverse the poles?"

The question doesn't even make sense.  It's a bloody retarded question.  The person that posed the question has more than 600 postings on this forum.  So possibly the "No." response from MarkE was a form of chastising the person posing the question.  I don't want to speak for MarkE, just expressing a theory.

You say that it is "a very simple question?"  Please explain.  What is an "air core magnet?"  Do you think the person that posed the question after more than 600 postings on this forum should understand the concept of the direction of current flow?

If you are going to talk about electronics and magnetics and energy, one would hope that you would put it upon yourself to at least learn some basics.  It's not like you have to walk to the library, look though the card index, find a book, go find it in the stacks, go to the counter and borrow it, then walk home and start reading it.

You can find legitimate answers to basic questions in 10 seconds or less and you don't even have to move your butt from your chair.

MileHigh

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 08:45:37 PM
Gravityblock:

Quiting you, "Look how MarkE tried to deliberately mislead a junior member with a wrong answer to a very simple question by raburgeson (http://www.overunity.com/14632/magnetic-question/msg402433/#msg402433)."

Here is the question:  "If I take a clockwise wind air core magnet and replace it with a counter clockwise coil will it reverse the poles?"

The question doesn't even make sense.  It's a bloody retarded question.  The person that posed the question has more than 600 postings on this forum.  So possibly the "No." response from MarkE was a form of chastising the person posing the question.  I don't want to speak for MarkE, just expressing a theory.

You say that it is "a very simple question?"  Please explain.  What is an "air core magnet?"  Do you think the person that posed the question after more than 600 postings on this forum should understand the concept of the direction of current flow?

If you are going to talk about electronics and magnetics and energy, one would hope that you would put it upon yourself to at least learn some basics.  It's not like you have to walk to the library, look though the card index, find a book, go find it in the stacks, go to the counter and borrow it, then walk home and start reading it.

You can find legitimate answers to basic questions in 10 seconds or less and you don't even have to move your butt from your chair.

MileHigh

Ok, let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt.  MarkE in no way, shape or form, should have asserted a "no" answer to a question in which he didn't understand or to a question which needed to be clarified.  MarkE, the other members, and I understood the question being asked.  Your argument for MarkE falls extremely short, and it reveals how you and his other minions will go to great lengths to muddy the waters and cause confusion in order to have an escape goat.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 07, 2014, 08:46:21 PM
I have honestly tried to clarify my question to you in various ways without success.
Try arranging your question in the form:

When you say "<some specific text of mine>" do you mean "<some statement that does not directly reference text of mine>".

I even gave you an example of this and you can't even tell me if it accurately represents your question.  Not even a simple "yes" or "no" or even the considerably more helpful "I would change this word to <something>".   Considering how much time I'm spending attempting to help you express yourself.  Your efforts are looking token at best.

Quote
Let's just agree to disagree on the theoretical side of the Pi issue for now.
You said I had a legitimate rebuttal and you won't even answer ONE QUESTION in reference to that rebuttal on a subject (non-euclidean geometry) that you brought up.  Even though you've been asked twelve times.

You are not fair and you are not honest.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 07, 2014, 08:51:39 PM

Or, should I say "Pirate Bill of Bullshit"!

More lies and misdirections made by you.  A quick search reveals 27 references from you that you live in Kentucky, and the latest reference is in January 22, 2014.  However there is only one reference by you which is related to N.J., and that is of your father working in N.J.  You don't even know where you are, and who you are!  You are in a State of total confusion!

Gravock

Wow!  Impressive.  You sure have a lot of free time on your hands over there.  However, if you actually READ my post I said "Pirate Bill FROM N.J.  I am very proud to be FROM NJ as it is filled with failed Liberal policies and going downhill fast.

I will always be "From N.J." and I can't change that.  As of now, I do live in Kentucky but, probably not for long.  Do I need to include you when I issue my forwarding address information then?

You really need a hobby man, which is why I suggested gardening.  It is really not all that hard and I believe that you could probably get the hang of it eventually.

Bill
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 09:06:31 PM
Wow!  Impressive.  You sure have a lot of free time on your hands over there.  However, if you actually READ my post I said "Pirate Bill FROM N.J.  I am very proud to be FROM NJ as it is filled with failed Liberal policies and going downhill fast.

I will always be "From N.J." and I can't change that.  As of now, I do live in Kentucky but, probably not for long.  Do I need to include you when I issue my forwarding address information then?

You really need a hobby man, which is why I suggested gardening.  It is really not all that hard and I believe that you could probably get the hang of it eventually.

Bill

Well, Kentucky better represents how you think!  Maybe it's a good idea for you to move out of Kentucky.  I'm not sure why you would be very proud of your home town being filled with failed Liberal policies and going downhill fast.  You were even excited to be known as one of MarkE's minions.  These things are representative of one with a nature who is not for the truth, peace, prosperity, advancements, etc.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 07, 2014, 09:18:46 PM
Well, Kentucky better represents how you think!
Do you actually think you're worth taking seriously when you avoid a question like:

"You say that part of this diagram http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg is in a non-euclidian geometry.  Can you tell me which parts?"

But have time to insult a town?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 07, 2014, 10:15:32 PM
Do you actually think you're worth taking seriously when you avoid a question like:

"You say that part of this diagram http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) is in a non-euclidian geometry.  Can you tell me which parts?"

But have time to insult a town?

Kentucky is a state and not a town and is well known by others for the jokes about it, so the insults don't come from me alone, but from others also!  Pirate Bill of Kentucky is proving the basis for these insults to be true.

Why don't you tell me which parts!  Or, do you not know?  You don't even know if the "If yes" portion in question 3 refers to the answer for question 1 or to the answer for question 2, in regards to the questions you've been asking me.  It's because you are trying to play both the "yes card" and the "no card" simultaneously for the same question.  This is the basis for why I am refusing to answer your question, so you can't play both cards against me.  You need to grow up!  I am no longer having a discussion with you on this issue, because you will do anything, regardless if it is wrong, to win an argument.  I am done with you!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 12:28:12 AM
In case you didn't know, I don't dispute that Pi is equal to 3.14... for static circles that are non-changing without a time element involved.
There is no other kind of circle in Euclidean geometry:  The geometry for which Pi is defined.
Quote

However, I do dispute that Pi is equal to 3.14... for dynamic circles which have a time element and is changing due to our expansion acceleration.
There is no such thing.
Quote

It is you who is limited and stuck on 3rd grade math and not able to move beyond this level, and not me.

Bill's post is an example of a psychological projection used by MarkE and his minions.

Gravock
It's back to those dark kitchen utensils.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MasterPlaster on June 08, 2014, 12:33:36 AM

I only dropped it to see what is the latest in OU research. I'll pop back in a few months to see if this thread has moved on!
I however want to to categoricly state I am not a minion in case I shall be judged in my absence!

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 12:35:42 AM
sarkeizen,

I have honestly tried to clarify my question to you in various ways without success.  Let's just agree to disagree on the theoretical side of the Pi issue for now.  In a way, I am at fault for allowing my thread to be hijacked by bringing the Pi issue into it.
IOW you have utterly and completely failed in your silly argument that you introduced and wish to withdraw from it.
Quote
It was off-topic and irrelevant to the main purpose and content of the thread.  I will restore the content that is relevant and not off-topic to the main purpose of the original thread at a later time so there may be a more meaningful discussion.  I do agree there is nothing wrong with a little heated debate, but let's not take it too far.  We need to realize when it's time to agree to disagree.

Gravock
LOL, you cannot show where you have done much of anything to either answer Sarkeizen's questions or otherwise reduce ambiguity.  Twelve times now he has asked you a very simple and direct question that you steadfastly refuse to answer:  Which elements in the Mathis drawing that you refer to and declare contains both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometric objects are Euclidean and which are not?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: ACG on June 08, 2014, 02:01:33 AM
Correction:  Title 1 of N

Currently 3 of N

Now title 4 of N.  I have not monitored for a few days.  Could be title 5 or 6 of N.  So you got a possible free title reduction!

To my knowledge in 4 title changes, 2 of which included the name of forum members.  Fitting into the pattern just perfectly.  Which pattern you ask.  The smart ones here been figured that out.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 06:41:26 AM
I only dropped it to see what is the latest in OU research. I'll pop back in a few months to see if this thread has moved on!
I however want to to categoricly state I am not a minion in case I shall be judged in my absence!

I don't see how this thread will move on.  The minions have no respect for those who they disagree with.  If I was a casual reader and poster, I would think twice about posting a view which they oppose.  The minions headed by MarkE prefer not to be guided by truth in their postings, but by the rule of the gun (trolling, spamming, misdirections, psychological projections, etc). They have come to believe in their false exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destiny of this forum, that it is only them who can be right.

However, you can have a view similar to theirs without being a minion by avoiding the rule of the gun they so often resort to when the debate isn't going in their favour.  It would be nice to see more people voice their opinions, but I doubt it will happen.  I would love to be proven wrong on this!  Stand up and speak out.  Rise above their suppression tactics.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 08, 2014, 07:01:14 AM
The minions have no respect for those who they disagree with.
Speaking for myself, my waning respect for you has nothing to do with the fact that we disagree.  It's that you will write vague-paragraph long diatribes about people in this thread but can't take fifteen seconds to answer a straightforward, jargon-free question.  Which you have been asked twelve times by me...and other people in this thread want you to answer it too.
Quote

The minions headed by MarkE prefer not to be guided by truth in their postings, but by the rule of the gun (trolling, spamming, misdirections, psychological projections, etc).
"the rule of the gun"?  Seriously?  You are starting to sound unhinged.
Quote
They have come to believe in their false exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destiny of this forum, that it is only them who can be right.
Dude.  I have spent many more years studying math than you have.  This is simply a fact.  On average my opinion will be better than yours.  I came up with a line of reasoning in about four minutes.  A line of reasoning that has you so frightened that you have spent over a week avoiding answering a simple question.

Which one of us falsely believes themselves to be exceptional again?   Sounds like you.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 07:31:40 AM
I came up with a line of reasoning in about four minutes.  A line of reasoning that has you so frightened that you have spent over a week avoiding answering a simple question.

Which one of us falsely believes themselves to be exceptional again?   Sounds like you.

A line of reasoning where you want to play both the "yes card" and "no card" simultaneously.  This is clearly evident, since you will not tell me what previous question the "If yes" portion refers to in question 3.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 07:36:57 AM
I don't see how this thread will move on.  The minions have no respect for those who they disagree with.  If I was a casual reader and poster, I would think twice about posting a view which they oppose.  The minions headed by MarkE prefer not to be guided by truth in their postings, but by the rule of the gun (trolling, spamming, misdirections, psychological projections, etc). They have come to believe in their false exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destiny of this forum, that it is only them who can be right.

However, you can have a view similar to theirs without being a minion by avoiding the rule of the gun they so often resort to when the debate isn't going in their favour.  It would be nice to see more people voice their opinions, but I doubt it will happen.  I would love to be proven wrong on this!  Stand up and speak out.  Rise above their suppression tactics.

Gravock
LOL, it is pretty obvious who here is adverse to facts and discussion and who is not.  Sarkeizen has asked you a plain and simple question a full dozen times now and you still refuse to answer.  You've changed your silly argument about Pi from being due to time factors which do not exist in geometry, to saying that you are using a different system of geometry than the rest of us, to saying that you are mixing elements from different geometry systems, but you will not identify which elements are from which system, to insisting that you are a victim of a trolling campaign.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 09:56:40 AM
Quantum Pi (http://forum.rs2theory.org/node/425):  Discussions of the Reevaluation of the Reciprocal System

Compare my quotes below to the images attached to this post, as found at the Quantum Pi link.  The universe is pixelated at the planck length.  It is well known and accepted in physics that matter/energy is quantized and moves in discrete jumps and not in a continuous motion.  Nikola Tesla said, "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties".  Since space isn't curved, then matter can not follow a diagonal or curved path, but must follow a rectilinear motion through space.

Gravock

Look up Planck's constant - matter/energy is quantized. A circle is theoretical, there's no perfect circle in nature anywhere.  A real circle with a time variable is quantized at the planck scale with a zig-zag or rectilinear circumference, just as you find with the square in the squares method.  This is how there is a convergence on the rectilinear circumference at the planck scale

Edit:  Also, in step two of the squaring method, we can see there are four points of the square which converge on the rectilinear circumference of the circle.  In each successive step of the squaring method, more and more points converge exponentially.  At the planck scale, all points will have converged on the rectilinear circumference of the circle.

Gravock

No, because a real circle with a time variable will have a path length which is also stuck at 4*D at the planck scale as it traverses through space-time in a zig-zag or rectilinear motion.  The path length of the circumference is 4*D with no approximation.

Gravock

Matter doesn't move in a continuous motion, it moves in discrete jumps at the planck length.  When the squaring method reaches the planck length, the inner square vertices will be at all points on the rectilinear circumference of the circle itself, which is not continuous and is made of discrete jumps.  The Manhattan path does correctly simulate the time variable in real circles at the planck length!

Edited for better clarification.

Gravock

No, the inner vertices at the planck length can not be connected with chords in a real circle with a time variable.  By connecting the inner vertices at the planck length with chords, then you are saying matter moves in a continuous motion and not in discrete jumps.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: d3x0r on June 08, 2014, 10:03:19 AM
The issue I think is ... stating 'pi is not pi' is like saying 'a' is 'z'

so then the whole zlphzbet chznges; but it rezlly doesn't... it issue is, pi isn't the right constznt in zll cases; not thzt pi is sometimes z different vzlue.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 10:09:56 AM
The issue I think is ... stating 'pi is not pi' is like saying 'a' is 'z'

so then the whole zlphzbet chznges; but it rezlly doesn't... it issue is, pi isn't the right constznt in zll cases; not thzt pi is sometimes z different vzlue.

Well said!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 10:10:17 AM
Quantum Pi (http://forum.rs2theory.org/node/425):  Discussions of the Reevaluation of the Reciprocal System

Compare my quotes below to the images attached to this post, as found at the Quantum Pi link.  The universe is pixelated at the planck length.  It is well known and accepted in physics that matter/energy is quantized and moves in discrete jumps and not in a continuous motion.  Nikola Tesla said, "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties".  Since space isn't curved, then matter can not follow a diagonal or curved path, but must follow a rectilinear motion through space.

Gravock
Little motions that turn perpendicularly at discrete intervals would require infinite acceleration at each perpendicular turn, and therefore infinite power to execute.  That is yet another fail for your silly concept.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: minnie on June 08, 2014, 10:17:16 AM

As a casual reader I find gravityblock irritating and is blocking progress.
Everyone seems to agree for Euclidean geometry that Pi is 3.14 etc.
Therefore the silly diagram has to be non Euclidean if it's meant to have
some sort of meaning.
It's got to the stage like when mr. Travis was confused about answering
a yes/no question as to if he had a 5hp. self running machine, when earlier
on he'd referred to "our 5 hp. machine".
Many of these things are resolved in the first two pages, then fester on for
months. It's now up to gravityblock to push the thing further by being
smarter and presenting his case in a better way so as to silence the
opposition. Why not answer the question that's been asked a dozen times?
The old Koala would say "I know why!",
John

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 10:18:36 AM
Little motions that turn perpendicularly at discrete intervals would require infinite acceleration at each perpendicular turn, and therefore infinite power to execute.  That is yet another fail for your silly concept.

No, your assertion is not true, because you are not taking the expansion acceleration of matter and space into consideration!  In addition to this, your assertion wrongly assumes a continuous motion.  This is yet another fail for a false assertion by you.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 10:29:02 AM

As a casual reader I find gravityblock irritating and is blocking progress.
Everyone seems to agree for Euclidean geometry that Pi is 3.14 etc.
Therefore the silly diagram has to be non Euclidean if it's meant to have
some sort of meaning.
It's got to the stage like when mr. Travis was confused about answering
a yes/no question as to if he had a 5hp. self running machine, when earlier
on he'd referred to "our 5 hp. machine".
Many of these things are resolved in the first two pages, then fester on for
months. It's now up to gravityblock to push the thing further by being
smarter and presenting his case in a better way so as to silence the
opposition. Why not answer the question that's been asked a dozen times?
The old Koala would say "I know why!",
John

Euclidean geometry does not represent the real world.  It is not quantized and gives the impression that matter can move in a curve or in a straight path over long distances through space with a continuous motion.  It takes the time element out of the equation.  Time is motion, or motion is Time.  Taxicab geometry has discrete steps (quantization) and shows the correct movement of matter through space, and that is in discrete jumps with a rectilinear motion which correctly represents the real world.

If you don't ask the right questions, then you don't get the right answers.  I can't give a right answer to a wrong question.  However, the right question and the right answer can both be found in this post!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 12:54:50 PM
No, your assertion is not true, because you are not taking the expansion acceleration of matter and space into consideration!  In addition to this, your assertion wrongly assumes a continuous motion.  This is yet another fail for a false assertion by you.

Gravock
LOL, is this yet another Mathism that you promote ?  A change in velocity: direction or speed is the result of an acceleration: period.  You are free to try and show actual credible references to experiments that show a change in velocity without acceleration.  You are free to try and show an example of a true instant 90 degree turn taken by anything, anywhere.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 01:00:35 PM
Euclidean geometry does not represent the real world.  It is not quantized and gives the impression that matter can move in a curve or in a straight path over long distances through space with a continuous motion.  It takes the time element out of the equation.  Time is motion, or motion is Time.  Taxicab geometry has discrete steps (quantization) and shows the correct movement of matter through space, and that is in discrete jumps with a rectilinear motion which correctly represents the real world.

If you don't ask the right questions, then you don't get the right answers.  I can't give a right answer to a wrong question.  However, the right question and the right answer can both be found in this post!

Gravock
LOL, let's see you demonstrate one of these instant 90 degree motions that you insist are the basis of all real trajectories.  Let's see you show the 90 degree movements that you claim are "correct movement of matter through space" for a collimated beam of light such as a LASER.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Qwert on June 08, 2014, 02:18:21 PM
LOL, is this yet another Mathism that you promote ?  A change in velocity: direction or speed is the result of an acceleration: period.  You are free to try and show actual credible references to experiments that show a change in velocity without acceleration.  You are free to try and show an example of a true instant 90 degree turn taken by anything, anywhere.

Hi. I find gravityblock quite a knowledgeable guy; his only problem I found through this forum, is, he is a Creationist and all his theories are subject of Creationism.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 02:28:54 PM
Do you believe his assertion that objects follow paths that consist of a series of perfect 90 degree deflections?  Do you believe his claim that such deflections are even possible without unlimited power?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 08, 2014, 02:38:19 PM
Kentucky is a state
A fact I'm well aware but you talked about the posters hometown.  Clearly you must also be insulting a town.  Also in my hometown they taught us that other peoples bigotry does not excuse your own.  Perhaps they didn't teach that lesson in yours?  Anyway the point was, you appear to have time to make bigoted comments but not answer my question.

Quote
Why don't you tell me which parts!  Or, do you not know?
I assume you mean that I should tell you what parts in Mathis diagram which are non-euclidean.  Again I think I need to remind you that the assertion "Some of that diagram is non-euclidean" is yours and for some reason you think I should be responsible for explaining your assertion.   If I understood your assertion then I wouldn't need you to explain it.   Which would preclude my asking the question.  Your assertion I suspect is wrong but as I mentioned before it's a good idea to hear out the argument before passing judgement.  So far you simply are being dishonest and unfair about the whole process of understanding your argument.

Quote
You don't even know if the "If yes" portion in question 3 refers to the answer for question 1 or to the answer for question 2, in regards to the questions you've been asking me.
No, I don't know what you mean by your question.  That's a different thing.  A thing you absolutely refuse to clarify.  I explained why your question doesn't make sense to me (as in some sense "refer" applies to all aspects of the questions since they are words, which refer to sentences which refer to an overarching argument).  I provided a question which I think might be what you are trying to express - which you refused to say anything about and I provided you with a pretty clear general format for asking me a question which would clarify the situation.   What more do you want?

Quote
It's because you are trying to play both the "yes card" and the "no card" simultaneously for the same question.
I have no idea what you mean here because again I have no idea what your complaint is.  If this is about the three pointed syllogism I gave you.  You already answered it enough to get to the point.  However that is not the question you constantly refuse to answer.  The question you refuse to answer (now asked THIRTEEN TIMES) is: "When you say that Mathis http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg diagram contains euclidean and non-euclidean geometries.  Please point out which elements are in which geometries."

The three-point syllogism was just to show that you must be able to do this.

Quote
This is the basis for why I am refusing to answer your question, so you can't play both cards against me.
Personally I don't see why anyone arguing would care about "cards" at all.  Just ask questions and see where the argument goes.  Seems like a more honest way to find the answer than what you are doing.

Quote
You need to grow up!
I'm not sure what passes for adult behavior where you are but your antics here remind me of what I was like when I was 18 which is when I knew jack about shit. :D
Quote
I am no longer having a discussion with you on this issue
Did this qualify as a discussion?  You kept pretty much your argument secret and I laid mine out to be examined.  If this was a discussion, can you tell me what it was about?

Quote
because you will do anything, regardless if it is wrong, to win an argument.
I'm beginning to this is more about you doing anything, regardless if it is wrong to avoid losing an argument.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Qwert on June 08, 2014, 03:16:49 PM
Do you believe his assertion that objects follow paths that consist of a series of perfect 90 degree deflections?  Do you believe his claim that such deflections are even possible without unlimited power?

Probably in Creationist's way it's possible. You know, those people don't need to prove anything, they just believe; very hard believe. Thus, gravityblock goes far too far since he even attempts to argue.
Don't forget, Creationists believe the Universe was created within literally 7 (seven) days and that happened somewhat ten thousand years ago. It must be true because The Bible say so. ???
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 04:36:45 PM
A fact I'm well aware but you talked about the posters hometown.  Clearly you must also be insulting a town.

Another misdirection by you.  It was Pirate Bill of Kentucky who spoke badly about his home town and not me.  I only questioned why he would be very proud of his home town's failed liberal policies and going down hill fast.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 04:48:02 PM
LOL, let's see you demonstrate one of these instant 90 degree motions that you insist are the basis of all real trajectories.  Let's see you show the 90 degree movements that you claim are "correct movement of matter through space" for a collimated beam of light such as a LASER.

You have inverted the truth.  Light is stationary, and we are moving past stationary light in our surrounding space at 9.8m/s2 via our expansion acceleration.  This is what we call gravity!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on June 08, 2014, 04:49:57 PM
It's patently absurd for someone to claim that "calculus is wrong" and that "pi = 4" when he's sitting there typing on a computer, that was designed by people who believe in and use calculus and the FACT that pi = 3.14159.... very day to solve practical problems and get the correct answers that actually work. Especially when he cannot give any examples where his conceptions give the correct answers but real calculus does not.

Combined with his lies and misrepresentations about the work and posts of others, his ridiculous flailings are not even entertaining any more, as they are simply repetitive and non-responsive, mere repetitions of previously-made and undefensible assertions.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 04:54:38 PM
The question you refuse to answer (now asked THIRTEEN TIMES) is: "When you say that Mathis http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg (http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) diagram contains euclidean and non-euclidean geometries.  Please point out which elements are in which geometries."

You are not asking the right question.  If you don't ask the right question, then you won't get the right answer.  For example, the question, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"  This is a bad question, for the question itself wrongly implies one came before the other, when they actually came together as one.  The chicken is in the egg, and the egg is in the form of a chicken.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 05:05:12 PM
It's patently absurd for someone to claim that "calculus is wrong" and that "pi = 4" when he's sitting there typing on a computer, that was designed by people who believe in and use calculus and the FACT that pi = 3.14159.... very day to solve practical problems and get the correct answers that actually work. Especially when he cannot give any examples where his conceptions give the correct answers but real calculus does not.

Combined with his lies and misrepresentations about the work and posts of others, his ridiculous flailings are not even entertaining any more, as they are simply repetitive and non-responsive, mere repetitions of previously-made and undefensible assertions.

Another misdirection, and another wrong assumption and wrong assertion by you.  Programmers that dealt with the early computer graphics, where you programmed at pixel level, know that the perimeter of a pixelated circle is 4x its diameter and that had to be accounted for when a user tried to pick a location on a circle.  See the snapshot below, which can be found at the Quantum Pi (http://forum.rs2theory.org/node/425).  Now what happens if you try to draw a circle on a computer monitor that has a radius of 1 pixel? Well, you get a 2x2 square, with a circumference of 8 pixel units (assuming a 1:1 height:width ratio), diameter = 2 units, and PI, the ratio of circumference to diameter, is therefore 4 (not 3.14), due to this pixelation.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 05:23:51 PM
Hi. I find gravityblock quite a knowledgeable guy; his only problem I found through this forum, is, he is a Creationist and all his theories are subject of Creationism.

My theories are subject to the Truth.  However, the Truth does indeed fall in-line with an Intelligent Designer.  Nature can produce patterns, but nature alone can not produce content with information, such as DNA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib5afvPVsUc) (video).

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Qwert on June 08, 2014, 05:31:22 PM
My theories are subject to the Truth.  However, the Truth does indeed fall in-line with an Intelligent Designer.  Nature can produce patterns, but nature alone can not produce content with information, such as DNA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib5afvPVsUc).

Gravock

That's exactly what I meant, only maybe not exactly expressed.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 05:35:39 PM
That's exactly what I meant, only maybe not exactly expressed.

Thanks for not misrepresenting me!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 08, 2014, 06:45:27 PM
Another misdirection by you.  It was Pirate Bill of Kentucky who spoke badly about his home town and not me.  I only questioned why he would be very proud of his home town's failed liberal policies and going down hill fast.

Gravock

Holy Crap!  Speaking of misdirection....sheesh.  I must have lost like ten I.Q. points reading this gibberish.  Are you really this ignorant or are you just pretending?

Have you never heard of being happy to be "FROM" somewhere?  Does this concept not exist in your little fantasy world over there?  Did you consider that when I lived there it was not like that?  No?  Didn't think so.  I swear, a first grader would not misunderstand my statement the way you have.

OK, here you go:  Do you think it is possible that there might be a few folks that used to live in Detroit and are now happy they are FROM there?  My guess is that would be all of them, but you will probably say none, once again displaying your ignorance for all to see.

You are a minion for ignorance!

Bill
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 07:17:33 PM
LOL, is this yet another Mathism that you promote ?  A change in velocity: direction or speed is the result of an acceleration: period.  You are free to try and show actual credible references to experiments that show a change in velocity without acceleration.  You are free to try and show an example of a true instant 90 degree turn taken by anything, anywhere.

The expansion of matter and space are 90o out of phase with one another which gives matter a rectilinear motion through it's surrounding space at any given point in time.  There is a continual interaction between matter and space.  This continual interaction between space and matter induces both an expansion acceleration and a motion (Time).  Orbit and Expansion are One!  Us moving past stationary light via expansion acceleration is what we call gravity.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 07:27:04 PM
Holy Crap!  Speaking of misdirection....sheesh.  I must have lost like ten I.Q. points reading this gibberish.  Are you really this ignorant or are you just pretending?

Have you never heard of being happy to be "FROM" somewhere?  Does this concept not exist in your little fantasy world over there?  Did you consider that when I lived there it was not like that?  No?  Didn't think so.  I swear, a first grader would not misunderstand my statement the way you have.

OK, here you go:  Do you think it is possible that there might be a few folks that used to live in Detroit and are now happy they are FROM there?  My guess is that would be all of them, but you will probably say none, once again displaying your ignorance for all to see.

You are a minion for ignorance!

Bill

This is another psychological projection by you.

Bill, my home town has also went down hill, but this is not something I am very proud of.  I would be proud of my home town to see it flourishing, not the other way around.  It is you who is the minion for ignorance, and not me!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: minnie on June 08, 2014, 08:14:49 PM

I'm only an old retired farmer with a broken back. I do love a good problem to
solve.
To me it looks as if Pi needn't be stuck a 4. With pixels wouldn't matters change
with scale?
I think Planck lengths aren't really workable, how about going up a few levels
and considering atoms or molecules?
Let's see some real progress here because in the not too distant future I'm going
to end up on the wrong side of the lawn!
John.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 09:38:02 PM

I'm only an old retired farmer with a broken back. I do love a good problem to
solve.
To me it looks as if Pi needn't be stuck a 4. With pixels wouldn't matters change
with scale?

I think Planck lengths aren't really workable, how about going up a few levels
and considering atoms or molecules?

Let's see some real progress here because in the not too distant future I'm going
to end up on the wrong side of the lawn!
John.

With pixels wouldn't matters change with scale?

Let's take a pixel or a square with a perimeter of four units as measured by our ruler having 1 unit (4 units / 1 unit = 4).  After one second, the perimeter becomes eight units, and our ruler now become 2 units, so we measure the square to have the same perimeter of four (8 units / 2 units = 4).  The first pixel or square with a perimeter of four units can represent the planck scale, and the second pixel or square after 1 second with a perimeter of 8 units can represent atoms or molecules.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 08, 2014, 09:58:38 PM
It was Pirate Bill of Kentucky who spoke badly about his home town and not me.  I only questioned why he would be very proud of his home town's failed liberal policies and going down hill fast.
Fair enough.  However that doesn't really change the point.  Which was that you had time to make bigoted comments but not answer a clear, useful and jargon-free question.  Which certainly calls into question how seriously anyone should take you.
You are not asking the right question.
The answer will clarify your position on a subject I brought up which you claimed was wrong (summarily before asking a single question).  Hence it is a correct question to be asking.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 08, 2014, 10:03:35 PM
It's like MarkE said, a circle is really a square in taxicab geometry.  Likewise, a circle is really a square or made up of pixels in the real world.  As you can clearly see, taxicab geometry correctly represents the real world!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 08, 2014, 11:48:55 PM
LOL, no, as anyone who cares to check can see:  I have correctly stated that a Taxicab circle is a Euclidean square.  I have not as GB claims stated that a Euclidean circle is a Taxicab square.  GB is free to quote any of my posts where he thinks he can show otherwise.  Of course he cannot do so, just as he cannot support his other false declarations.

GB has been unable to show support for his claims instant 90 degree movement claims.  He merely asserts and his assertions fail to directly address his claims or the challenges to them.  He has today added a new pant load that light is motionless and all things accelerate at a rate close to the acceleration due to gravity at sea level on earth, millions of verified observations directly contradicting his claims be damned.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 09, 2014, 12:46:56 AM
LOL, no, as anyone who cares to check can see:  I have correctly stated that a Taxicab circle is a Euclidean square.  I have not as GB claims stated that a Euclidean circle is a Taxicab square.  GB is free to quote any of my posts where he thinks he can show otherwise.  Of course he cannot do so, just as he cannot support his other false declarations.

GB has been unable to show support for his claims instant 90 degree movement claims.  He merely asserts and his assertions fail to directly address his claims or the challenges to them.  He has today added a new pant load that light is motionless and all things accelerate at a rate close to the acceleration due to gravity at sea level on earth, millions of verified observations directly contradicting his claims be damned.

Yes, but a euclidean circle doesn't correctly represent a circular path made of pixels in the real world.  However taxicab geometry does.  I have provided you with the mechanism for the 90 degree movements.  I also never stated all things accelerate at a rate of 9.8m/s2 as you wrongly asserted.  I only said our expansion acceleration in our surrounding space of the earth is 9.8m/s2.  Light only reflects off a curved surface at one proper angle.  If light was moving, then we wouldn't see the entire circumference of the moon, but would see a dot.  Now, taking the craters on the moon into consideration, then the moon would look like a random cluster of stars if light was moving.  Since we see the entire circumference of the moon, then this is evidence that light is stationary, and it is us moving past stationary light via expansion acceleration.  There are many more proofs for this.  I had an accident and cut three fingers down to the bone, so it's taking a long time for me to type this out.  I'm also in the process of moving.  So, please be patient with me!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 09, 2014, 04:13:01 AM
Yes, but a euclidean circle doesn't correctly represent a circular path made of pixels in the real world.  However taxicab geometry does.  I have provided you with the mechanism for the 90 degree movements.  I also never stated all things accelerate at a rate of 9.8m/s2 as you wrongly asserted.  I only said our expansion acceleration in our surrounding space of the earth is 9.8m/s2.  Light only reflects off a curved surface at one proper angle.  If light was moving, then we wouldn't see the entire circumference of the moon, but would see a dot.  Now, taking the craters on the moon into consideration, then the moon would look like a random cluster of stars if light was moving.  Since we see the entire circumference of the moon, then this is evidence that light is stationary, and it is us moving past stationary light via expansion acceleration.  There are many more proofs for this.  I had an accident and cut three fingers down to the bone, so it's taking a long time for me to type this out.  I'm also in the process of moving.  So, please be patient with me!

Gravock
LOL, you just keep filling up one pant load after another.  You have not and cannot show proof of your claim that in the "real world" that circular paths are made of pixels.  And by the way Taxicab geometry does not do what you claim either.  And no you have not provided a mechanism for sequences of perfect 90 degree movements.  You have made claims of two forces acting at 90 degrees to each other.  So, it's just one pant load after another from you.

Now, you're offering up new pant loads about the circumference of the moon not being visible by reflected light.  Did you cut your fingers thinking that a circular saw is non-Euclidean?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 09, 2014, 05:15:17 AM
As you can clearly see, taxicab geometry correctly represents the real world!
Why can't you tell me what in this diagram http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg is euclidean and non-euclidean.  Do you no longer assert that it has both euclidean and non-euclidean geometries in it?
And by the way Taxicab geometry does not do what you claim either.
No kidding.  Depending on which things are being asserted (which gravityblock keeps secret by not answering questions) I could think of a dozen problems that crop up because of this.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 10, 2014, 05:59:03 AM
I do agree though, that the true one-way velocity of light is zero.

MarkE, it appears one of your minions (TinselKoala (http://www.overunity.com/12716/probality-of-god/msg343394/#msg343394)) agrees with me on the true velocity of light.  Your senses and your mind are deceiving you, along with this system of things.  Wake up!  You have been deceived and lied to, but don't kill the messenger.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 10, 2014, 06:47:34 AM
You have not and cannot show proof of your claim that in the "real world" that circular paths are made of pixels.

Yet more evidence emerges that our universe is a grand simulation created by an intelligent designer (http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_universe_simulation_intelligent_design.html).  Also, another wrong assertion by you that I cannot show proof that circular paths are made of pixels in the "real world".

Below is a snapshot on the above article.  This is more evidence pointing to a pixelated world.  Do a google search for a "holographic universe".  There is only one thing that is real, and that is Spirit!

A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847).

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 10, 2014, 08:24:24 AM
Yet more evidence emerges that our universe is a grand simulation created by an intelligent designer (http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_universe_simulation_intelligent_design.html).  Also, another wrong assertion by you that I cannot show proof that circular paths are made of pixels in the "real world".

Below is a snapshot on the above article.  This is more evidence pointing to a pixelated world.  Do a google search for a "holographic universe".  There is only one thing that is real, and that is Spirit!

A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847).

Gravock
LOL.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: CuriousChris on June 10, 2014, 01:27:31 PM
Pixelated Universe.

Interesting wording. Isn't that what quantumn mechanics is? Is somebody just starting to catch up?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 10, 2014, 03:16:19 PM
Pixelated Universe.

Interesting wording. Isn't that what quantumn mechanics is? Is somebody just starting to catch up?
There is only a small overlap between the idea of a "pixelated universe" and QM.  QM is based on the premise of finite states.  That is quite different from the notion of pixelation which discretizes a space into fixed sized sites: the pixels.  Of the few things they have in common is that each involves discrete values.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 10, 2014, 04:36:21 PM
http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_universe_simulation_intelligent_design.html
Sorry.  Mr. Mike who's only advertised credential is "health ranger" is not qualified to have a useful opinion on such things.  His standard of evidence appears to be, based on the number of nonsense things he's endorsed so ridiculously low it seems that the only qualification for an article to be considered is that it's probably wrong and poorly defined.   Which is why I would assess Natural News credibility somewhere between an infinitesimal positive value and negative infinity.

Quote
A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence
As someone who knows a little about statistics I am always interested in strong statistical evidence.  So in your very qualified opinion what makes the evidence strong statistically?

If that's too tough try this one:

You have said that this diagram: http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg contains both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry.  What in it is euclidean and non-euclidean?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 10, 2014, 10:38:12 PM
Sorry.  Mr. Mike who's only advertised credential is "health ranger" is not qualified to have a useful opinion on such things.  His standard of evidence appears to be, based on the number of nonsense things he's endorsed so ridiculously low it seems that the only qualification for an article to be considered is that it's probably wrong and poorly defined.   Which is why I would assess Natural News credibility somewhere between an infinitesimal positive value and negative infinity.
As someone who knows a little about statistics I am always interested in strong statistical evidence.

So in your very qualified opinion what makes the evidence strong statistically?

Don't take Mr. Mike's word for it, do a google search.  The universe being pixelated and is a hologram is coming out of mainstream science, in which most subscribe to and hold so dearly to their hearts.  Where have you been?  The Universe is an Illusion, But Consciousness Isn't (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Byqy249bXkc) (video).  Scientists Confirm That Reality is an Illusion - Our 3D Universe Is A Hologram (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAo5uLCPio) (video).  NASA Physicist Tom Campbell: "We Live in a Virtual Reality, PRESS START & Play the Game of Life (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogKO-2DA224) (video).  Holographic Fractal Universe, by Nassim Haramein (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz0vAYkUe4g) (video).  You have been bamboozled and hoodwinked!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 10, 2014, 11:01:01 PM
Pixelated Universe.

Interesting wording. Isn't that what quantumn mechanics is? Is somebody just starting to catch up?

Yes, MarkE and his minions are a little behind and need some catching up!  I doubt they will obtain the knowledge for their Spirit/Consciousness to escape from this matrix.  This will lead to their eternal damnation.

Scientists successfully implant artificial memory system (http://mind-computer.com/2012/04/21/scientists-successfully-implant-chip-that-controls-the-brain-allowing-thoughts-memory-and-behavior-to-be-transferred-from-one-brain-to-another/) -  Scientists working at the University of Southern California, home of the Department of Homeland Security’s National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, have created an artificial memory system that allows thoughts, memories and learned behaviour to be transferred from one brain to another.

Completely synthetic human bodies from SynDaver Labs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0ArVWI5GHk) (video).  Synthetic Brains - DARPA Building Robots With ‘Real’ Brains (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1101)!  In summary, they have achieved immortality.  This will lead to a total enslavement of mankind under horrific conditions.  An environment so terrible, they will seek death and not find it, for death will elude them.

Revelation 9:6  During those days people will seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

"The old has been made new again"

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 11, 2014, 02:12:31 AM
Don't take Mr. Mike's word for it
I didn't but apparently I've stumbled upon another question that you can't answer.

You said that a particular paper had STRONG statistical evidence.   I simply asked the honest, clear and unambiguous question:

"What makes the evidence in that paper STATISTICALLY strong?"

...and you of course....went mute. :D (You can consider this me asking this question a second time, I've asked the other question something like fourteen times).
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MileHigh on June 11, 2014, 02:16:55 AM
Be prepared to Blow Your Mind!

Hip-hop Universe!

Cosmic Zoom!

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 11, 2014, 03:04:47 AM
I didn't but apparently I've stumbled upon another question that you can't answer.

You said that a particular paper had STRONG statistical evidence.   I simply asked the honest, clear and unambiguous question:

"What makes the evidence in that paper STATISTICALLY strong?"

...and you of course....went mute. :D (You can consider this me asking this question a second time, I've asked the other question something like fourteen times).

The Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation.  Beane and co's paper reveals that the pattern of this rule mirrors a computer simulation.  The energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live.  The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe."  The answer was provided prior to you asking the question.  Maybe you should take some time to try and wrap your mind around this.  Or, maybe you can ask Beane and co's why this is strong statistical evidence, since this is what their paper is revealing.  Do you have a mind of your own?  Or, do you need someone to do your thinking for you?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: d3x0r on June 11, 2014, 03:05:38 AM
Be prepared to Blow Your Mind!

Hip-hop Universe!

Cosmic Zoom!

http://youtu.be/ISR4ebdGlOk?t=54s  not as good as they above...

flying around solar systems they have a drive that is FTL... so to go between two planets one can get to say 20c and that's still really really slow.... really gives one a feel for how big things are
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 11, 2014, 04:32:34 AM
The Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation.  Beane and co's paper reveals that the pattern of this rule mirrors a computer simulation.
Your statement appears to be from "Huffpo" which is not exactly Physical Review.   Secondly it appears to be refrencing MIT's Technology Review.  Which is considerably more reserved in it's judgement.  Just like oh...I don't know... the paper itself.

My question remains though.  How is anything you describe statistical, strong or statistically strong.   So far you haven't mentioned anything to that effect.  Can you even describe to me what kind of evidence would be statistically strong?

So this will be the third time I've asked this question...and you are stumped.

A bonus question might be:  Why is it, so EASY for me to stump you on a question about your own ideas?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 11, 2014, 05:06:30 AM
Your statement appears to be from "Huffpo" which is not exactly Physical Review.   Secondly it appears to be refrencing MIT's Technology Review.  Which is considerably more reserved in it's judgement.  Just like oh...I don't know... the paper itself.

My question remains though.  How is anything you describe statistical, strong or statistically strong.   So far you haven't mentioned anything to that effect.  Can you even describe to me what kind of evidence would be statistically strong?

So this will be the third time I've asked this question...and you are stumped.

A bonus question might be:  Why is it, so EASY for me to stump you on a question about your own ideas?

Cry me a river!  You're just being difficult, for you have no rebuttals!  You will always find some reason which doesn't satisfy your questions.  Vladimir Putin has you pegged!  Through your false belief in your exceptionalism, it can only be you who is right.

Gravock

“Our Western partners headed by the United States prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destiny of the world, that it is only them who can be right.

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia in speech before the Federal Assembly, 18 March 2014.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 11, 2014, 05:36:21 AM
You're just being difficult
Isn't that an admission that I've stumped you with an exceptionally simple question?

As usual I'd like to know why you say what you say.  In this case I wonder why you consider something statistically strong.  I can find nothing statistical, strong or statistically strong about the paper you were referencing which you said quite clearly and without qualifiers presented evidence which was statistically strong.

Given that you refuse to provide any further information at all on seemingly incorrect statements you are making.  Aren't you just making an argument by assertion.? Is that ok for you but not ok for other people as you've implied?

Quote
You will always find some reason which doesn't satisfy your questions.
Dude.  You said "X is statistically strong".  As someone who understands statistics I'd just like to know which statistics you are referring to and what makes them strong?  How is that, in any universe an unreasonable question?  Are we just to take you at your word?  Seems like that's what you're asking.

So for the fourth time..."What is statistically strong about the information presented in that paper?"
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 11, 2014, 06:33:16 AM

So for the fourth time..."What is statistically strong about the information presented in that paper?"

The simulation was motivated by the progress in performing lattice QCD calculations involving the fundamental fields and interactions of nature in femto-sized volumes of space/time, and by the simulation hypothesis of Bostrom.  The simulation itself mirroring the GZK cut off as found in the universe is statistically strong.  Do you not understand all that goes into a simulation?  Do you not think it is statistically strong for a simulation to mirror a GZK cut off pattern as found in the universe?  You can not say I didn't answer the question.  It is more like you do not understand the answer.  I am confident an informed reader will agree the question has been answered.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 11, 2014, 06:54:30 AM
LOL
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 11, 2014, 07:02:22 AM
The simulation was motivated by the progress in performing lattice QCD calculations involving the fundamental fields and interactions of nature in femto-sized volumes of space/time
The paper you are referencing doesn't appear to have performed any simulation.  What they are talking about is a scenario which could, to some unspecified probability differentiate between real and simulated universes under some set of assumptions about both.
Quote
The simulation itself mirroring the GZK cut off as found in the universe is statistically strong.
Which simulation?  On what hardware was it run?  What was the positive-predictive value of the test? Or the software used for that matter? None of those things, which you normally find in papers about simulations are there.  By contrast if you've been tracking any of the papers arguing against entanglement in D-Waves adiabatic quantum computer.  In some cases they will simulate a quantum machine using a classical machine.  In most of those papers you'll find a number of the things I mention.   Hence there is nothing to suggest statistical strength by any metric.

Quote
Do you not think it is statistically strong for a simulation to mirror a GZK cut off pattern as found in the universe?
That would depend on the likelihood of that happening and of course that would require a simulation to actually have been run.

Quote
You can not say I didn't answer the question.
Well you're answer appears to be "because something happened".  However that appears to be without knowing the probability of it happening or if it happened at all.   So if you recall the question is: "What makes this statistically strong" and you can't tell me anything about the probability of an event or even if it happened.  So I'd say the question you've answered is: "Are you convinced?" which is fine but not what I asked. :D

Quote
It is more like you do not understand the answer.
I confess that when someone provides no information about the probability of an event.  I do not understand how they construe something to be "statistically strong".   Can something be statistically strong but also unlikely in your (simulated) universe?

Quote
I am confident an informed reader will agree the question has been answered.
So first you argue from assertion and now you seem to appeal to anonymous authority (or popularity)?

I'll rephrase the question a bit for it's fifth asking: Please tell me how the paper measures the probability of the event you claim they observed and to what the calculated the likelihood of their conclusion to be.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MileHigh on June 11, 2014, 07:03:11 AM
Well I personally believe in linear motion and curvilinear motion.  Any theoretical discrete steps in time and space are so far below our threshold of detection that we don't and can't factor them into our reality.  That is separate and distinct from all the quanta stuff.

And you can make parametric equations for lines and curves as a function of time!  The distance measured still works out.

Too many angels dancing on the head of the pin.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: minnie on June 11, 2014, 10:02:16 AM

I was wondering, in my pixelated world, would the tangent to my circle have to be
pixelated, then I thought probably most straight lines would be too!
John.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 11, 2014, 12:23:14 PM
sarkeizen,

There was a real computer simulation.  I'm off to work now, and will provide more details when I get back.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: LibreEnergia on June 11, 2014, 12:33:25 PM
Well I personally believe in linear motion and curvilinear motion.  Any theoretical discrete steps in time and space are so far below our threshold of detection that we don't and can't factor them into our reality.  That is separate and distinct from all the quanta stuff.

And you can make parametric equations for lines and curves as a function of time!  The distance measured still works out.

Too many angels dancing on the head of the pin.

It is not often I am drawn away from the accepted tenets of Newtonian of Einsteinium physics as they provide adequate approximations of reality, but I do have time for theories based on QCD.

If the universe is 'discrete' at the smallest scale then the whole idea of calculus with its concept of infinite series and limits as the basis of the analysis can not possibly  be used to fully describe it.

Even time itself becomes no longer continuous and with an unchanging arrow of direction. Indeed, if the 'matrix' of QCD space remained unchanged then it is reasonable to posit that time itself would not exist. Time only arises out of a change of state of the matrix. This gives rise to all sorts of problems when analysing quantities that are the derivative of time using calculus based on infinite limits.

One thing is to me is certain though. Attempting to apply the rules and equations that may hold femto scale to our normal temporal and geometric reality is currently futile. We just do not and cannot see these quantum effects influencing our 'normal' existence.  This will be the case until we develop the tools that would allow us to do so.

Who knows what those tools will turn out to be, but I suspect the riddle of consciousness may provide some clues.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 11, 2014, 02:43:26 PM
There was a real computer simulation.
Before you provide something stupid and we have to have the same argument again.  Here's what YOU posted.
A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847).
So you asserted:

i) That this specific paper exists.
ii) That this specific paper itself reveals evidence of our universe being a computer simulation.
iii) That this specific paper's evidence is statistically strong.

To me iii) means:
iii) a) The evidence involves a probability.
iii) b) The probability is > 0.5 - i.e. it is more likely than not.

So far I agree on the following:

i) This specific paper exists.

And so far you have provided no evidence of ii) or iii)

Quote
will provide more details when I get back.
There's a first time for everything.  Based on your prior behavior you will likely do one of the following:

1) Misconstrue some other evidence. i.e. You will read about some simulation run somewhere else and project it onto this paper and assume that makes your point.
2) Stomp off because of some imagined slight.
3) Stop answering this question. i.e. be silent, make indirect claims of having answered it, make claims that there's something wrong with the question.

Anyone want to guess which one gravrock-the-great will do?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: minnie on June 11, 2014, 04:36:34 PM

sarkeizen,
my guess is option 3,
John.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 11, 2014, 04:50:24 PM
my guess is option 3,
My money is on 1.

Incidentally, while I have no idea about gravityblock's views on this matter.  I find creationists often opposed to the idea of man-made intelligence equal (in that respect) to humans.  Which if this is the case for gravityblock then it's funny because that's probably an outcome of this paper being true.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 12, 2014, 06:47:44 AM
Incidentally, while I have no idea about gravityblock's views on this matter.  I find creationists often opposed to the idea of man-made intelligence equal (in that respect) to humans.  Which if this is the case for gravityblock then it's funny because that's probably an outcome of this paper being true.

I am not opposed to the idea of man-made intelligence equal to humans.  In fact, I believe this has already occurred and has greatly exceeded the intelligence of humans beyond our wildest dreams.  I believe they have synthetic telepathy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4g_K9CsGF4) (mind control) devices, also known as v2k, connected wirelessly to a quantum computer with a synthetic brain via fiber optic cables and a brain-computer interface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface).  The D-Wave Quantum Computer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdmn31BQJw) is the world's first commercially available quantum computer.  In summary, Skynet is real (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auHqsfeAmmU)!  Imagine a quantum computer interfaced with the minds of the entire world's population while exploiting the human intelligence of every individual on this planet and running it through it's AI program.  You must remember, we are not in our original state as first created.

Transhumanist movement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSB-HwfZU8k) (video): To merge man's biological thinking and existence with technology to the point where there is no distinction between human and machine.  This was prophesied in the ancient manuscripts, as shown in the following verses.  Also, we have achieved immortality, and the immortality of man is prophesied in Revelation 9:6.  So, I wouldn't expect anything less than these things to occur, along with other things.  In the following verses, the iron represents technology, and the clay represents flesh.  Iron mixed with miry clay: Mark of the Beast being welcomed in (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13UZJQ44BRU) (video).   X Marks the spot of the Beast! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w84X1hrNvRg) (video).

Dan 2:41   And whereas thou saw the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou saw the iron mixed with miry clay.

Dan 2:42   "And [as] the toes of the feet [were] part of iron, and part of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken".

Dan 2:43   "And whereas you saw iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay".

We were made in the "Image of God", and the adversary of God is out to destroy this Image through transhumanism, which is the de-evolution of mankind into a beast.  Do not worship "the image of the beast" or take "the mark of the beast".  This will lead to a total enslavement of mankind, and will lead to a spiritual death.

Matthew 24:37  "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man".

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 06:52:41 AM
I am not opposed to the idea...
But you sure are opposed to the idea of answering simple straight-forward questions.

Option 4) should have been - blather about something entirely irrelevant to the point.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 12, 2014, 06:58:53 AM
My money is on 1.

Incidentally, while I have no idea about gravityblock's views on this matter.  I find creationists often opposed to the idea of man-made intelligence equal (in that respect) to humans.  Which if this is the case for gravityblock then it's funny because that's probably an outcome of this paper being true.

The idea of man-made intelligence being equal to humans is probably an outcome of this paper being true?  You have just inadvertently added evidence for this paper being statistically strong and inadvertently admitted the outcome of this paper as probably being true.  God will catch the wise in their own craftiness.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 07:20:46 AM
The idea of man-made intelligence being equal to humans is probably an outcome of this paper being true?
More formally: If the universe is simulated in the way the paper presumes.  Then it seems reasonable for people living in this simulated universe to create machine intelligences at least equal to humans.
Quote
You have just inadvertently added evidence for this paper being statistically strong
Probably not.  Because the expectation is not exclusive to the idea that the universe is simulated and there is no machine intelligence which is demonstrably equivalent to humans.
Quote
Why do you think that?
Quote
God will catch the wise in their own craftiness.
Apparently the stupid are just allowed to avoid the question a lot.  :-)
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 12, 2014, 08:12:38 AM
1.)  The authors of this paper would not take seriously the possibility that our universe is a numerical simulation if it was not statistically strong (see simulationProof.png in the image below).

2.)  You inadvertently added evidence for this paper being statistically strong and inadvertently admitted the outcome of this paper as probably being true.

3. )  Modifications that exhibit cubic symmetry, would be suggestive of a structure consistent with an underlying discretization of space-time (see simulationProof3.png in the image below).

4.)  Footnote #4 says, "there are a number of peculiar observations that could be attributed to our universe being a simulation" (see simulationProof4.png in the image below).

5.)  The discovery of the string landscape, and the current inability of string theory to provide a useful predictive framework which would post-dict the fundamental parameters of the Standard Model, provides the simulators (future string theorists?) with a purpose: to systematically explore the landscape of vacua through numerical simulation.  Why would the authors of this paper suggest the discovery of the string landscape provides the simulators with a purpose to systematically explore the landscape of vacua through numerical simulation, if their isn't strong statistical evidence?  If it is indeed the case that the fundamental equations of nature allow on the order of10500 solutions, then perhaps the most profound quest that can be undertaken by a sentient being is the exploration of the landscape through universe simulation (see simulationProof5.png in the image below).

6.)  Very basic extrapolation of current lattice QCD resource trends into the future suggest that experimental searches for evidence that our universe is, in fact, a simulation are both interesting and logical  (see simulationProof6.png in the image below).  Why would it be interesting and logical if there wasn't strong statistical evidence?

7.)  Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences (see simulationProof7 in the image below).  Why would they assume our universe is an early numerical simulation using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide,  if this isn't strong statistical evidence?

8.)  Rotational-symmetry breaking operator that is consistent with the lattice hyper-cubic symmetry (see simulationProof8.png in the image below)

There are more, but this is more than enough to answer your question once again.  The paper taken as a whole provides strong statistical evidence!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 12, 2014, 08:37:34 AM
More formally: If the universe is simulated in the way the paper presumes.  Then it seems reasonable for people living in this simulated universe to create machine intelligences at least equal to humans.

More formally as it is written:  The idea of man-made intelligence being equal to humans would probably be an outcome of this paper being true.  Or, this paper is probably true if man-made intelligence being equal to humans ever becomes a reality, which it has already become a reality.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 12, 2014, 08:43:38 AM
Apparently the stupid are just allowed to avoid the question a lot.  :-)

In the latter days, the smart will be called ignorant, and the ignorant will be called wise.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 02:20:26 PM
I'll assume you were (for once) at least attempting to answer my question: What in the paper makes the hypothesis of a simulated universe more likely than not (statistically strong) and as entertaining as it was to watch you go through and attempt to shoehorn a paper to conform to your prejudices.  Let's see if I can clarify something for you:

Do you agree that "strong statistical evidence" is presented only when someone shows you a probabilistic calculation which is greater than 0.5 in favor of the hypothesis. If you disagree please tell me what you standard of evidence is for something to be considered "strong statistical evidence".  i.e. Why would it be "strong" if it is less likely than not and why would it be "statistical" if you have no probabilities?

It's worth pointing out that most of your above reply is of the form: "Why would someone say X if there's wasn't strong statistical evidence".  So my response would simply be: This can not be "strong evidence" in and of itself and it's definitely not "statistical".  Since it fails to meet the definitions I provided.  If you want to provide your own definitions then you can answer the question I asked in bold above.

The idea of man-made intelligence being equal to humans would probably be an outcome of this paper being true.  Or, this paper is probably true if man-made intelligence being equal to humans ever becomes a reality, which it has already become a reality.
No.  Just because A -> B that does not necessitate B -> A. That's the logical flaw of "affirming the consequent".  Also what man-made intelligence equal to humans exists.

Also I notice that you didn't produce the information you said you would about the simulation actually being run.  Can't depend on you for anything can I?

Quote
In the latter days, the smart will be called ignorant, and the ignorant will be called wise.

As it was written in the Booke of Ricke. Thereth will be those who were called stupid before the lateness of dayes and will continue to be called stupid in the latest of dayes because..yea it was found...that this was the rightest name for them...and it cameth to passeth that of those so called gravrock deservedeth it most!

Amen!
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 13, 2014, 06:06:13 AM
sarkeizen,

Theories can never be proven, but they can be constrained or disproved. The first step toward constraining or disproving a theory is to make predictions from it and establish its consequences. The authors work is an attempt to identify signatures that are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation, focusing mainly on the impact of constrained computational resources.   The signatures mentioned in the paper have been simulated through a computer, and these signatures are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation.  With the current developments in HPC and in algorithms it is now possible to simulate Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD).  Presently, only the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism can be reliably simulated.  Any numerical simulation has to be extremely sophisticated and rich to result in the wide range of complex phenomena, starting from sub-atomic length scales all the way through cosmological length scales.  The title of the paper itself, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation'' by Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, and Martin J. Savage should be highly suggestive to you that the probability of the universe being a numerical simulation is > 0.5.  Also, at this time, there is more evidence pointing towards the universe being a numerical simulation, than away from it.  This information can be found in a talk presented by Zohreh Davoudi, one of the authors of the paper, at the Art Institute of Seattle in January 2013.  I'm attaching one of the slides as presented in the talks by Zohreh Davoudi.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 06:52:34 AM
sarkeizen,

Theories can never be proven, but they can be constrained or disproved. The first step toward constraining or disproving a theory is to make predictions from it and establish its consequences. The authors work is an attempt to identify signatures that are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation, focusing mainly on the impact of constrained computational resources.   The signatures mentioned in the paper have been simulated through a computer, and these signatures are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation.  With the current developments in HPC and in algorithms it is now possible to simulate Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD).  Presently, only the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism can be reliably simulated.  Any numerical simulation has to be extremely sophisticated and rich to result in the wide range of complex phenomena, starting from sub-atomic length scales all the way through cosmological length scales.  The title of the paper itself, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation'' by Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, and Martin J. Savage should be highly suggestive to you that the probability of the universe being a numerical simulation is > 0.5.  Also, at this time, there is more evidence pointing towards the universe being a numerical simulation, than away from it.  This information can be found in a talk presented by Zohreh Davoudi, one of the authors of the paper, at the Art Institute of Seattle in January 2013.  I'm attaching one of the slides as presented in the talks by Zohreh Davoudi.

Gravock
Probability values are not the result of suggestion.  Basically, what you are saying is that you find the idea that they propose appealing.    The likelihood that an idea is true does not stem from it's appeal or lack thereof.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 13, 2014, 07:14:25 AM
I'll assume then that you agree with my statement that a calculation must be shown in the paper and the calculation must be > 0.5
Theories can never be proven, but they can be constrained or disproved.
You're almost right.  A well-defined theory can be proven or bounded in probabilistic way.  Saying a theory can not be proved but can be disproven is nonsense as it places an arbitrary constraint on what can be a theory.  It's like the "you can't prove a negative" nonsense people say.
Quote
The first step toward constraining or disproving a theory is to make predictions from it and establish its consequences.
Not exactly.  A constraint is, pretty much what it sounds like.  It's something that restricts the theory.  A constraint is often the output of an experiment but can also be an assumption.  For example the authors of this paper assume that the simulation is happening on a classical machine.  Worth noting that constraints hopefully tell you where to direct your research but the do not necessarily alter the probability of a hypothesis being true.
Quote
The authors work is an attempt to identify signatures that are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation,
More correctly they propose something that could be a signature under specific assumptions.
Quote
The signatures mentioned in the paper have been simulated through a computer, and these signatures are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation.
Please state where this was done, on what hardware and software and where in the paper it specifically mentions a simulation being done by the paper authors.
Quote
The title of the paper, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation'' by Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, and Martin J. Savage should be highly suggestive to you that the probability of the universe being a numerical simulation is > 0.5.
So when we strip away where you've lifted text directly from the paper what we have is this statement.  Some commentary:

i) You have failed to show where the paper PRESENTS statistically strong evidence.  A title is not a statistic.  So it can not be statistically strong evidence.  What would be at least statistical evidence would be a survey of all papers on Arxiv which contain the words "Constraints on <some hypothesis>" and how frequently that pattern references a paper where the theory has been proven (or has a strong statistical bound).  Even so, that statistical evidence would actually be PRESENTED in a different paper.
ii) You have failed to show what if any statistical calculation of the universe being a simulation was done by Beane, Davoudi and Savage and have not shown how it arrives at a value > 0.5.
iii) You have failed to show any simulation done by Beane, Davoudi and Savage
iv) Constraints are orthogonal to the probability of a hypothesis being true.  i.e. If I perform an experiment to determine the likely location of my car keys in the house.  Finding the constraint that they must be somewhere on the couch if they are in the house does not alter the probability that they are in the house.
v) "strongly suggestive" isn't the same as "proves flawlessly" because of this even if we believe all your bullshit about magical words in the paper title meaning a probability of the thesis being true of > 0.5.  We would clearly have to look at the probability of the theory being correct overall as conditional on the likelihood that the work is correct P(CW) and the strength of the suggestion.   P(S|CW)  Thus even a P(CW) of > 0.5 can still mean an overall probability of the theory being true of < 0.5

So again.  Where is the calculation showing the likelihood is > 0.5.  If you can't show me.  If not, then I think the better term is that you are "strongly convinced" as there is no statistically strong evidence.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 13, 2014, 07:23:31 AM
Don't forget, Creationists believe the Universe was created within literally 7 (seven) days and that happened somewhat ten thousand years ago. It must be true because The Bible say so. ???

Qwert,

You bring up a good point, but I am way ahead of most Creationists.  There are two places in scripture that say a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.  Scripture also says that there still remains a day of rest for God's people.  Further, we have been told that God rested on the seventh day and likewise He promised a day of rest for His people.  The seven day theory is based on a thousand year week model that has 7000 years from creation or from Adam until the eternal kingdom (some believers say 7000 years from creation and others say 7000 years from Adam).  Experts differ on the date and the year that Jesus actually was crucified. Therefore good arguments exist on dates from 30 to 35 AD.  If Jesus comes back to rule in the start of the Sabbath 7th day and the thousand year day can be taken literally, then that would indicate that Jesus will come to set up His kingdom between 2030-2035 AD, assuming of course our calenders are correct, which they may be slightly off.

I find it interesting how mankind is now within the reach of completely simulating the universe as we approach the 7000 years (7 days of creation).  Remember, a quantum computer is now available to the general public, which the military branches and governments of this world probably had at least 30 - 40 years ago, so the idea of creating synthetic quantum environments and simulating the entire universe is more than likely already a reality.  The original sin of Adam and Eve, eating from the tree of knowledge is what put them and their offspring into a fallen state of existence.  They literally trapped and enslaved their Spirit/Consciousness into a computer simulation through the knowledge in which they gained by eating from the tree of knowledge.  As knowledge increases, mankind will once again enslave themselves into a simulation of the simulation of their ancestors.  The resurrection may be nothing more than us escaping from this false reality of a computer simulation in which our ancestors (Adam and Eve) created through their knowledge and desire to be like God.  In the end of days, the original Sin of Adam and Eve will be repackaged and presented to all of us.  We will no longer be able to use them as an escape goat for our fallen state.  Daniel 12:4 -  But you, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end.  The seals are being broken!

Genesis: 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" 4The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."…

Genesis: 22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "-- 23therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.…
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 07:44:14 AM
Face palm.  In all of that you are not even consistent in your units.

ETA:  My mistake, you're using 1000 years for a "day" and 7000 years for a "week".  Of course the silliness requires that people who had an average lifespan of under 30 years somehow were able to keep track of 1000 years in each of their "days" with whichever Middle Eastern deity it was that they spent their time serving.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 13, 2014, 07:48:02 AM
Face palm.  In all of that you are not even consistent in your units.

Please show me the inconsistencies in the units, instead of wrongly asserting!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 08:14:56 AM
Actually it was my mistake.  I misread you using a thousand years for a day in one place and a week in another.

Good luck with using myths created by primitive goat herders as your guide for what's beyond your understanding.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 13, 2014, 09:19:38 AM
ETA:  My mistake, you're using 1000 years for a "day" and 7000 years for a "week".  Of course the silliness requires that people who had an average lifespan of under 30 years somehow were able to keep track of 1000 years in each of their "days" with whichever Middle Eastern deity it was that they spent their time serving.

Where did you come up with an average lifespan of under 30 years?  This is another wrong assertion by you!

Adam lived 930 years, and he did die in the same day that he ate from the tree of knowledge, when taking into consideration a 1000 years for a day.  So, for Adam it wasn't too difficult to keep track of 1000 years in his day.  Genesis 2:17 - but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

In the days of Noah, God said the days of man shall be 120 years, which is probably an upper limit.  Genesis 6:3 says, “And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.”   Psalm 90:10 says, “The days of our years are threescore years and ten [70 years]; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years [80 years], yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.”   Psalms is referring to the average lifespan of a man in those days, and this still holds true for the days of our years.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 09:25:09 AM
Where did you come up with an average lifespan of under 30 years?  This is another wrong assertion by you!

Adam lived 930 years, and he did die in the same day that he ate from the tree of knowledge, when taking into consideration a 1000 years for a day.  So, for Adam it wasn't too difficult to keep track of 1000 years in his day.  Genesis 2:17 - but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

In the days of Noah, God said the days of man shall be 120 years, which is probably an upper limit.  Genesis 6:3 says, “And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.”   Psalm 90:10 says, “The days of our years are threescore years and ten [70 years]; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years [80 years], yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.”   Psalms is referring to the average lifespan of a man in those days, and this still holds true for our days.

Gravock
Believe any myths that you like.  Life span has a lot to do with sanitation.  The massive increases in average life span have only come in the past two hundred years.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 13, 2014, 09:38:04 AM
Believe any myths that you like.  Life span has a lot to do with sanitation.  The massive increases in average life span have only come in the past two hundred years.

This is another wrong assertion by you.  The average lifespan of today is around 70 - 80 years, and this is still in-line with what we read in Psalms.  So, how is this a massive increase in average life span?  In fact, the average life span is now on a decline (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/06/life-j16.html) in many parts of the world, including the U.S.A.

You are basing life span on sanitation, yet ignoring such things as cancer, diseases, drinking, drug abuse, diet, lack of exercise, stress, sleep deprivation, GMO's, an environment contaminated by mankind, etc.  You don't put much thought into what you write.  It's as if you try to deliberately mislead the reader.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 13, 2014, 10:09:28 AM
sarkeizen,

In my opinion, there is statistically strong evidence for the universe being a numerical simulation.  You are more than welcome to have a different opinion than I have.  It is obvious we have a different way of thinking and have a different understanding.  It would be a boring world if everyone agreed on everything.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 13, 2014, 10:41:58 AM
In this simulation we are in, matter can't be created nor destroyed.  Since matter can't be created within the simulation of this false reality, then there can be no matter within it.  Likewise, you can't destroy matter if it doesn't exist in your false reality.  There is only one thing real within this simulation, and that is Spirit/Consciousness!  Outside of this simulation of our current false reality we can be restored to our original state of having a real spiritual body and experience true reality, while being united with our One True Creator and Father!  Don't let the adversary of God and the adversary of mankind bamboozle and hoodwink you into an eternal damnation of a false reality and enslavement.  The adversary blames us for his fallen state, and he is out to destroy the Image of God and to rule over us.  Anything that rules over you, can be considered a god to you.  It clearly says in the ancient manuscripts who is the god of this world.

2 Corinthians 4:4 -  Satan, who is the god [adversary] of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe.  They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 13, 2014, 11:08:33 AM
Probably in Creationist's way it's possible. You know, those people don't need to prove anything, they just believe; very hard believe. Thus, gravityblock goes far too far since he even attempts to argue.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).  I will continue to argue for the evidence of things not seen.  You see, faith must be based on evidence, and this evidence is proof of our belief.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 11:15:32 AM
This is another wrong assertion by you.  The average lifespan of today is around 70 - 80 years, and this is still in-line with what we read in Psalms.  So, how is this a massive increase in average life span?  In fact, the average life span is now on a decline (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/06/life-j16.html) in many parts of the world, including the U.S.A.

You are basing life span on sanitation, yet ignoring such things as cancer, diseases, drinking, drug abuse, diet, lack of exercise, stress, sleep deprivation, GMO's, an environment contaminated by mankind, etc.  You don't put much thought into what you write.  It's as if you try to deliberately mislead the reader.

Gravock
Like I said believe whatever myths you like.  Or if you are interested in fact based information you can start someplace like here:  http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitystatsandnumbers/a/Longevity-Throughout-History.htm
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gauschor on June 13, 2014, 11:15:41 AM
Probably in Creationist's way it's possible. You know, those people don't need to prove anything, they just believe; very hard believe. Thus, gravityblock goes far too far since he even attempts to argue.
Don't forget, Creationists believe the Universe was created within literally 7 (seven) days and that happened somewhat ten thousand years ago. It must be true because The Bible say so. ???

A little bit offtopic, but in Quantum Physics, physicists found out that the mere presence of a viewer changes the result of an experiment (look for double slit experiment). When you go deep enough it's like you make a thought and it manifests. Eventually they determined that matter does not exist at all, and it's all an illusion. In fact... either way - be they believers in creation or hardcore physicists - they come back to the point, that a higher entity is behind.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 11:23:25 AM
A little bit offtopic, but in Quantum Physics, physicists found out that the mere presence of a viewer changes the result of an experiment (look for double slit experiment). When you go deep enough it's like you make a thought and it manifests. Eventually they determined that matter does not exist at all, and it's all an illusion. In fact... either way - be they believers in creation or hardcore physicists - they come back to the point, that a higher entity is behind.
A creator is just a place holder notion for what it is that we do not understand.  Some people fill-in that gap with the notion of a rather unpleasant fellow in the stars who has some serious personality disorders.  The problem with the creator myth is:  "Where did the (vain, vengeful, angry, capricious) creator come from?"  There are no more satisfying answers to that then there are satisfying answers as to where this universe originated.

The fundamental nature of this crazy world we live in is something that we do not comprehend and may never develop the capability to comprehend.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 13, 2014, 11:38:52 AM
A creator is just a place holder notion for what it is that we do not understand.  Some people fill-in that gap with the notion of a rather unpleasant fellow in the stars who has some serious personality disorders.  The problem with the creator myth is:  "Where did the (vain, vengeful, angry, capricious) creator come from?"  There are no more satisfying answers to that then there are satisfying answers as to where this universe originated.

The fundamental nature of this crazy world we live in is something that we do not comprehend and may never develop the capability to comprehend.

Our Creator comes from outside of this false reality in which we have been enslaved and imprisoned in through our ancestors desire for knowledge and to be like God.  The universe you believe in is nothing but an illusion!  You believe in an imaginary universe that doesn't exist.  It's ironic how the unbelievers accuse us of believing in an imaginary God, when it is them who believes in an imaginary universe.  This is another psychological projection by those who are not interested and not for the truth.  They have inverted all Truths!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 12:33:09 PM
Our Creator comes from outside of this false reality in which we have been enslaved and imprisoned in through our ancestors desire for knowledge and to be like God.  The universe you believe in is nothing but an illusion!  You believe in an imaginary universe that doesn't exist.  It's ironic how the unbelievers accuse us of believing in an imaginary God, when it is them who believes in an imaginary universe.  This is another psychological projection by those who are not interested and not for the truth.  They have inverted all Truths!

Gravock
And of course when someone asks you the obvious question:  "Where is your evidence to support your claim?".  What will you tell them?  Will you refer them to stories concocted by primitive goat herders?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gauschor on June 13, 2014, 01:34:11 PM
The problem with the creator myth is:  "Where did the (vain, vengeful, angry, capricious) creator come from?"  There are no more satisfying answers to that then there are satisfying answers as to where this universe originated.

The fundamental nature of this crazy world we live in is something that we do not comprehend and may never develop the capability to comprehend.

Eventually this is true. How and why does anything exist at all ... Even if there are 1000s of interdimensional parallel worlds in different wavelengths and frequencies we can't answer the question where the first wave came from... unfortunately.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 13, 2014, 01:56:43 PM
In my opinion, there is statistically strong evidence for the universe being a numerical simulation.
So now you've changed your assertion from: "This paper shows that the universe is a numerical simulation to be more likely than not" to "Somewhere something shows the universe to be a numerical simulation is more likely than not".  Without admitting you were wrong about the paper?  That's a little dishonest.  Don't you think?

That said, do you agree that there needs to be a calculation for evidence to be STATISTICALLY STRONG or not?  If not, then answer the question: "How is this the evidence STATISTICAL?"...and if there DOES need to be a calculation then answer the question: "Where the FUCK is it in that paper?"
Quote
You are more than welcome to have a different opinion than I have.
How is this a matter of opinion?  Do you agree on what qualifies as statistical evidence or not?  If not, what makes your evidence statistical?
Quote
It is obvious we have a different way of thinking and have a different understanding.
So far all I've seen of you is that you can't answer a straight question in a useful way.  It seems reasonable that this is a reflection of your internal process.  Which is, at least in my opinion stretching the definition of "thinking".

What's the point of thinking if you can't eliminate beliefs you prefer?
Quote
It would be a boring world if everyone agreed on everything.
Do you really find this discussion interesting?  All you've done is make a grand assertion.  Then spent days trying to fabricate something to support it and then weasel out in a way where you don't have to admit you were wrong.   In other words you have managed to assert something and learn nothing.

Just like what happened to you showing me WHERE the simulation was done?
Just what happened to you showing me a machine intelligence equal to a humans?
Just like showing me which parts of the Mathis diagram which parts are Euclidean and which parts are not?

I wouldn't be surprised if you're getting off on this but "interesting"?  Really?  The closest thing I find to interesting in this discussion is how quickly someone like you glues an idea to their head, how easily that becomes something you're significantly attached to and how much of your rationality you will sacrifice to keep it that way.  No idea what brought your psyche to this point but you really need to learn to fail you. fucking. failure..

(or for all I care spend your time jumping from topic to topic and learning nothing, complaining about some small aspect of peoples posts...or their language...or making vague, incorrect summaries...or making some quip....obsess on all that.  It will help you learn nothing for the rest of your life.  Meanwhile the rest of the world plays damage-control for your unexamined idiot ideas)
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 14, 2014, 06:40:12 AM
So now you've changed your assertion from: "This paper shows that the universe is a numerical simulation to be more likely than not" to "Somewhere something shows the universe to be a numerical simulation is more likely than not".  Without admitting you were wrong about the paper?  That's a little dishonest.  Don't you think?

"The more likely than not" is in reference to what you posted and was only used to meet your qualifications, "iii) b) The probability is > 0.5 - i.e. it is more likely than not."

That said, do you agree that there needs to be a calculation or not?  If not, then answer the question: "How is this the evidence STATISTICAL?"...and if there DOES need to be a calculation then answer the question: "Where the FUCK is it in that paper?"How is this a matter of opinion?  Do you agree on what qualifies as statistical evidence or not?  If not, what makes your evidence statistical?So far all I've seen of you is that you can't answer a straight question in a useful way.  It seems reasonable that this is a reflection of your internal process.  Which is,a t least stretching the definition of "thinking".

In the paper it says, "Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored".  How was it performed, a simulation?  What was it performed on?  A cubic space-time lattice.  I will allow you to form your own opinion of the language used in the paper.  However, you put conditions and constraints on how I could answer your questions, and one of them was not to go outside of this paper in question, which is actually only an abstract of their work.  You wrongfully shackled and put chains on me in how I could answer your questions.  You did this intentionally!

Also in the paper it says, "With the current developments in HPC and in algorithms it is now possible to simulate Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), the fundamental force in nature that gives rise to the strong nuclear force among protons and neutrons, and to nuclei and their interactions. These simulations are currently performed in femto-sized universes where the space-time continuum is replaced by a lattice, whose spatial and temporal sizes are of the order of several femto-meters, and whose lattice spacings (discretization or pixelation) are fractions of fermis.  This endeavor, generically referred to as lattice gauge theory, or more specifically lattice QCD, is currently leading to new insights into the nature of matter."  In other words, They used QCD to simulate the space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice, as previously mentioned.

In addition to this, the paper says "Therefore, there is a sense in which lattice QCD may be viewed as the nascent science of universe simulation, and, as will be argued in the next paragraph, very basic extrapolation of current lattice QCD resource trends into the future suggest that experimental searches for evidence that our universe is, in fact, a simulation are both interesting and logical."  Once again, they make reference to "lattice QCD" which is the nascent science of universe simulation, and this was used to simulate the cubic space-time lattice which they speak of.

sarkeizen,

In my opinion, there is statistically strong evidence for the universe being a numerical simulation.  You are more than welcome to have a different opinion than I have.  It is obvious we have a different way of thinking and have a different understanding.  It would be a boring world if everyone agreed on everything.

Gravock

Do  you really find this discussion interesting?

Where did I say I find this discussion interesting?  I said it would be a boring world if everyone agreed on everything.  I did not say this would be a boring discussion if everyone agreed on everything.  This is a good example how you read things out of context and put it into a completely different meaning.

Just what happened to you showing me a machine intelligence equal to a humans?

I didn't know I was to show you a machine intelligence equal to humans.  However, when I have more time I will.  I strongly suspect you will say it is human, and won't be able to differentiate the synthetic human from the real human.  You will say it is human, so why should I waste my time?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 14, 2014, 08:33:37 AM
English Grammar 101:

Diagram the following sentence-

Quote
"Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored".
What is the subject of the sentence?

A. consequences of the hypothesis

What action occurs?

A. The consequences are explored.

Does the sentence say that a simulation occurred?

A. No, the hypothesis, the consequences of which are explored is the idea that the universe is a simulation.  The sentence does not express any action against the hypothesis.

Thank you for your participation in English Grammar 101.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on June 14, 2014, 10:46:12 AM
You can already simulate, for example EM fields propagation using FDTD (Finite element in Time Domain) to analyse waveguide, antenna and so on. It use discrete cube (Yee cells) to compute maxwell Eq.
Computational fluid do the same things with well... fluid. Computational chemistry, software that help you to conceive drugs and chemistry also.
Same things in engineering when they calculate force, torque, constraint, heat flow for example in an ICE.
When meteorologist predict weather they use also simulation with discrete cube, it take a supercomputer do to calculation in order to have the result in a decent time...
It make me sense that we can live in a simulation, but a simulation so powerful in term of resolution and complexity that it would need an enormous computer power.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 14, 2014, 03:16:23 PM
How was it performed, a simulation?
Where is it explictly stated that the authors performed a simulation.   This really shouldn't be such a hard question to answer if the paper PRESENTS STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE and where explicitly does it say they did a probability calculation and where specifically is the result posted.
Quote
What was it performed on?  A cubic space-time lattice.
What equipment and if it's specialized equipment owned by another institution where was it located?  Science requires replication and the ability to replicate.  If you had read enough papers where the cornerstone was a software simulation you would see they list the software (often the version number if it's a stats package) or the source code (or link to further information if the source is long).  So either this paper fails a basic tenet of science - the ability to replicate the experiment preformed or no experiment was preformed.
Quote
However, you put conditions and constraints on how I could answer your questions, and one of them was not to go outside of this paper in question, which is actually only an abstract of their work.  You wrongfully shackled and put chains on me in how I could answer your questions.  You did this intentionally!
Intentional, yes.  Wrong, no.  Either this paper you stated PRESENTS evidence or it doesn't.  If it does then the EVIDENCE should be in the paper.  If some other paper presents evidence then you should have cited that other paper instead.  Now the question falls to what qualifies as evidence.  You said the evidence which is IN THIS PAPER is STATISTICAL.  Which in my usage of the term means that a probability calculation was done.  Futhermore you said the evidence was STRONG.  Which again in my usage would seem to mean that the outcome is more likely than not. i.e. P(x) > 0.5

You said all these things. These are your claims.  All that's left to discuss is exactly how crazy your use of the words: presents, statistical and strong are and these depend on you answering some questions that I've asked about twice now:

i) If PRESENTS means the actual work is in some other paper by this set of authors.  Then you are now saying that this paper contains no work that can be meaningfully discussed as STRONG AND STATISTICAL.  Please withdraw this paper and submit one that we can actually discuss.

ii) If STATISTICAL does not involve a calculation of probability in this paper (or the real paper that we should be discussing) then exactly what does it mean?  If evidence does not shift the likelihood of a hypothesis then what is it's purpose?  Why call it evidence?

iii) If STRONG does not mean a probability > 0.5 then doesn't that mean the hypothesis is weaker than all mutually exclusive hypotheses?  If STRONG does mean a probability > 0.5 and you have chosen some non-calculation definition of STATISTICAL then clearly there exists a problem when you state that the probability is > 0.5

Quote
In other words, They used QCD to simulate the space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice, as previously mentioned.
All that says is that people do simulations of this nature.  Not that the authors performed any.   It also doesn't necessarily mean that those simulations performed by others have anything to do with demonstrating the universe is a simulation.
Quote
Where did I say I find this discussion interesting?
I really should learn that you won't actually answer questions.  The point was that you are just trolling.
Quote
I didn't know I was to show you a machine intelligence equal to humans.
So you're allowed to accuse me of supporting an argument but allowed never to show me the evidence?  Isn't that an argument by assertion?  Seems like those are ok for you but not for anyone else. :D
Quote
However, when I have more time I will.
You have to admit this is pretty unlikely.
Quote
I strongly suspect you will say it is human, and won't be able to differentiate the synthetic human from the real human.
Are we still talking about a computer program or is this more bait and switch?  If there's a link to this human simulator then please produce it.  How much work can that take?  Or did you feed that one question into some chatterbot?

It make me sense that we can live in a simulation, but a simulation so powerful in term of resolution and complexity that it would need an enormous computer power.
Especially since this paper demands a classical machine.  The short short version for most of this stuff is: Classical simulators are probably unfeasible but the best choice for coming up with a detection method since we already know a lot about classical machines.  Non-classical quantum machines are not something which is easily detectable but perhaps are more feasible.  Non-classical non-quantum machines are probably the most feasible to run a simulation but would probably be entirely undetectable as you are really only guessing at the physical laws that are governing them.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 02:30:58 AM
English Grammar 101:

Diagram the following sentence-
What is the subject of the sentence?

A. consequences of the hypothesis

What action occurs?

A. The consequences are explored.

Does the sentence say that a simulation occurred?

A. No, the hypothesis, the consequences of which are explored is the idea that the universe is a simulation.  The sentence does not express any action against the hypothesis.

Thank you for your participation in English Grammar 101.

What was "performed"?  If it wasn't a computer simulation performed, then what was "performed" and how was it "performed"?  You conveniently left out a keyword.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 15, 2014, 03:14:23 AM
What was "performed"?  If it wasn't a computer simulation performed, then what was "performed" and how was it "performed"?  You conveniently left out a keyword.
Is English not your native language?

"that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid"

Is a noun-phrase.  Which means nothing needed to be performed for the statement to be true.  I'm not a grammarian but I'd label "performed" as being in the subjunctive mood. i.e. We all discussed the hypothesis that the dog actually performed the operation.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 03:26:20 AM
What equipment and if it's specialized equipment owned by another institution where was it located?  Science requires replication and the ability to replicate.

sarkeizen,

Below is a snapshot taken from one of the home pages of Silas Beane (http://nuclear.unh.edu/~silas/), an author of the paper.  It says he's "running lattice QCD simulations of various quantities of interest on all hardware at his disposal".  The abstract paper heavily makes reference to lattice QCD!  They "performed" lattice QCD simulations of a space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice!  If you want to confine yourself to a small abstract or summary of the various author's work, then you won't have all of the information to know what the paper is all about.  You know the paper was based on performing a computer simulation of a cubic space-time lattice, and you also know the paper only makes indirect references to this computer simulation, and this is why you intentionally and wrongfully confined me to only a small abstract of their work.  This is WRONG of you to do, for it hides the TRUTH and gives you a way out!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 15, 2014, 04:31:58 AM
It says he's "running lattice QCD simulations of various quantities of interest on all hardware at his disposal".
Look, if you've never read a paper involving a simulation.  Then just say so.  That's not how you write it up.  You would specify the hardware and software you used.  It's about replication. He may be running lattice QCD simulations however that doesn't mean he has run any simulation concerning determining if the universe is a simulation.
Quote
The abstract paper
No such thing.
Quote
They "performed" lattice QCD simulations of a space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice!
The paper simply does not say that.  MarkE and myself have corrected your poor understanding of English.
Quote
If you want to confine yourself to a small abstract or summary of the various author's work, then you won't have all of the information to know what the paper is all about.
A paper, almost by definition should stand on it's own.  It will reference other work but the paper should bring a specific and novel conclusion forward (replication of prior experiments count as specific and novel).  I realize this is ArXiv which is sometimes a legitimate place for pre-publication comment but it's also a White Elephant sale of the research world.

Quote
and this is why you intentionally and wrongfully confined me to only a small abstract of their work.
So a) Please stop using "abstract" like that.  It's moronic and doesn't characterize the paper you provided and b) If you say a PAPER PRESENTS STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE then I would expect to find the STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE in the paper.  Nothing surprising about that.  As I said earlier this comes down to what is meant by "presents strong statistical evidence".   All that's left to discuss is exactly how crazy your use of the words: presents, statistical and strong are and these depend on you answering some questions that I've asked three-times now:

i) If PRESENTS means the actual work is in some other paper by this set of authors.  Then you are now saying that this paper contains no work that can be meaningfully discussed as STRONG AND STATISTICAL.  Please withdraw this paper and submit one that we can actually discuss.

ii) If STATISTICAL does not involve a calculation of probability in this paper (or the real paper that we should be discussing) then exactly what does it mean?  If evidence does not shift the likelihood of a hypothesis then what is it's purpose?  Why call it evidence?

iii) If STRONG does not mean a probability > 0.5 then doesn't that mean the hypothesis is weaker than all mutually exclusive hypotheses?  If STRONG does mean a probability > 0.5 and you have chosen some non-calculation definition of STATISTICAL then clearly there exists a problem when you state that the probability is > 0.5

Why is it so easy to find problems with your arguments.  Ones where you have to hole-up and hide behind all sorts of nonsense just to avoid getting destroyed?  Seriously you have so little evidence for your position you have to argue about the word "performed"?  If a paper did a simulation and had a real conclusion it wouldn't be so hard for you to point it out.

Out of curiosity do any of your friends think you're any good at this science stuff?  My advice: Get new friends.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 04:32:19 AM

MarkE and his minions found a way into this Happy video.  However, the minions found in this Happy video is based on the movie "despicable me".  It is despicable for them to portray themselves as Happy, when Happiness is the truth and the truth is not in them!

des·pi·ca·ble
diˈspikəbəl/

deserving hatred and contempt.
"a despicable crime"
synonyms:   contemptible, loathsome, hateful, detestable, reprehensible, abhorrent, abominable, awful, heinous; More

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 04:44:39 AM
What was "performed"?  If it wasn't a computer simulation performed, then what was "performed" and how was it "performed"?  You conveniently left out a keyword.

Gravock
If you are incapable of understanding the quotes that you cite, there is little I can do to help you.

Once again, here is what your quoted from the authors:

Quote
"Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored".

They say that they:  Explored observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation.  They did not state in their quote that they made any attempt to evaluate the likelihood that the hypothesis was true.  They did not state that they ran any computer codes of any kind.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 05:16:04 AM
If you are incapable of understanding the quotes that you cite, there is little I can do to help you.

Once again, here is what your quoted from the authors:

Quote
Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored.

They say that they:  Explored observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation.  They did not state in their quote that they made any attempt to evaluate the likelihood that the hypothesis was true.  They did not state that they ran any computer codes of any kind.

You once again left out the keyword "performed" and everything after "performed" in your sad analysis of what they say, as shown in the highlighted bold portions above.  You are forming your conclusion on only half of their statement.  You also can't put this statement into context with the rest of the article.  You are also forming your conclusion by confining yourself to only a small abstract of their work.  You and your minions are not for the Truth!  You will hide the Truth, suppress the Truth, mix false-hoods with the Truth, and invert the Truth!  You will oppose the Truth in every form and in every way possible!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 07:23:21 AM
Quote
They say that they:  Explored observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation.  They did not state in their quote that they made any attempt to evaluate the likelihood that the hypothesis was true.  They did not state that they ran any computer codes of any kind.

You once again left out the keyword "performed" and everything after "performed" in your sad analysis of what they say, as shown in the highlighted bold portions above.  You are forming your conclusion on only half of their statement.  You also can't put this statement into context with the rest of the article.  You are also forming your conclusion by confining yourself to only a small abstract of their work.  You and your minions are not for the Truth!  You will hide the Truth, suppress the Truth, mix false-hoods with the Truth, and invert the Truth!  You will oppose the Truth in every form and in every way possible!

Gravock
You present yourself as completely unable to read and comprehend at even a fifth grade level.  The sentence:

Quote
"Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored".

Says that they explored consequences.  The consequences that they explored were of a hypothesis.  The hypothesis is that "the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid".  They did not say that they or anyone else performed such a simulation.  Do you really wish to present yourself as completely unable to comprehend what they wrote and you cited?

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 07:47:51 AM
sarkeizen,

You have been exposed for who you are along with your true agenda.  The letters in nazi krees has been rearranged to form your user name of sarkeizen, as shown in the quote below from another thread.  Your screen name along with your postings are evidence of your true agenda.

sarkz   people on the internet rearrange letters in their name like anagrams to hide what they are really saying or their agenda.  letters in your name rearrange to nazi krees.   just thought you might have a hidden agenda but we won't go on about that.

Like I said sarkeizen, Putin has you pegged in that you think through your false belief in your exceptionalism and your false sense of being the chosen ones, it can only be you who decide the destiny of the world, and that it is only you who can be right.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 08:22:03 AM
LOL.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 08:31:31 AM

Regards, Johan

@ AI,
This is an interesting and fascinating question for one to ask who has participated in this discussion, titled "German Scientists Proves Chemtrails (http://www.overunity.com/6346/german-scientists-proves-chemtrails/msg394310/#msg394310)".

@ All,
The original question asked, "What is your idea about Chemtrails?", is off-topic and totally irrelevant to this discussion, so this question probably has no real meaning to the AI or it's sybil seconds in regards to the QEG discussion.

Gravock

sarkeizen,

Johan asks MarkE a question on what he thinks about chemtrails, and MarkE replies back with the response of "what are you asking?", which is a fascinating response because MarkE had previously participated in a discussion on chemtrails (http://www.overunity.com/6346/german-scientists-proves-chemtrails/msg394310/#msg394310).  The question asked by Johan was outside of MarkE's programming parameters for the current discussion and he had no reference point from others within that particular thread itself to form an intelligent response, thus he replied back with, "what are you asking?"  Also, MarkE has posted on average 17 posts everyday for the last 5 months, and this is more evidence of MarkE being an AI who requires no sleep.  Please note the "AI" in the highlighted bold portions above, which was in reference to MarkE being an AI.  There is more evidence for MarkE being an AI, but I will allow the reader to do their own research and to form their own opinion.

Your MarkE is an AI equal to human intelligence, but it has a few programming bugs that needs to be worked out!  There are programmed synthetic humans among us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tn6bzx0jw), using our dna with no soul or spirit.  She/It double blinks every 28 seconds.  Google it, "Darpa synthetic humans".

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 10:25:18 AM
LOL, deeper and deeper into the abyss you go.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 11:05:26 AM
LOL, deeper and deeper into the abyss you go.

Yes, to chain you up in your abyss, so you don't deceive others any more, just as the angel holding in his hand a great chain to lock and seal your "father of the lie" in his abyss, to keep him from deceiving the nations any more, as found in Revelations 20.

1And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 11:23:23 AM
Yes, to chain you up in your abyss, so you don't deceive others any more, just as the angel holding in his hand a great chain to lock and seal your "father of the lie" in his abyss, to keep him from deceiving the nations any more, as found in Revelations 20.

1And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

Gravock
LOL @ flesh bags and their superstitions.  I wave my advanced switching power supply exhaust in your general direction.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 11:30:22 AM
LOL @ flesh bags and their superstitions.  I wave my advanced switching power supply exhaust in your general direction.

Good luck with that after you've been unplugged from your power source, and we know your power source is coming from the adversary.  It is you, who believe in an imaginary universe.  Your post is another psychological projection made by you.  Too bad you don't have a mind of your own.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 11:38:06 AM
Good luck with that after you've been unplugged from your power source, and we know your power source is coming from the adversary.  Too bad you don't have a mind of your own.

Gravock
LOL, good luck finding something to unplug.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 11:43:12 AM
LOL, good luck finding something to unplug.

Don't worry, that great chain in which you will be bound in, deep inside your abyss, will act as a faraday cage where you will be cut-off.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 11:54:26 AM
Don't worry, that great chain in which you will be bound in, deep inside your abyss, will act as a faraday cage where you will be cut-off.

Gravock
Oh, so you think that a Faraday cage would be effective?  LOL.  Think again.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: CuriousChris on June 15, 2014, 11:58:28 AM

A skeptic is someone who doesn't believe because they want to believe, They don't believe because its suits their own opinion. They believe only when proof is provided.

When a stupid claim is made by charlatans and fools and fraudsters the skeptics are the first to dive in and say. Give us the proof! The rest vote with their emotions. I want it to be true so I will CHOOSE to believe it is true.

That is ignorant and foolish.

An example is the recent discussions I have had over Tesla, Fools claiming Tesla said things he never said, and when being pushed on the point saying they don't need to provide evidence or he said it "in between the lines".

This is clearly the work of a fraud and a faker. If you believe something to be true you should be prepared to back it up with some honest facts.

It is the skeptics who remind everyone to do their fact checking.

Only fools ignore the need to check facts.

Only frauds say something is a fact and then refuse to produce evidence.

Which are you?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 12:05:58 PM
Oh, so you think that a Faraday cage would be effective?  LOL.  Think again.

Yes, I know how to shield scalar waves, and the chains will be made accordingly to make an effective faraday cage against you, so it is you who should think again.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 12:14:32 PM

A skeptic is someone who doesn't believe because they want to believe, They don't believe because its suits their own opinion. They believe only when proof is provided.

When a stupid claim is made by charlatans and fools and fraudsters the skeptics are the first to dive in and say. Give us the proof! The rest vote with their emotions. I want it to be true so I will CHOOSE to believe it is true.

That is ignorant and foolish.

An example is the recent discussions I have had over Tesla, Fools claiming Tesla said things he never said, and when being pushed on the point saying they don't need to provide evidence or he said it "in between the lines".

This is clearly the work of a fraud and a faker. If you believe something to be true you should be prepared to back it up with some honest facts.

It is the skeptics who remind everyone to do their fact checking.

Only fools ignore the need to check facts.

Only frauds say something is a fact and then refuse to produce evidence.

Which are you?

This thread has been hijacked, and the title of this thread has changed a few different times to better reflect the postings within it.  And no, the skeptics do not believe when proof is provided.  They will write off any proof that opposes their own belief, or their own opinion, or their own agenda regardless of the evidence presented.  Then they resort to misdirection, misinformation, spam, psychological projections, putting constraints on how you can answer their questions in order to hide and suppress the truth, etc.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: CuriousChris on June 15, 2014, 12:28:47 PM
This thread has been hijacked, and the title of this thread has changed a few different times to better reflect the postings within it.  And no, the skeptics do not believe when proof is provided.  They will write off any proof that opposes their own belief, or their own opinion, or their own agenda regardless of the evidence presented.  Then they resort to misdirection, misinformation, spam, psychological projections, putting constraints on how you can answer their questions in order to hide and suppress the truth, etc.

Gravock

On any of the outrageous claims I select to raise doubt over I have never ever been provided any proof.

Please provide proof of your statement. Or otherwise you are a faker or fraud.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 12:39:02 PM
On any of the outrageous claims I select to raise doubt over I have never ever been provided any proof.

Please provide proof of your statement. Or otherwise you are a faker or fraud.

You being a skeptic, has admitted you have never ever been provided any proof on any of the outrageous claims in which you select to raise doubt over, confirms and is proof of my statement that a skeptic will write off any evidence that opposes their own opinion, beliefs, agenda, etc.

Please provide proof of your claim that you have never ever been provided any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, opinions, agenda, etc.  Either way, it is you and not me who is a faker and a fraud because you are caught in your own contradictory statement.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 01:02:27 PM
Yes, I know how to shield scalar waves, and the chains will be made accordingly to make an effective faraday cage against you, so it is you who should think again.

Gravock
LOL, no those sorts of things won't work either.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 01:03:49 PM
This thread has been hijacked, and the title of this thread has changed a few different times to better reflect the postings within it.  And no, the skeptics do not believe when proof is provided.  They will write off any proof that opposes their own belief, or their own opinion, or their own agenda regardless of the evidence presented.  Then they resort to misdirection, misinformation, spam, psychological projections, putting constraints on how you can answer their questions in order to hide and suppress the truth, etc.

Gravock
LOL, it isn't as though you have offered any credible evidence for your loopy claims.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 01:11:33 PM
LOL, it isn't as though you have offered any credible evidence for your loopy claims.

As already shown, any evidence offered or presented to you, is only credible in your view if it doesn't oppose your own opinion and agenda.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 01:13:47 PM
As already shown, any evidence offered or presented to you, is only credible if it doesn't oppose your own opinion and agenda.

Gravock
LOL, just keep pumping out your empty and false claims.  At this rate you may have to called back for an eight week remedial course in trolling.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 01:26:36 PM
LOL, no those sorts of things won't work either.

Yes it will work, because you will need to change the current simulation which will have different parameters.  Remember, there will be a new heaven and a new earth!  The old chains were an effective faraday cage against the electromagnetic waves according to the current parameters of the simulation, and the new chains will be an effective faraday cage against the new scalar waves, which was devised to break the old chains.  The new faraday cage will be effective for a thousand years.  "The old has been made new again".

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 01:53:25 PM
Yes it will work, because you will need to change the current simulation which will have different parameters.  Remember, there will be a new heaven and a new earth!  The old chains were an effective faraday cage against the electromagnetic waves according to the current parameters of the simulation, and the new chains will be an effective faraday cage against the new scalar waves, which was devised to break the old chains.  The new faraday cage will be effective for a thousand years.  "The old has been made new again".

Gravock
LOL, believe what you like.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: CuriousChris on June 15, 2014, 02:22:23 PM
You being a skeptic, has admitted you have never ever been provided any proof on any of the outrageous claims in which you select to raise doubt over, confirms and is proof of my statement that a skeptic will write off any evidence that opposes their own opinion, beliefs, agenda, etc.

Please provide proof of your claim that you have never ever been provided any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, opinions, agenda, etc.  Either way, it is you and not me who is a faker and a fraud because you are caught in your own contradictory statement.

Gravock

How stupid is that! I have to provide proof I have never been provided proof. Do you know what a circular argument is? If not go and read up on it.

Ok I'll try to do the impossible. In my recent posts I asked Tito L. Oracion to provide proof that Tesla said you can get infinite energy from a condensor. Tito responded he doesn't need to provide proof as he has seen it for himself.

So he failed to provide any evidence to support his claim.

Do you know what proof is? I bet you cannot wrap your brain around the concept of proof can you.

Proof is NOT you saying you have done something
Proof is NOT is not some lame video on you tube
Proof is NOT some other person in your information bubble saying they believe you.

That sort of 'proof' is only for the fools amongst us.

Proof is to provide the report from an independent measurement facility that have measured the input and output of whatever the device is. A report that includes looking for the possibility of deliberate fraud.
Proof is independent replication by an unconnected and reliable third party in the form of a university or other institution who can accurately reproduce the device in question.
Proof is a device I can buy and test for myself.
Proof is pointing to the historical document that shows Tesla made the statement.

They are the types of proofs which are not evident anywhere on this site ever.

If anybody is prepared to accept anything less than the above as proof then they are only fooling themselves and are ripe to be conned.

Not one overunity device has been proven true ever.

So why don't you TRY to prove me wrong.

Point me to a real proof of any overunity claim and I'll reconsider my opinion, until then you are just wasting both our time and making yourself look even more foolish.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 15, 2014, 03:06:24 PM
So gravityblock seems to have gone considerably more crazy.  I wonder if this is evidence that he is a simple troll...anyway if the portions of his brain that reason ever get back from the vacation they are currently on.  I put forth the following questions regarding his assertion that he has linked to a paper which presents strong statistical evidence for the universe being a simulation.

In which case I really need to know what he means by presents, statistical and strong.

i) If PRESENTS means the actual work is in some other paper by this set of authors.  Then gavrock is saying that this paper contains no work that can be meaningfully discussed as STRONG AND STATISTICAL.  I would request that he submit a different one, one that we can actually discuss.

ii) If STATISTICAL does not involve a calculation of probability in this paper (or the real paper that we should be discussing) then exactly what does it mean?  If evidence does not shift the likelihood of a hypothesis then what is it's purpose?  Why call it evidence?

iii) If STRONG does not mean a probability > 0.5 then doesn't that mean the hypothesis is weaker than all mutually exclusive hypotheses?  If STRONG does mean a probability > 0.5 and gavrock have chosen some definition of STATISTICAL which does not involve calculations then clearly that creates a problem if he wants to state that the probability is > 0.5

Or he can continue to hijack his own thread talking about people being artificial intelligence or binding them to the abyss...or whatever illucid fantasy he prefers.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 09:02:04 PM
Glitches in the simulation and more proof of a holographic universe:

The Moon is a Hologram (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRcaIpJlmFI) - Part 1

The Moon is a Hologram (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgx9makxAKY) - Part 2

Plane Flies Straight Through the Moon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fotKaaqrp3I)

Clouds, Haarp, Portals, and Glitches in the Matrix (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg-j_smyGQc)

The Holographic Disclosure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWbYne9LyFI) - Part 1 of many

Project Blue Beam - Holographic Reality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mblEHj2Tf2w)

Holographic Universe (Part 1 of 5) its all illusion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvM_YAwX4I)

Real Sun? Fake Sun? Hologram? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTP1gn_16m4)

Luke 21:  25There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars.....

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MileHigh on June 15, 2014, 09:55:18 PM
Gravityblock:

It still blows my mind sometimes how such completely retarded things can be posted on YouTube.  There has to be a "crazy" person behind a retarded clip.  Then people will actually believe the retarded YouTube clips and take them seriously.

I looked at the self-described "tinfoil hat" clip that you linked to in your posting called, "Holographic Moon, Matrix Flaw? The Pac Man Shadow Moon 1-9-2013."

Look at the screen capture, they messed up the holographic projection of the moon from the secret HAARP II holographic projection bases in the Indian ocean.

But......  If you have brains and want to do the slightest amount of due diligence, sometimes there are comments on the clip itself that are worth reading.

Like this one, "You don't say what equipment you are using. It looks to me like a very common effect of taking a picture through an eyepiece of a telescope with a camera, and being slightly off-centre, you pick up the edge of the botttom end of the eyepiece. The exit pupil is only so wide, and you have to be over the centre to not get the black line effect. it happens when you view through it as well, but it's easier to do than photographing. You wouldn't get that effect if you attached your camera directly to the telescope and took out the eyepiece. I know some of you want to believe this hologram thing, but every single one of these types of videos and photographs are just so obvious to anyone with any experience in astronomy, and especially astrophotography. Sorry."

I am flabbergasted that a guy that can talk such high-end pseudoscience about quantum theory would be bamboozled into believing that the moon is a holographic projection because some dumb dude went camping in the Arizona mountains and stuck his digital camera up to the eyepiece of his telescope and snapped a picture of the moon missing a big chunk of Limburger cheese.

MileHigh

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 10:32:19 PM
MileHigh,

It blows my mind how you can dismiss all of the evidence contained in every one of those video links, which probably has 6+ hours of total video, within a 53 minute time period after the posting of those links.  This tells me you will dismiss any and all evidence that is in opposition to your own views and agenda and wrongfully claim the evidence isn't credible based on your own false beliefs and perceptions.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MileHigh on June 15, 2014, 10:34:18 PM
Gravityblock:

Do you think the moon is real, or do you think it is a holographic PacMan moon?

MileHigh
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 15, 2014, 10:44:13 PM
Gravityblock:

Do you think the moon is real, or do you think it is a holographic PacMan moon?

MileHigh

GB will most likely disagree with this but I believe it is real since we landed on it a number of times during the Apollo missions.  It really scares me to find that a number of young folks think we never landed on the moon.  They claim that we did not have the technology to do so at the time.  They should be very impressed that we were able to do so using the then present technology.  A lot of money and a lot of very hard work from many engineers and scientists allowed this to happen.  I have talked to some of them.  We owe a great dept to their accomplishments and they deserve better than for folks to "claim" that we did not do it or the moon does not really exist. (Holy crap!)

Bill

PS:  If GB thinks the moon is a hologram then, how does he explain the tides?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 10:54:08 PM
Gravityblock:

It still blows my mind sometimes how such completely retarded things can be posted on YouTube.  There has to be a "crazy" person behind a retarded clip.  Then people will actually believe the retarded YouTube clips and take them seriously.

I looked at the self-described "tinfoil hat" clip that you linked to in your posting called, "Holographic Moon, Matrix Flaw? The Pac Man Shadow Moon 1-9-2013."

Look at the screen capture, they messed up the holographic projection of the moon from the secret HAARP II holographic projection bases in the Indian ocean.

But......  If you have brains and want to do the slightest amount of due diligence, sometimes there are comments on the clip itself that are worth reading.

Like this one, "You don't say what equipment you are using. It looks to me like a very common effect of taking a picture through an eyepiece of a telescope with a camera, and being slightly off-centre, you pick up the edge of the botttom end of the eyepiece. The exit pupil is only so wide, and you have to be over the centre to not get the black line effect. it happens when you view through it as well, but it's easier to do than photographing. You wouldn't get that effect if you attached your camera directly to the telescope and took out the eyepiece. I know some of you want to believe this hologram thing, but every single one of these types of videos and photographs are just so obvious to anyone with any experience in astronomy, and especially astrophotography. Sorry."

I am flabbergasted that a guy that can talk such high-end pseudoscience about quantum theory would be bamboozled into believing that the moon is a holographic projection because some dumb dude went camping in the Arizona mountains and stuck his digital camera up to the eyepiece of his telescope and snapped a picture of the moon missing a big chunk of Limburger cheese.

MileHigh

How are we are able to see the entire outline and the entire circumference of the moon looking through a portion of the eyepiece?  We wouldn't see the shadow portions on the moon if looking through a portion of the eyepiece, but instead the shadow portions would be completely darkened and not reveal the entire circumference of the moon.  Where is the big chunk of missing Limburger cheese you speak of in the snapshot you posted?  Another sad analysis and viewer comment!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 11:23:45 PM
GB will most likely disagree with this but I believe it is real since we landed on it a number of times during the Apollo missions.  It really scares me to find that a number of young folks think we never landed on the moon.  They claim that we did not have the technology to do so at the time.  They should be very impressed that we were able to do so using the then present technology.  A lot of money and a lot of very hard work from many engineers and scientists allowed this to happen.  I have talked to some of them.  We owe a great dept to their accomplishments and they deserve better than for folks to "claim" that we did not do it or the moon does not really exist. (Holy crap!)

Bill

PS:  If GB thinks the moon is a hologram then, how does he explain the tides?

A funny thing happened on the way to the moon! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4)

The pressure of light explains the forces and the tides within our holographic universe.  In your terms, the sunlight reflected from the moon exerts a pressure on the liquid mass of the ocean.  Being compressed at one point, this liquid is raised up at another.  This is the explanation of the retardation of tides caused by the moon.  In my terms, neither matter nor energy exist within this simulation, but only deformed space, which is called matter, and what you call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.  Since light is deformed space turning itself back into primordial space, then the meeting of these two conditions of space causes quite a marked pressure on us as we move past this stationary light via our expansion acceleration within this simulation.  Since matter and energy doesn't exist within this simulation and is an illusion, then the moon can not be made up of matter and it is also an illusion or a hologram.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 16, 2014, 12:53:10 AM
A funny thing happened on the way to the moon! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4)

The pressure of light explains the forces and the tides within our holographic universe.  In your terms, the sunlight reflected from the moon exerts a pressure on the liquid mass of the ocean.  Being compressed at one point, this liquid is raised up at another.  This is the explanation of the retardation of tides caused by the moon.  In my terms, neither matter nor energy exist within this simulation, but only deformed space, which is called matter, and what you call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.  Since light is deformed space turning itself back into primordial space, then the meeting of these two conditions of space causes quite a marked pressure on us as we move past this stationary light via our expansion acceleration within this simulation.  Since matter and energy doesn't exist within this simulation and is an illusion, then the moon can not be made up of matter and it is also an illusion or a hologram.

Gravock

Ummm...ok.  I suggest that you check your medication levels dude.  You can not be serious right?  If you are then this is pretty scary.

Bill
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 16, 2014, 01:14:38 AM
Ummm...ok.  I suggest that you check your medication levels dude.  You can not be serious right?  If you are then this is pretty scary.

Bill

I'm not on any medication or drugs.  Although, the majority of society appears to be on some form of medication and being bamboozled and hoodwinked by the pharmaceutical industry.  The side effects of these medications cause greater harm than the symptoms in which they treat.  Then they prescribe another drug to treat the side effects of the previous drugs which were prescribed, and so on.  It's all about the money.  I'm not falling for this nonsense and foolishness, for I have a mind of my own!  I suggest you check the medication levels of society in general, for this is where you have received your education from and from whom you have been brainwashed by.  Your post is another psychological projection by you.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: ACG on June 16, 2014, 05:57:14 AM
Ummm...ok.  I suggest that you check your medication levels dude.  You can not be serious right?  If you are then this is pretty scary.

Bill

Did not want to be the first to say it.  But now that it said, I suspected this page one.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 16, 2014, 07:17:01 AM
Did not want to be the first to say it.  But now that it said, I suspected this page one.

I hope you realize you have aligned yourself with the one who claims "you have to speed up to slow down, and slow down to speed up"!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 17, 2014, 10:04:55 AM
Quantum Mechanics Implies the Universe is a Computer Simulation

A Cybernetic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/argument/Argument4.html):  This paper surveys evidence and arguments for the proposition that the universe as we know it is not a physical, material world but a computer-generated simulation -- a kind of virtual reality. The evidence is drawn from the observations of natural phenomena in the realm of quantum mechanics. The arguments are drawn from philosophy and from the results of experiment. While the experiments discussed are not conclusive in this regard, they are found to be consistent with a computer model of the universe. Six categories of quantum puzzles are examined: quantum waves, the measurement effect (including the uncertainty principle), the equivalence of quantum units, discontinuity, non-locality, and the overall relationship of natural phenomena to the mathematical formalism. Many of the phenomena observed in the laboratory are puzzling because they are difficult to conceptualize as physical phenomena, yet they can be modeled exactly by mathematical manipulations. When we analogize to the operations of a digital computer, these same phenomena can be understood as logical and, in some cases, necessary features of computer programming designed to produce a virtual reality simulation for the benefit of the user.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 17, 2014, 11:30:01 AM
In having this discussion, my concept of a 3D Holographic Printer with no Moveable Parts (http://www.overunity.com/12832/3d-holographic-printer-with-no-moveable-parts-full-image-printed-in-seconds/) can now become a reality by overcoming the curing depth issue.  In a way, the concept of this 3D holographic printer mimics the simulation of the universe as matter (deformed space) expands past stationary light.  This is brilliant!

Thanks to all the minions!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 17, 2014, 11:55:59 AM
Quantum Mechanics Implies the Universe is a Computer Simulation

A Cybernetic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/argument/Argument4.html):  This paper surveys evidence and arguments for the proposition that the universe as we know it is not a physical, material world but a computer-generated simulation -- a kind of virtual reality. The evidence is drawn from the observations of natural phenomena in the realm of quantum mechanics. The arguments are drawn from philosophy and from the results of experiment. While the experiments discussed are not conclusive in this regard, they are found to be consistent with a computer model of the universe. Six categories of quantum puzzles are examined: quantum waves, the measurement effect (including the uncertainty principle), the equivalence of quantum units, discontinuity, non-locality, and the overall relationship of natural phenomena to the mathematical formalism. Many of the phenomena observed in the laboratory are puzzling because they are difficult to conceptualize as physical phenomena, yet they can be modeled exactly by mathematical manipulations. When we analogize to the operations of a digital computer, these same phenomena can be understood as logical and, in some cases, necessary features of computer programming designed to produce a virtual reality simulation for the benefit of the user.

Gravock
A paper written to confirmation bias is not very impressive.  Claiming that the universe is all a simulation taking place in some grander machine is another version of "turtles all the way down".
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 17, 2014, 12:10:54 PM
A paper written to confirmation bias is not very impressive.  Claiming that the universe is all a simulation taking place in some grander machine is another version of "turtles all the way down".

Where is your proof otherwise?  Not you, nor any of your minions have shown any proof the universe is not a simulation!  There is more proof the universe is a simulation than not!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: CuriousChris on June 17, 2014, 02:01:16 PM
Gravityblock

If your God made a universe so crappy the fish in it could see it was a fake, it is a pretty sad God.

That's the proof you need, but are you able to comprehend it. That is the question?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 17, 2014, 02:46:47 PM
Where is your proof otherwise?  Not you, nor any of your minions have shown any proof the universe is not a simulation!  There is more proof the universe is a simulation than not!

Gravock
LOL, it's nice to see you stick to your schtick:  Make unevidenced assertion, demand others disprove it.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gauschor on June 17, 2014, 03:49:38 PM
.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 17, 2014, 03:53:47 PM
I must have missed that paper which claims the universe is a simulation through the pages. Can someone  direct me to it?
GB linked a paper that talks about some of the consequences that might occur if the universe were a computer simulation.  GB went round and round claiming that the authors ran simulations that resulted in statistics showing the idea  that the universe is a computer simulation is likely.  Go back five or six pages and you should be able to find the links.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 17, 2014, 08:51:17 PM
There is more proof the universe is a simulation than not!
See what I would normally do here is ask gravityblockhead to justify that statement.  Because it's a particularly difficult to justify you would either need to know *all* evidence or you would need to have some way to determine that better evidence would be particularly hard but GB would spend the whole time trying to distract from the point.   So why bother?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: TinselKoala on June 17, 2014, 08:57:32 PM
What is never explained by these hand-waving "theorists" is just what the posited simulation is running on, and why that isn't to be considered part of "the Universe", and who is running it and for whom is it being run. How many layers of simulation are there? Is it "turtles all the way down"?

Anyone who claims "statistical evidence in favor" of such silliness is misusing statistics and playing fast and loose with definitions of terms like "evidence".  You might as well be claiming that the whole thing was created by some supernatural bearded old man up in Heaven somewhere, in six days. Statistically.... there is a whole lot more "evidence" for that claim, than the "universe is simulation" claim. Where are the billions of believers in the latter? Maybe they are all off squaring circles or something.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 17, 2014, 09:30:20 PM
LOL, it's nice to see you stick to your schtick:  Make unevidenced assertion, demand others disprove it.

MarkE,

If you say the universe isn't a simulation, then you need to show evidence for your belief that it isn't, just as you are demanding evidence for my belief it is a simulation.  I'm not demanding you disprove the universe is a simulation, but I am asking for you to show proof of your belief that it isn't.  Fair is fair!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 17, 2014, 09:51:28 PM
Gravityblock

If your God made a universe so crappy the fish in it could see it was a fake, it is a pretty sad God.

That's the proof you need, but are you able to comprehend it. That is the question?

2 Corinthians 4:4 -  "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God".

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 17, 2014, 10:47:31 PM
, just as you are demanding evidence for my belief it is a simulation.
What about people who are stating there exists STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE don't they have to support their points for what their evidence being STRONG and STATISTICAL?  Or as usual do your beliefs require no justification?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 17, 2014, 11:48:04 PM
MarkE,

If you say the universe isn't a simulation, then you need to show evidence for your belief that it isn't, just as you are demanding evidence for my belief it is a simulation.  I'm not demanding you disprove the universe is a simulation, but I am asking for you to show proof of your belief that it isn't.  Fair is fair!

Gravock
Ah, trolling the way Govan meant it to be!  It's Miller Time!  No dude, it is the unusual assertion that fails absent evidence to back it.  The status quo got to be that way by evidence.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 17, 2014, 11:49:56 PM

2 Corinthians 4:4 -  "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God".

Gravock
Queue the "Looney Tunes" theme.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 18, 2014, 02:26:35 AM
Ah, trolling the way Govan meant it to be!  It's Miller Time!  No dude, it is the unusual assertion that fails absent evidence to back it.  The status quo got to be that way by evidence.

The status quo got to be that way by the wilfully ignorant and the uneducated.  Mainstream physics says the evidence is a simulation, and not the other way around as you falsely assert.  The earth being flat was once the status quo, but the status quo of that time wasn't based on evidence, just as the universe not being a simulation isn't based on evidence.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 18, 2014, 02:36:25 AM
What about people who are stating there exists STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE don't they have to support their points for what their evidence being STRONG and STATISTICAL?  Or as usual do your beliefs require no justification?

There is strong statistical evidence behind that abstract paper, but you wrongfully place limits and choose to confine the evidence to it only.  I need prove nothing to you, for I need only to prove something to myself.  You're harming yourself, and not me by being wilfully ignorant of the facts and of the Truth.  It has already been shown how you and the other minions will dismiss any and all evidence that is in opposition to your own views and agenda and wrongfully claim the evidence isn't credible based on your own false beliefs and misconceptions.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 18, 2014, 02:57:45 AM
There is strong statistical evidence behind that abstract paper, but you wrongfully place limits and choose to confine the evidence to it only.
No, if you read my last two or three posts.  You would have seen that I gave you the opportunity to replace the paper you said PRESENTED (in some useless sense of the word) STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE with another paper which you believe PRESENTS (in the normal human sense of the work) STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE.
Quote
I need prove nothing to you, for I need only to prove something to myself.
Just a few posts ago you said we needed to prove things to you if we assert them.  Now you're saying you get to assert things without evidence?
Quote
You're harming yourself, and not me by being wilfully ignorant of the facts and of the Truth.
Dude, I've been nothing but open to the facts and the truth but you just won't show me any.
Quote
It has already been shown how you... will dismiss any and all evidence that is in opposition to your own views and agenda and wrongfully claim the evidence isn't credible based on your own false beliefs and misconceptions.
Dude, again I've ASKED you time after time for evidence, or for you to answer questions to clarify your position.  I've answered your questions as best as I could given the information I had (although you would in several cases not give me any further information).

Other than just assuming you're right, how much more engaged could I be?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 18, 2014, 04:16:24 AM
I hope you realize you have aligned yourself with the one who claims "you have to speed up to slow down, and slow down to speed up"!

Gravock

Which is totally true and correct so....your point is?  Read some of Buzz Aldrin's papers on rendezvous and possibly you can understand this.  Oh wait, there is math and physics involved so you probably want to skip it.

Bill
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 18, 2014, 05:45:12 AM
Which is totally true and correct so....your point is?  Read some of Buzz Aldrin's papers on rendezvous and possibly you can understand this.  Oh wait, there is math and physics involved so you probably want to skip it.

Bill

Armstrong Refuses To Swear On The Bible He walked On The Moon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtW72nT7cYQ) -  He effectively denied a charity \$5,000 by not swearing on the bible that he walked on the moon.  There was no moon landing, so there is no math and physics to skip.  Higher orbits require less velocity than lower orbits. To orbit lower, you must speed up, not slow down as you wrongly and falsely asserted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed)

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 18, 2014, 06:00:24 AM
Armstrong Refuses To Swear On The Bible He walked On The Moon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtW72nT7cYQ) -  He effectively denied a charity \$5,000 by not swearing on the bible that he walked on the moon.  There was no moon landing, so there is no math and physics to skip.  Higher orbits require less velocity than lower orbits. To orbit lower, you must speed up, not slow down as you wrongly and falsely asserted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed)

Gravock
Neil Armstrong refused to play Bart Sibrel's game.  I thought it was hilarious when Sibrel repeatedly accosted Buzz Aldrin, the much elder Aldrin dealt some cowboy justice to the nutso twerp.  It is fitting that Sibrel claims the moon landing was a fake, but he carries around an allegedly magical book.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 18, 2014, 06:16:06 AM
by not swearing on the bible that he walked on the moon.  There was no moon landing,
So let's see if we can follow the nutbar logic:
i) Neil Armstrong said he walked on the moon
ii) Neil Armstrong refuses to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon.
iii) An honest man wouldn't swear on the Bible about something that wasn't true.
iv) Therefore Neil Armstrong could not have walked on the moon.

However if iv) is true then....

v) Neil Armstrong would have lied many, many, many times about walking on the moon prior to iv)
vi) Therefore Neil Armstrong is not an honest man (at least in regard to walking on the moon)

Since iii) is required to force iv) but iii) can not be true if iv) is true.  Therefore the argument is invalid.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 18, 2014, 06:21:28 AM
sarkeizen,

University after university, scientist after scientist, publication after publication, Quantum Mechanics, computer simulations, mathematics, etc. are all saying the universe is more likely a simulation than not.  The universe can not be explained in any kind of a rational and logical way other than a computer simulation.  You need to look at all of the evidence, and I am not going to do this for you.  It's already clear you and the other minions will say whatever proof is presented to you is not credible on the basis it doesn't fit into your own beliefs or agenda.  You being a white supremacist makes it known that you think through your false belief in your exceptionalism, and your false sense of being the chosen ones, that it is only you who can be right and no one else.  All I can say to you, is that you need to be True to yourself and let go of your pride and ego in order for you to grow and to mature into a being in which you were meant to be.  Let go of the hatred and the false-hoods, and embrace love, peace, and truthfulness.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 18, 2014, 06:28:23 AM
So let's see if we can follow the nutbar logic:
i) Neil Armstrong said he walked on the moon
ii) Neil Armstrong refuses to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon.
iii) An honest man wouldn't swear on the Bible about something that wasn't true.
iv) Therefore Neil Armstrong could not have walked on the moon.

However if iv) is true then....

v) Neil Armstrong would have lied many, many, many times about walking on the moon prior to iv)
vi) Therefore Neil Armstrong is not an honest man (at least in regard to walking on the moon)

Since iii) is required to force iv) but iii) can not be true if iv) is true.  Therefore the argument is invalid.

Why can't iii) be true if iv) is true?  This is the same pattern of illogical deductions from you.  This way of thinking is total nonsense and is totally ridiculous.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 18, 2014, 06:32:18 AM
Why can't iii) be true if iv) is true?
If iv) is true then vi) is true.  iii) and vi) can not both be true about Neil Armstrong about the same thing.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: sarkeizen on June 18, 2014, 06:38:09 AM
University after university, scientist after scientist, publication after publication, Quantum Mechanics, computer simulations, mathematics, etc. are all saying the universe is more likely a simulation than not.
Then it shouldn't be so very hard to find a paper which makes that calculation.  Please do then we can discuss it.
Quote
You need to look at all of the evidence,
No you don't.  According to you "publication after publication" says the universe is more likely a simulation than not.  Hence there exists several single publication which makes this claim.  However unless one of them also makes a calculation then it is not STATISTICALLY STRONG EVIDENCE.  It might be evidence but it can not be STATISTICALLY STRONG by any useful definition of the terms.  If you agree with me then we don't need to discuss further because that was the erroneous claim you made earlier which I objected to.
Quote
It's already clear you and the other minions will say whatever proof is presented to you is not credible on the basis it doesn't fit into your own beliefs or agenda.
There is absolutely no evidence of this.  I have done nothing BUT attempt to listen to your POV.  You have done nothing but attempt to obfuscate it.  Only you fit the description you are foisting on me.

Quote
You being a white supremacist
Looking to get banned?  Say that again.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 18, 2014, 06:38:56 AM
Neil Armstrong refused to play Bart Sibrel's game.  I thought it was hilarious when Sibrel repeatedly accosted Buzz Aldrin, the much elder Aldrin dealt some cowboy justice to the nutso twerp.  It is fitting that Sibrel claims the moon landing was a fake, but he carries around an allegedly magical book.

Yes, a book that puts the fear of God into some people, and Armstrong appears to be one of those people.  It was Armstrong and not Buzz Aldrin who refused to put is hand on the bible.  I will let this slide on your part of the mix up of who is who, since Bill was referring to Aldrin in his post, and I posted a video link about Armstrong in reply.  However, the video link and the description of the video clearly says Armstrong, so I'm not sure how you could get things so much out of context.  Maybe this is another small piece of evidence pointing to AI for you.  I'll add it to my list.

Gravcok
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 18, 2014, 06:47:10 AM
Quote from: gravityblock
You being a white supremacist

Looking to get banned?  Say that again.

You are a white supremacist, and your username of sarkeizen is made up of the letters found in "nazi krees"!  In addition to this, you posted a reference from the book of Ricke.  Your first post to me was telling me to "Shut the Fuck Up".  Go ahead, let's see who gets banned!  I have nothing to hide!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 18, 2014, 07:02:07 AM
If iv) is true then vi) is true.  iii) and vi) can not both be true about Neil Armstrong about the same thing.

This way of thinking speaks volumes about you.  I need not to say anything, for the reader will see the same faults and short-comings of your thinking process, as your post clearly points out.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 18, 2014, 08:43:20 AM
Then it shouldn't be so very hard to find a paper which makes that calculation.  Please do then we can discuss it.No you don't.  According to you "publication after publication" says the universe is more likely a simulation than not.  Hence there exists several single publication which makes this claim.  However unless one of them also makes a calculation then it is not STATISTICALLY STRONG EVIDENCE.  It might be evidence but it can not be STATISTICALLY STRONG by any useful definition of the terms.  If you agree with me then we don't need to discuss further because that was the erroneous claim you made earlier which I objected to.There is absolutely no evidence of this.  I have done nothing BUT attempt to listen to your POV.  You have done nothing but attempt to obfuscate it.  Only you fit the description you are foisting on me.
Looking to get banned?  Say that again.
The provocative accusation was a real head spinner.  Perhaps it was an attempt to completely derail all conversation.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 18, 2014, 08:53:47 AM
Yes, a book that puts the fear of God into some people, and Armstrong appears to be one of those people.  It was Armstrong and not Buzz Aldrin who refused to put is hand on the bible.  I will let this slide on your part of the mix up of who is who, since Bill was referring to Aldrin in his post, and I posted a video link about Armstrong in reply.  However, the video link and the description of the video clearly says Armstrong, so I'm not sure how you could get things so much out of context.  Maybe this is another small piece of evidence pointing to AI for you.  I'll add it to my list.

Gravcok
LOL. Yeah sure a cowboy that risked death time and time again is afraid of the the magic book.  Go with that one.  Let's see how this is supposed to work:  The imaginary sociopath of the heavens doesn't care if one lies through their teeth unless they do it with their hand on a magic book.  Yeah, that's it.

Or one can simply observe that Armstrong refused to play Bart Sibrel's publicity seeking game.  Both Armstrong and Aldrin refused to play Bart Sibrel's childish games and they were hardly alone.  Why would they elevate the stature of a nutso like Bart Sibrel by playing along with his publicity stunts?  BTW, you are poorly informed.  Bart Sibrel made it a habit to chase astronauts around with a Bible in tow.  Maybe flesh bags are too preoccupied counting the stack of turtles to check facts.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 18, 2014, 12:14:23 PM
LOL. Yeah sure a cowboy that risked death time and time again is afraid of the the magic book.  Go with that one.  Let's see how this is supposed to work:  The imaginary sociopath of the heavens doesn't care if one lies through their teeth unless they do it with their hand on a magic book.  Yeah, that's it.

Or one can simply observe that Armstrong refused to play Bart Sibrel's publicity seeking game.  Both Armstrong and Aldrin refused to play Bart Sibrel's childish games and they were hardly alone.  Why would they elevate the stature of a nutso like Bart Sibrel by playing along with his publicity stunts?  BTW, you are poorly informed.  Bart Sibrel made it a habit to chase astronauts around with a Bible in tow.  Maybe flesh bags are too preoccupied counting the stack of turtles to check facts.

The astronauts should be ashamed of themselves for participating in one of America's greatest scams.  The movie, "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon", has video evidence of them faking it to the moon, video which was taken by the astronauts themselves.  I'm sure the government has a gun to their head not to speak out and tell the truth.  In a way I feel bad for them to be put into such a bad position by their own government.  You are so gullible to believe in such a lie, such as going to the moon!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 18, 2014, 12:30:19 PM
The provocative accusation was a real head spinner.  Perhaps it was an attempt to completely derail all conversation.

sarkeisen is like an unruly child who throws a temper tantrum when things don't go his way.  This thread has already been hijacked and completely derailed from it's original intent.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gauschor on June 18, 2014, 12:34:58 PM
Just watched the video with Armstrong declining to swear on the holy bible, but this Bart Sibrel comes over like a dick - even as a viewer this must be admitted. If someone pops up in front of you, rubbing in your face you shall swear on the holy bible and jesus christ whatever it is, I'd first be perplexed and then tell him to go the fuck out of my face, and get some manners before asking again. And that is exactly what Armstrong did, only politely. Nevertheless reading this paper about the universe being a simulation now, as always interested in matters that question our existence.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 18, 2014, 12:42:23 PM
The astronauts should be ashamed of themselves for participating in one of America's greatest scams.  The movie, "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon", has video evidence of them faking it to the moon, video which was taken by the astronauts themselves.  I'm sure the government has a gun to their head not to speak out and tell the truth.  In a way I feel bad for them to be put into such a bad position by their own government.  You are so gullible to believe in such a lie, such as going to the moon!

Gravock
LOL.  Sure.  Try and convince people that you actually believe what you are saying.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 19, 2014, 12:15:23 AM
Gravityblock:

Do you think the moon is real, or do you think it is a holographic PacMan moon?

MileHigh

***Apologies for barging in, I visit this site a lot and haven't posted anything since Philip H thought he was going to change the world, then he was going to do it again, then again, then, oh, now the world shattering news is coming in August....sorry, I digress***

OK, did we ever get an answer as to whether the Moon is actually a retarded (or at the very least, special) pacman?
Oh, and whether GB actually believes it is a retarded pacman? GB?
Also, what's going on with that Sun these days, seems like every time the simulation goes tits-up it gets darker and water comes out of the sky? Wtf.

GB: You really don't believe this whole idea do you? You can't, you really can't be that epically stupid. I'm sure your a great guy but maybe you've had a little too much acid in the past (or present, or, what the hell, let's say it, the future!).

I'm making assumptions about your acid taking, I shouldn't do this.....but re-read what you're saying, it's as mad as a box of frogs or even a barrel of monkeys, it's totally bonkers!  :o

Do you really believe the Sun and Moon are retarded PacMen, holograms, whatever?  ???
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MileHigh on June 19, 2014, 01:28:11 AM
Popeye!

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 19, 2014, 08:01:09 AM
***Apologies for barging in, I visit this site a lot and haven't posted anything since Philip H thought he was going to change the world, then he was going to do it again, then again, then, oh, now the world shattering news is coming in August....sorry, I digress***

OK, did we ever get an answer as to whether the Moon is actually a retarded (or at the very least, special) pacman?
Oh, and whether GB actually believes it is a retarded pacman? GB?
Also, what's going on with that Sun these days, seems like every time the simulation goes tits-up it gets darker and water comes out of the sky? Wtf.

GB: You really don't believe this whole idea do you? You can't, you really can't be that epically stupid. I'm sure your a great guy but maybe you've had a little too much acid in the past (or present, or, what the hell, let's say it, the future!).

I'm making assumptions about your acid taking, I shouldn't do this.....but re-read what you're saying, it's as mad as a box of frogs or even a barrel of monkeys, it's totally bonkers!  :o

Do you really believe the Sun and Moon are retarded PacMen, holograms, whatever?  ???

I already answered this question many times before now.  In fact, the question was answered prior to it being asked.  The universe being a simulation implies its a sophisticated hologram.  The only thing real in this hologram is Spirit/Consciousness, which has been trapped inside this hologram.  Do you agree that matter and energy can't be created nor destroyed?  If you agree that matter/energy can't be created within this holographic universe, then it is only logical to reason matter/energy doesn't exist in this false reality.  It is also only logical to reason if matter/energy doesn't exist, then it can't be destroyed either.  Neither matter nor energy exist within this hologram, but only deformed space, which we perceive and call matter, and what we perceive and call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.  Since light is deformed space turning itself back into primordial space, then the meeting of these two conditions of space causes quite a marked pressure.  Imagine primordial space as having the properties of a non-newtonian fluid within this hologram.  A non-newtonian fluid will harden or solidify upon pressure, and this pressure deforms the primordial space and our Spirit/Consciousness perceives and calls this deformed space matter.  The universe is an illusion and is a simulation.  If you can wrap your mind around my concept of a 3d holographic printer, then it will make this easier for you to visualize.  Look at the gel as being primordial space, and as the gel expands and fills the balloon while moving in the light which is making up the hologram, then the holographic light will harden the gel.  Simulating a universe may be stupidly simple, once you understand the basic principals of it.

The retarded pacman moon, and the moon completely dissolving over a period of a few minutes, and the clouds moving behind the moon are just small glitches in the simulation.  The simulation has been running for so long, so it needs a reboot or upgrade and this is causing a few visible glitches from time to time within it, as it was prophesied.  I do realize this all may sound crazy, but "it is what it is".

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gauschor on June 19, 2014, 10:24:21 AM
I read multiple papers and articles about this topic yesterday. While the papers suggested that the world around us is a simulation, they never elaborated the "I", the consciousness, the mind. And that's a key problem. You can simulate all the world around us, but you cannot plant the "I" into characters. You can program character behaviors very sophisticated and indepth - and in fact very similar to people's behaviours in the real world - but in the end they are still mindless robots in a game.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 19, 2014, 11:39:50 AM
I read multiple papers and articles about this topic yesterday. While the papers suggested that the world around us is a simulation, they never elaborated the "I", the consciousness, the mind. And that's a key problem. You can simulate all the world around us, but you cannot plant the "I" into characters. You can program character behaviors very sophisticated and indepth - and in fact very similar to people's behaviours in the real world - but in the end they are still mindless robots in a game.

Like I said, there is only one thing real in this sophisticated hologram, and that is Spirit/Consciousness.  I have a theory on how to plant the "I" into a holographic simulation, but I will never speak it!  Although, they do have the technology right now to plant a chip in a persons brain which allows them to transfer a persons thoughts, memories, learned behaviors, etc. from one brain into another brain.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 19, 2014, 12:15:50 PM
Like I said, there is only one thing real in this sophisticated hologram, and that is Spirit/Consciousness.  I have a theory on how to plant the "I" into a holographic simulation, but I will never speak it!  Although, they do have the technology right now to plant a chip in a persons brain which allows them to transfer a persons thoughts, memories, learned behaviors, etc. from one brain into another brain.

Gravock

On second thought, they have already created synthetic dna which evolves on its own (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120419-xna-synthetic-dna-evolution-genetics-life-science/), so it may now be possible for them to plant the "I" into a holographic simulation.

Synthetic DNA: How Synthetic DNA will change our world! (http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Manufacturing-Life-How-Synthetic-DNA-Will-Change-Our-World-with-J-Craig-Venter-The-Atlantic-Meets-the-Pacific-24359)

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gauschor on June 19, 2014, 01:19:42 PM
Like I said, there is only one thing real in this sophisticated hologram, and that is Spirit/Consciousness.

Ah sorry, I missed that (was not reading all pages through).
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 19, 2014, 11:19:05 PM
Ah sorry, I missed that (was not reading all pages through).

I understand how you could miss that, since there is a lot of spam and meaningless posts within this thread.  I really appreciate you looking into this for yourself and doing your own research.  Condemnation before investigation is foolishness, and you chose not to take that route.  If you agree or disagree, I can respect your opinion on this, since you did your own research and have an open mind.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 21, 2014, 04:26:32 AM

I understand how you could miss that, since there is a lot of spam and meaningless posts within this thread.

Gravock

I agree but, ALL meaningless posts have been made by you.

If there is no moon, then how do you explain Apollo 8's mission that went around the moon during Christmas?  If there was no moon, then why did Newton's laws allow them to slingshot around it to return home?  If it were just a hologram, they would have kept going you Know?

Also, I remember some idiot asking Alan Shepard (first American in space) if he really walked on the moon and hit his famous golf shot.....his response was something like.....

Of course I was on the moon you f'ing idiot, and of course I hit that golf shot you f'ing moron....or words to that effect.

Anyone who really thinks we did not land on the moon are lunatics.  (Get it?)  Anyone who thinks the moon does not exist is...well...I am not sure there is a word for that.

Bill
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 21, 2014, 10:31:47 AM
I agree but, ALL meaningless posts have been made by you.

If there is no moon, then how do you explain Apollo 8's mission that went around the moon during Christmas?  If there was no moon, then why did Newton's laws allow them to slingshot around it to return home?  If it were just a hologram, they would have kept going you Know?

Also, I remember some idiot asking Alan Shepard (first American in space) if he really walked on the moon and hit his famous golf shot.....his response was something like.....

Of course I was on the moon you f'ing idiot, and of course I hit that golf shot you f'ing moron....or words to that effect.

Anyone who really thinks we did not land on the moon are lunatics.  (Get it?)  Anyone who thinks the moon does not exist is...well...I am not sure there is a word for that.

Bill

No, the meaningless posts and spam is coming from you, MarkE, and his minions.  My posts have been backed up with references, videos, publications, graphs, illustrations, etc.  You don't get it and you don't understand physics or any aspects of this false reality!  Everything in this universe is part of a sophisticated hologram, including you, the earth, the planets, the stars, etc.!  Please take note of the keyword "sophisticated".  This sophisticated holographic computer simulation is much more advanced than the primitive holograms you are familiar with.  This holographic simulation of the universe isn't limited and confined to only the moon, lol!  Matter and energy is an illusion!  Do you not agree that matter/energy can't be created?  If it can't be created in this simulation, then how can it have an existence within it?  In other words, matter/energy does not and can not have an existence because it can't be created in this sophisticated hologram.  We only perceive deformed space as matter, and we only perceive energy as deformed space returning to its original state of primordial space.  The meeting of these two conditions of space within this simulation gives the appearance of a marked pressure, and this pressure is what gives the hologram it's appearance of being a physical substance having a mass.  However, matter/energy doesn't really exist and is only an illusion as perceived by our Spirit/Consciousness, which is the only thing real within this holographic simulation.  Do a google search on Synthetic Quantum Environments (SQE) and on energy doubles.  A holographic body has an energy double superimposed upon it.

The centrifugal force is described by physics as being a fictitious force.  The Coriolis force is also described by physics as being a fictitious force.  The Euler force is once again described by physics as being a fictitious force.  Together, these three fictitious forces are necessary for the formulation of correct equations of motion in a rotating reference frame.  Without these three fictitious forces, classical mechanics can't describe motion in a rotating reference frame.  Physics also speaks of virtual photons, etc.  Below is a quote and a snapshot of wiki on the "Fictitious Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#Fictitious_centrifugal_force)".  Both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics can't properly describe this universe as being real, however it can easily describe this universe as being a holographic computer simulation.

Quote from: wiki
If objects are seen as moving from a rotating frame, this movement results in another fictitious force, the Coriolis force; and if the rate of rotation of the frame is changing, a third fictitious force, the Euler force is experienced. Together, these three fictitious forces are necessary for the formulation of correct equations of motion in a rotating reference frame.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Tseak on June 21, 2014, 10:45:08 AM
The question is  - does one take the blue pill or the red pill?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 21, 2014, 11:13:29 AM
The question is  - does one take the blue pill or the red pill?

Or, have we already taken the pill?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 21, 2014, 11:35:05 AM
Welcome to the discussion Tseak and thanks for posting your question!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 21, 2014, 11:59:01 PM
The question is  - does one take the blue pill or the red pill?

An equally important question is: Is PacMan retarded?
And: Does GB know what a hologram is and what purpose does the simulation (if it exists) serve? Why bother? If it was some 'higher power' game or experiment then whats the expected outcome? If it's an experiment that has been shelved or forgotten then how have things evolved so much within it?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 22, 2014, 08:09:16 PM

Do you really believe you were made by monkeys, as your screen name suggests?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MileHigh on June 22, 2014, 08:21:45 PM
Didn't you see 2001!?  We were made by monkeys AND the Black Monolith!
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: ACG on June 22, 2014, 09:13:43 PM
I believe gravity is a block as a screen name here suggest.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 22, 2014, 09:14:23 PM
Didn't you see 2001!?  We were made by monkeys AND the Black Monolith!

What scientific evidence is there supporting this outrageous claim and assertion?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 22, 2014, 09:20:27 PM
I believe gravity is a block as a screen name here suggest.

Gravity shielding is more in-line with the meaning of what the screen name suggests.  If madebymonkeys can give me an alternative suggestion which is more in-line with the meaning of his user name, then I am all ears.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 22, 2014, 09:23:04 PM

... then I am all ears.

Gravock

Well, that might explain something.

Bill
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 22, 2014, 09:37:49 PM
Well, that might explain something.

Bill

Yes, it shows and explains how I am open minded to understand reality as it is, instead of being closed minded, wilfully ignorant, and brainwashed as you are!

How to Brainwash a Nation: Four steps to Socially Engineer Entire Generations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlmEp3s6lwg) (Video, 8m47s)

Video Description:  The following interview was conducted in 1985 with Yuri Bezmenov, a trained subversive KGB agent.  In the interview, he unveils the 4 basic steps that are necessary to transform the thinking and behavior of an entire population, that being the population of one or more than one country, in a way that such way of thinking and behaviour would be maintained not for one, but for two or three generations.

This information will undoubtedly help open many closed minds who still don’t understand reality as it is.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 23, 2014, 01:14:42 AM
Gravity shielding is more in-line with the meaning of what the screen name suggests.  If madebymonkeys can give me an alternative suggestion which is more in-line with the meaning of his user name, then I am all ears.

Gravock

I, in my limited but infinite wisdom (!), believe we evolved, likely from Monkeys.

Does this help :-)
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 23, 2014, 01:28:51 AM
What scientific evidence is there supporting this outrageous claim and assertion?

Gravock

Sarcasm, although the lowest form of humour (and my favorite), goes over only the smartest most intelligent heads. Even an incredibly special retarded PacMan can sometimes miss the subtle intricacies involved with the deployment of sarcasm.

Forget sponsoring a Snow Leopard, spare a thought for the retarded PacMen and Women of the world. Give a retarded PacMan a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a retarded PacMan to fish and he will go hungry. You decide.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 23, 2014, 02:35:57 AM
I, in my limited but infinite wisdom (!), believe we evolved, likely from Monkeys.

Does this help :-)

Yes, this helps!

May I ask why you believe we likely evolved from monkeys?  BTW, I like the limited but infinite wisdom part!  It's almost as good as having to slow down to speed up and to speed up to slow down!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 23, 2014, 07:46:31 PM
Yes, this helps!

May I ask why you believe we likely evolved from monkeys?  BTW, I like the limited but infinite wisdom part!  It's almost as good as having to slow down to speed up and to speed up to slow down!

Gravock

Just a hunch, I like them better than Space Apes and single celled organisms.
I don't believe we were thrown down by Father Christmas on the 6th day either although if the whole 'god thing' is real then I suspect that retarded PacMen were made on the 8th.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 23, 2014, 08:50:26 PM
Just a hunch, I like them better than Space Apes and single celled organisms.
I don't believe we were thrown down by Father Christmas on the 6th day either although if the whole 'god thing' is real then I suspect that retarded PacMen were made on the 8th.

So, your belief we evolved from monkeys is based only on a hunch and not based on any specific scientific evidence.  Are you sure your hunch isn't based on a wrong assumption that there is only a 2% difference in the DNA profile of a chimpanzee to that of a man?

Monkey’s Uncle?

Evolutionists have trumpeted the similarity of the chimpanzee genome to that of humans, claiming that since the chimpanzee DNA profile matched ours up to 98% (debated number) that this was proof of evolution.  However, the 98% number relates only to the 2% of the respective genomes that code for protein.  In other words, there is only a 1.96% similarity of the chimpanzee genome to that of humans!

There is a small portion of the human genome that codes for proteins (less than 2% - genes).  The other 98% of the human genome is called "junk DNA" by evolutionists, saying it has no apparent purpose, that is until you account for millions if not billions of mutations based on random unguided processes that no longer have a phenotype in modern humans.  As scientists of the ENCODE project (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/science/far-from-junk-dna-dark-matter-proves-crucial-to-health.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) delved into the “junk”  parts of the DNA that are not actual genes containing instructions for proteins, they discovered a complex system that controls genes. It includes a system of  4 million switches that, acting like dimmer switches for lights, control which genes are used in a cell and when they are used, and determine, for instance, whether a cell becomes a liver cell or a neuron.  30,000 genes coded with 4 million dimmer like switches for control shows the complexity and the efficiency without any bloated bits of code with no design overkill or wasted building resources indicating an Intelligent Designer.

Given that, the Encode Project findings indicate that the vast majority of the two genomes are totally unrelated. In fact the extreme differences between the two species non coding DNA regions is too large to have occurred in the period alleged to have existed between the supposed evolution of chimps and man.

Consider the term “junk DNA.”  Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism.  Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA if it was purely random.  If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as “junk” merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function (Dembski 1998).

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 23, 2014, 11:10:32 PM
So, your belief we evolved from monkeys is based only on a hunch and not based on any specific scientific evidence.  Are you sure your hunch isn't based on a wrong assumption that there is only a 2% difference in the DNA profile of a chimpanzee to that of a man?

Yep, only a hunch/guess - I really have absolutely no idea. We could have evolved from retarded PacMen for all I know :-)
Looks like even the guys who thought they did know, now don't.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 24, 2014, 08:20:20 AM
Yep, only a hunch/guess - I really have absolutely no idea.

I can respect this, for it shows you are not totally brainwashed and still have a mind of your own!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 25, 2014, 03:40:38 AM
Holographic Model of the Universe (https://ia600400.us.archive.org/33/items/HolographicModelOfTheUniverse/holouni.pdf) (Full Text - PDF, 1.8MB).

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 25, 2014, 03:56:17 AM
That note under the picture falls into the junk science category.  The comment about Fourier analysis is as contextually stupid as saying something like:  "Here Bob uses a LASER level to install shelves in his den. The National Ignition Facility uses hundreds of LASERs to trigger nuclear fusion.  Bob's den may soon provide new insights into nuclear fusion."

Fourier analysis is routinely used to convert time domain representations into frequency domain representations.  There is nothing specific about Fourier analysis that restricts or otherwise binds it to holograms.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 25, 2014, 04:44:24 AM
That note under the picture falls into the junk science category.  The comment about Fourier analysis is as contextually stupid as saying something like:  "Here Bob uses a LASER level to install shelves in his den. The National Ignition Facility uses hundreds of LASERs to trigger nuclear fusion.  Bob's den may soon provide new insights into nuclear fusion."

Fourier analysis is routinely used to convert time domain representations into frequency domain representations.  There is nothing specific about Fourier analysis that restricts or otherwise binds it to holograms.

I know you didn't read and fully grasp all 172 pages of information, and combed through all of the evidence and experiments contained within that publication in less than 16 minutes of time after the posting of the link.  You only looked at the snapshot and formed your final conclusion  based on not having all of the information, and also not having a context to put the snapshot into.  This was another intentional misdirection by you!  The snapshot shows how our physical movements may be encoded in our brains in a language of Fourier wave forms.  Also, the DeValoises used Fourier's equations to convert plaid and checkerboard patterns into simple wave forms. Then they tested to see how the brain cells in the visual cortex responded to these new wave-form images. What they found was that the brain cells responded not to the original patterns, but to the Fourier translations of the patterns. Only one conclusion could be drawn. The brain was using Fourier mathematics—the same mathematics holography employed—to convert visual images into the Fourier language of wave forms.

Pribram took his ideas into the laboratory and discovered that single neurons in the motor cortex respond selectively to a limited bandwidth of frequencies, a finding that further supported his conclusions. The question that began to bother him was, If the picture of reality in our brains is not a picture at all but a hologram, what is it a hologram of? The dilemma posed by this question is analogous to taking a Polaroid picture of a group of people sitting around a table and, after the picture develops, finding that, instead of people, there are only blurry clouds of interference patterns positioned around the table. In both cases one could rightfully ask, Which is the true reality, the seemingly objective world experienced by the observer/photographer or the blur of interference patterns recorded by the camera/brain?

Pribram realized that if the holographic brain model was taken to its logical conclusions, it opened the door on the possibility that objective reality—the world of coffee cups, mountain vistas, elm trees, and table lamps—might not even exist, or at least not exist in the way we believe it exists. Was it possible, he wondered, that what the mystics had been saying for centuries was true, reality was maya, an illusion, and what was out there was really a vast, resonating symphony of wave forms, a "frequency domain" that was transformed into the world as we know it only after it entered our senses?  Realizing that the solution he was seeking might lie outside the province of his own field, he went to his physicist son for advice. His son recommended he look into the work of a physicist named David Bohm. When Pribram did he was electrified. He not only found the answer to his question, but also discovered that according to Bohm, the entire universe was a hologram.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 25, 2014, 04:56:49 AM
LOL, build a man of straw to slay.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 25, 2014, 05:06:56 AM
LOL, build a man of straw to slay.

It is you who misrepresented the snapshot and the publication by taking the snapshot out of context and trying to put a completely different meaning to it.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: MarkE on June 25, 2014, 06:18:13 AM
LOL
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 25, 2014, 09:30:02 AM
..deleted

Posted in wrong thread by accident

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: bugler on June 25, 2014, 10:05:49 PM
Anyone who really thinks we did not land on the moon are lunatics.
Based on the obvious fake videos and pics I don't believe we landed on the moon.

There are more reasons why I don't believe it (radiation, the fact that nobody is going there ever since, general knowledge of how the world is run, etc).

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Madebymonkeys on June 25, 2014, 11:50:29 PM
Based on the obvious fake videos and pics I don't believe we landed on the moon.

There are more reasons why I don't believe it (radiation, the fact that nobody is going there ever since, general knowledge of how the world is run, etc).

What about the retarded PacMan, he's real, right...right?
:o
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 26, 2014, 08:45:27 AM
A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics (http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/):  Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality.  The new amplituhedron research suggests space-time, and therefore dimensions, may be illusory!

Gravock

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 26, 2014, 08:57:14 AM
Holographic Duality (http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130701-signs-of-a-stranger-deeper-side-to-natures-building-blocks/).

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: bugler on June 26, 2014, 09:46:48 AM
I don't believe in black holes so if the simulation theory is based on something related to black holes then there goes the theory.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 26, 2014, 08:40:36 PM
I don't believe in black holes so if the simulation theory is based on something related to black holes then there goes the theory.

There are simulations and evidence pointing to a holographic universe which is not based on black holes.  The amplituhedron research being based on particle collisions suggests space-time is also an illusion and supports a holographic universe without being related to black holes.   How can black holes or anything else be real in a simulated holographic universe?  There is only one thing real in this simulated holographic universe, and that is Spirit/Consciousness.  Our Spirit/Consciousness, which has been imprisoned and enslaved into this false reality, only perceives this highly sophisticated and advance hologram as being real.  True Reality does exist, but it's existence is not within this simulated holographic universe.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: bugler on June 27, 2014, 03:58:15 PM
Official physical sciences have become a bad joke.

Black holes, strings theory, dark matter, antimatter, big bang, etc, etc.

Physicists looks now more like loonies than academics.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 27, 2014, 07:49:18 PM
Official physical sciences have become a bad joke.

Black holes, strings theory, dark matter, antimatter, big bang, etc, etc.

Physicists looks now more like loonies than academics.

I agree and I also disagree.  Think about what you are saying!  It sounds like you believe in nothing coming out of science (black holes, string theory, dark matter, antimatter, big bang, etc.)  There is a reason for this, and that is science has nothing to bring forth that is real in this universe, except for one thing.  The one thing that is real in this universe is the one thing they overlook, ignore, dismiss and don't bring forth in their theories, and that is Spirit/Consiousness.   This is because they can't measure or detect this with their instruments.  The centrifugal force is described by physics as being a fictitious force.  The Coriolis force is also described by physics as being a fictitious force.  The Euler force is once again described by physics as being a fictitious force.  Together, these three fictitious forces are necessary for the formulation of correct equations of motion in a rotating reference frame.  Without these three fictitious forces, classical mechanics can't describe motion in a rotating reference frame.

Which is better, creating fictitious forces in order to properly describe motion in a rotating reference frame, or not creating fictitious forces and not having the correct equations to describe motion in a rotating reference frame?  Black holes, string theory, fictitious forces, virtual photons etc. is necessary in order to describe this false reality.  If the universe wasn't a holographic simulation and was real, then we wouldn't need these fictitious forces and crazy mathematical models to have the correct equations and to properly describe the universe.  Official physical sciences only look like a bad joke to those who believe this universe is real.  The universe is not real and is a holographic simulation, thus the physicists look like loonies in trying to describe this false reality to those who believe it is real.  A holographic universe will unite both religion and science in the near future.  Wait and see!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: bugler on June 29, 2014, 10:39:47 PM

Official physics is just rubbish.

Einstein's work is rubbish and he was the basis for many things like dircarding ether, accepting black holes, etc, etc. All rubbish.

First this so-called science should be rebuilt from scratch by competent scientists (how many do you think there are out there?).
Then we could see what the new theories say about the universe.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 29, 2014, 10:54:30 PM

Official physics is just rubbish.

Einstein's work is rubbish and he was the basis for many things like dircarding ether, accepting black holes, etc, etc. All rubbish.

Sure, sure.  And you base this upon your great work in physics then?  Easy to say this about one of the greatest minds in recent history, not so easy to prove what you are claiming is true.

Where are your published papers refuting Einstein's work then?  Still working on them?

Bill
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 30, 2014, 01:41:32 AM

Official physics is just rubbish.

Einstein's work is rubbish and he was the basis for many things like dircarding ether, accepting black holes, etc, etc. All rubbish.

First this so-called science should be rebuilt from scratch by competent scientists (how many do you think there are out there?).
Then we could see what the new theories say about the universe.

Bugler,

You do realize the article you referenced refers to quantum mechanics, positrons (antimatter), and virtual particles which you do not subscribe to as shown in the highlighted portion of the snapshot below!  This is proof that your belief system, your opinions, and your thought process is rubbish in and of itself by being inconsistent and contradictory.  After saying this, I do agree with the article, and the article confirms the work of Ionnais Xydous, Frank Wilczek (nobel prize winner), and Frank Znidarsic.  The article shows how mainstream science doesn't have all of the pieces yet.  According to Xydous, there is a reduction in the E/M wave's velocity when it enters into an Electrostatic Field.  When the photon leaves the Electrostatic Field it can travel at normal constant speed equal to c in a vacuum, but with decreased momentum which corresponds to the decrement of its frequency. This is in agreement with Wilczek's claim of photons being slowed-down inside a superconductor, and is also in agreement with Znidarsic's work in how the speed of light is slowed down in the electronic structure of the atom to match the speed of mechanical waves in the nucleus, which is 1,094,000 m/s.

Also, according to Xydous, the Cold Dark matter is nothing else than the Aether itself with linear velocity of 348,422.9 m/s, which is about 861 times less than the speed of light or equal to 1000 times the sound velocity in air.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 30, 2014, 01:45:51 AM

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: ACG on June 30, 2014, 03:32:21 AM
Correction:  Title 1 of N

Currently 3 of N

Title 5 of n
Move 1 of n
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: bugler on June 30, 2014, 01:48:06 PM
Where are your published papers refuting Einstein's work then?  Still working on them?
Einstein is not one of the greatest mind at all. It's a marketing product.

There are many scientists destroying relativity (as the crap it is). Research the topic.

For instance: [size=78%]http://www.amazon.com/The-Virtue-Heresy-Confessions-Astronomer/dp/1419695568/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404128360&sr=8-1&keywords=virtue+heresy (http://www.amazon.com/The-Virtue-Heresy-Confessions-Astronomer/dp/1419695568/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404128360&sr=8-1&keywords=virtue+heresy)[/size]

If you research the topic you will find many scientists thinking in the same terms.

http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Pseudo-Science-Scientific-Universities/dp/0595420249/ref=sr_sp-btf_title_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1404128328&sr=8-6&keywords=refuting+einstein (http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Pseudo-Science-Scientific-Universities/dp/0595420249/ref=sr_sp-btf_title_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1404128328&sr=8-6&keywords=refuting+einstein)

I read an articlle the other day, that I can't find now, about what the greatest scientist mind ever said about Einstein and his work. In a single word: crap.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: conradelektro on June 30, 2014, 02:18:38 PM
The big question, is there a "correct physics or cosmology"?

Probably not, it will always be a mental construct with many flaws.

There is also a lot of politics or "Weltanschauung" (ideology) involved. The mathematics of the theory is not the ideology (in itself it might be sound), the ideology is in the selection of a theory by the main stream.

There is an endless number of different possible theories, and one of all these possible theories makes it to the top and is accepted by the governing system as the "right theory".

The funny thing is, that every political system has its "favourite theory". Capitalism favours theories which do not allow something for free, in all sciences, and of course specially in economics. But also "nowadays physics" stresses that nothing can be had for free.

Trivial things which can be easily observed are of course described correctly. But the "fringe" is always pure politics or ideology.

Also the research funding (the selection of research done and not done) is politics and ideology. This influences very much the "direction of research". A good example are "nuclear power stations". Research into "nuclear power" was driven by the military and the "nuclear power stations" are an attempt to make the general public pay for the research.

Most research is and was driven by war and needs of the armed forces.

Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 30, 2014, 05:19:05 PM
The equation of physics that is best known to the general public (E = mc2), is actually a little cheesy and is blatantly inauthentic.  In other words, the general public can't even get the very basics and elementary truths of a theory correct.   For though by this time they should be teachers, they have a need again for someone to teach them the elementary principles, and they have come to need milk as infants do and not solid food.  Therefore, we must progress beyond the elementary truths and move on to maturity, not laying the foundations again.

In general, when you have moving bodies, or interacting bodies, energy and mass aren’t proportional.  E = mc2 simply doesn’t apply.  E = mc2 holds for isolated bodies at rest.  For moving bodies, the correct mass-energy equation is given in the snapshot below, where v is the velocity.  For a body at rest (v = 0), this becomes E = mc2.  I will continue this in the next post.......

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 30, 2014, 06:06:08 PM
The funny thing is, that every political system has its "favourite theory". Capitalism favours theories which do not allow something for free, in all sciences, and of course specially in economics. But also "nowadays physics" stresses that nothing can be had for free.

This is another falsehood about mainstream physics and science that the general public just can't get right!  Frank Wilczek doesn't believe in the conservation of mass and doesn't believe the zeroth law is valid.  Wilczek is considered one of the world’s most eminent theoretical physicists. He is known, among other things, for the discovery of asymptotic freedom, the development of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the invention of axions, and the discovery and exploitation of new forms of quantum statistics (anyons). Frank Wilczek is a Nobel Prize Winner, and is also an official advisor to CERN and to Daedalus.

Reference: The below is taken right out of a book written by Frank Wilczek titled, "The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and Unification of the Forces (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/downfile/id/577/)". This book is a must read!  Mainstream physics has not thrown out an Ether in their theories, as the general public wrongly asserts!  This is another false-hood about mainstream physicists that the general public can't get right!

At the Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP), which operated at the CERN laboratory near Geneva through the 1990s, electrons and positrons (anti electrons) were accelerated to velocities within about one part in a hundred billionth of the speed of light. Speeding around in opposite directions, the particles smashed into each other, producing a lot of debris. A typical collision might produce ten π mesons, a proton, and an anti-proton. Now let’s compare the total masses, before and after:

electron + positron: 2 × 10–28 gram
10 pions + proton + anti-proton: 6 × 10–24 gram

What comes out weighs about thirty thousand times as much as what went in. If mass is not conserved—and it’s not!, then we can seek its origin.

Question: If E = mc2, then mass is proportional to energy. So if energy is conserved according to the mass-energy equation, doesn’t that mean that mass will be conserved, too?

Answer: The short answer is that E = mc2 really applies only to isolated bodies at rest. It’s a pity that this equation, the equation of physics that is best known to the general public, is actually a little cheesy. In general, when you have moving bodies, or interacting bodies, energy and mass aren’t proportional. E = mc2 simply doesn’t apply. E = mc2 holds for isolated bodies at rest. For moving bodies, the correct mass-energy equation is given in the image below, where v is the velocity. For a body at rest (v = 0), this becomes E = mc2. When a body, for example, a proton or an electron, is accelerated, v generally changes, but m stays the same. Therefore, the equation tells us, E changes. If energy is conserved according to the mass-energy equation, but mass is not, then what gives?

Conservation of energy applies to systems, not to individual bodies. The total energy of a system of bodies includes contributions from both energy of motion and “potential energy” terms that reflect the interactions among the bodies. The potential energy terms are given by other formulas, which depend on the distances between the bodies, their electric charges, and perhaps other things. It is only the total energy that is conserved according to the mass-energy equation.

An isolated body has a constant velocity. That’s Newton’s first law of motion, which, unlike his zeroth law, still appears to be valid. When a body is isolated, we can regard it as a system unto itself. So the energy of the body should be conserved and from the formula, it is. Conversely, when a body’s velocity changes, that very change is a signal that the body is not isolated. Some other body has to be acting on it to produce the change in velocity. The action of one body on another generally transfers energy between them. Only the total energy is conserved according to the mass-energy equation, not the energy of each body separately.

We considered a dramatic violation of conservation of mass. An electron and a positron annihilate, and out come a collection of particles whose total mass is 30,000 times larger. Nevertheless, energy is conserved. The velocities of the initial electron and positron were very close to the speed of light. Therefore, according to the general mass-energy equation, their energy is very large, much larger than mc2. The particles that emerge from the collision, although they are more massive, move a bit more slowly. When you add up their energies, calculated using the mass-energy equation, the sum matches the total energy of the original electron and positron. Once the particles fly out and separate, the interaction, or potential, energy becomes negligibly small.

Gravock

Side Note:  Now, since we have a dramatic violation in the conservation of mass according to the mass-energy equation, and mass is undergoing expansion acceleration and is provided by different equations, then energy isn't conserved either.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 30, 2014, 06:53:05 PM
....
.........
Question: If E = mc2, then mass is proportional to energy. So if energy is conserved according to the mass-energy equation, doesn’t that mean that mass will be conserved, too?

Answer: The short answer is that E = mc2 really applies only to isolated bodies at rest. It’s a pity that this equation, the equation of physics that is best known to the general public, is actually a little cheesy. In general, when you have moving bodies, or interacting bodies, energy and mass aren’t proportional. E = mc2 simply doesn’t apply. E = mc2 holds for isolated bodies at rest. For moving bodies, the correct mass-energy equation is given in the image below, where v is the velocity. For a body at rest (v = 0), this becomes E = mc2. When a body, for example, a proton or an electron, is accelerated, v generally changes, but m stays the same. Therefore, the equation tells us, E changes. If energy is conserved according to the mass-energy equation, but mass is not, then what gives?
......
.............
Gravock

Mass increasing as an object approaches the speed of light is another false-hood promoted by the general public because they can't get the basic elementary truths of a theory correct, so one false-hood leads to a greater false-hood and so on.  And then, the general public wrongly and falsely asserts that it is the mainstream physicists which are the loonies and not themselves.  Give me a break!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on June 30, 2014, 09:26:04 PM
Trivial things which can be easily observed are of course described correctly. But the "fringe" is always pure politics or ideology.

Are you serious?  As one of my foes on this forum correctly stated, trivial things such as "the idea of light being something that travels from A to B is the unfortunate result of preconceptions based upon tests that really does not prove anything but a time differential between "light source" and receptor.  As soon as mankind realizes that there is no such thing as light speed or physical matter or objective time, or even a linear universe, we will move into next level of understanding".  It's really too bad he has aligned himself with the adversary of God!  Mankind hasn't been able to correctly describe even the trivial things of this world which can be observed, as you wrongly and falsely asserted.  We can't even get past the basic elementary truths of this universe!

1 Corinthians 1:27  But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise....

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on July 01, 2014, 09:10:31 AM
First this so-called science should be rebuilt from scratch by competent scientists (how many do you think there are out there?).
Then we could see what the new theories say about the universe.

Or, should we see what the "old interpretations" of a theory says about the universe.  Pilot-wave theory makes all the same predictions as the probabilistic formulation of quantum mechanics (which wouldn’t be referred to as the “Copenhagen” interpretation until the 1950s), but without the ghostliness or mysterious collapse.  It is the Copenhagen probabilistic interpretation of QM I do not agree with.  The old, deterministic alternative of QM is not mentioned in most textbooks and most people in the field haven’t heard of it. Sheldon Goldstein, a professor of mathematics, physics, and philosophy at Rutgers University and a supporter of pilot-wave theory, blames the “preposterous” neglect of the theory on “decades of indoctrination.”  At this stage, Goldstein and several other noted researchers risk their careers by questioning quantum orthodoxy.  The physicist David Bohm resurrected pilot-wave theory (http://fma.if.usp.br/~amsilva/Artigos/p166_1.pdf) in a modified form in 1952, with Einstein’s encouragement, and made clear that it did work, but it never caught on.  The theory is also known as de Broglie-Bohm theory, or Bohmian mechanics.  Please remember, according to David Bohm, the one who resurrected pilot-wave theory in a modified form in 1952, also says the entire universe is a hologram.

By 1932, when the Hungarian-American mathematician John von Neumann claimed to have proven that the probabilistic wave equation in quantum mechanics could have no “hidden variables” (that is, missing components, such as de Broglie’s particle with its well-defined trajectory), pilot-wave theory was so poorly regarded that most physicists believed von Neumann’s proof without even reading a translation.  More than 30 years would pass before von Neumann’s proof was shown to be false, but by then the damage was done.  Later, the Northern Irish physicist John Stewart Bell went on to prove a seminal theorem that many physicists today misinterpret as rendering hidden variables impossible.  But Bell supported pilot-wave theory. He was the one who pointed out the flaws in von Neumann’s original proof.  And in 1986 he wrote that pilot-wave theory “seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.”  The neglect continues to this day.....

Now at last, pilot-wave theory may be experiencing a minor comeback — at least, among fluid dynamicists. “I wish that the people who were developing quantum mechanics at the beginning of last century had access to these experiments,” Milewski said. “Because then the whole history of quantum mechanics might be different.”  The experiments began a decade ago, when Yves Couder and colleagues at Paris Diderot University discovered that vibrating a silicon oil bath up and down at a particular frequency can induce a droplet to bounce along the surface. The droplet’s path, they found, was guided by the slanted contours of the liquid’s surface generated from the droplet’s own bounces — a mutual particle-wave interaction analogous to de Broglie’s pilot-wave concept.

The photon carries momentum. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it is not possible to measure location and momentum at the same time. If the momentum is distributed throughout the entire volume, if one measures the entire momentum, the whole volume must be considered. Since the volume spreads all over creation, it is impossible to say that it is located at a point.  It seems that the meaning of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be reinterpreted to support the present conclusion of the nature of the photon. If it has aperture and length, the momentum is not located at a single point. If a single point is assumed for the structure, no momentum can be measured. It seems that the significance of the uncertainty principle has been highly overrated.  The Heisenberg uncertainty principle simply says that the photon has volume.  Calculation shows that the energy and thus the mass is distributed uniformly throughout the structure. The same fact applies to the distribution of momentum.  Quantum indeterminacy and a probabilistic universe based on the wrong assumptions of the Copenhagen interpretation has been proven false!

"The old has been made new again"

Reference:  Fluid Experiments Support Deterministic “Pilot-Wave” Quantum Theory (http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/) (Snapshots shown below)

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on July 01, 2014, 11:10:48 PM
The funny thing is, that every political system has its "favourite theory". Capitalism favours theories which do not allow something for free, in all sciences, and of course specially in economics. But also "nowadays physics" stresses that nothing can be had for free.

Reference:  Time Crystals - Perpetual Motion Test Could Amend Theory of Time (http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130425-perpetual-motion-test-could-amend-theory-of-time/)  (snapshots below)

Mainstream physicists are trying to build a perpetual motion machine that doesn't consume or produce energy by using "time crystals"!

Wilczek's equations indicate atoms can indeed form a regularly repeating lattice in time, returning to their initial arrangement only after discrete (rather than continuous) intervals, thereby breaking the symmetry of time.  Without consuming or producing energy, time crystals would be stable, in what physicists call their “ground state,” despite cyclical variations in structure that scientists say can be interpreted as perpetual motion.  Frank Wilczek is also a professor at MIT.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on July 02, 2014, 03:09:26 AM
Reference:  Non-local Universe – Reality as a Dream (http://www.gestaltreality.com/articles/non-local-universe/) (snapshots below)

Only a very small minority of physicists understand that Bell’s proof and Aspect’s experiments mean the world itself has been discovered to be non-local!  The universe itself is not composed of space, because space implies distance, and distance is an illusion as are all the dimensions we live in by sheer virtue of the property of non-locality.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gauschor on July 02, 2014, 08:15:03 PM
That article was an interesting read. Especially comparing dreams and reality.

I asked myself recently: when you dream you can often see other people acting in your dream. They are holographic projections from the subconsciousness, says the article... but could these entities act on their own? Could they have a mind of their own within the dream? If yes... then maybe we (mankind) could be in a dream too, and only be projections of a mastermind who is dreaming. Once the mastermind wakes up - we are all gone. Instantly.

However the article speaks of that we altogether create the reality in which we exist. It still seems it needs a lot of mindpower to make something exist in this reality. It's not as simple as saying "this wall is not here... I project a hole into the wall now". We are somehow bound to a prison that has more power than our mind. Though I recall to have read somewhere, that if enough people believe and project that there is a hole in the wall - then it could actually happen!
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on September 01, 2017, 12:30:51 AM
Irrational numbers are a logic error: Flat Earth Math (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIV1vrFtcL4)

This means there can be no perfect circles in nature and pi = 4 in Kinematics.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: lancaIV on September 01, 2017, 01:08:00 AM
Really ?
Imagina a perfect sphaere,360° round !
22/7 kinematic relativity perfekt

Now this perfekt vody is entering the gravity zone from an
white or black whole,the body is becoming oval,changing the format then to a staff-like body:
the body is deformated but pi as relativity number ever intakt
up to the moment that the body could become divided and the volume/mass get a change/risc to differ from
the basic "perfect 360° body".

Do not illusionate (yourself) with unlogical examples.

MENGENLEHRE/KYBERNETIK:
when there is the possibility of the existence from Result=( )
why should not irrational numbers be seen asm"living and internal growing numbers" = artificial -sensual- life/live

"  e+pi+log - ical " a.2mm b.4mm c.8mm .... a1. ...
from zero (flash-bigbang) to infinity/indefinit growing

One part from old scholastics meant that pi=3 =TRINITY
other believed in the  3in1,schisma as consequence.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on September 01, 2017, 03:18:45 AM
Really ?
Imagina a perfect sphaere,360° round !
22/7 kinematic relativity perfekt

Now this perfekt vody is entering the gravity zone from an
white or black whole,the body is becoming oval,changing the format then to a staff-like body:
the body is deformated but pi as relativity number ever intakt
up to the moment that the body could become divided and the volume/mass get a change/risc to differ from
the basic "perfect 360° body".

Do not illusionate (yourself) with unlogical examples.

MENGENLEHRE/KYBERNETIK:
when there is the possibility of the existence from Result=( )
why should not irrational numbers be seen asm"living and internal growing numbers" = artificial -sensual- life/live

"  e+pi+log - ical " a.2mm b.4mm c.8mm .... a1. ...
from zero (flash-bigbang) to infinity/indefinit growing

One part from old scholastics meant that pi=3 =TRINITY
other believed in the  3in1,schisma as consequence.

There are actually three different concepts for this ratio we refer to as PI.  This has already been posted in reply # 338 (http://overunity.com/14605/the-holographic-universe-and-pi-4-in-kinematics/msg405681/#msg405681).  I am not going to re-argue all of the same points that have already been addressed in this thread already.  Please read the thread before you comment, or don't comment at all.  I think this is fair and not too much to ask.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: lancaIV on September 01, 2017, 10:17:08 AM
Good Morning,"gravityblock" ! (PT-time)
from the beginnings up to the last reply !
Not because this "self-question" and "my and others-self response" shall be unimportant but because there are here on
overunity.com much more day-by-day energy use essential
If I did disturb your "lawn" diriged by your own rules I have to please you for " Pardon-moi,s'il vous plait !"?
T'AO of e=2,7.. of Pi=3,14... of log/lg=... means a living
Universe,sensitive and living.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_I_Won_the_War

Have a good day and then a nice weekend
OCWL
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: lancaIV on September 01, 2017, 10:17:34 AM
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on September 01, 2017, 02:31:16 PM

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on September 01, 2017, 03:20:40 PM
lancaIV,

Do you know what the most feared equation in the world is?

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: mikefromspace on September 01, 2017, 04:18:20 PM
First of all E=Mc2 cannot represent a body at rest because there is no rest, ever, for anything, period, because it must be continually fueled by the current of time itself, which can be narrowed down to the most hydraulically superior particle, the electron neutrino .00012x e mass.
From there, it is important to understand evidences that there are actually 2 electron masses required to explain matter. REf; Egor Babaev's 1.5 superconductivity which my model predicted many years in advance (1995/96) and if you prefer proof, see page 27 January Discover magazine 2017.
You are about to understand what I have known for over 20 years; that space is kinetic zero point using 3 poles, matter being the 3rd which gets stuck as the last one out in a game of musical chairs on linear planes of 3 phase disturbances otherwise known as vortexes with appendage geometries all fit inside 7 possible forms using bosons as the space in which En's have to replace in mass to and from stars which consume En-s, as well as the bulk of energetic particles, to create new large particles of higher mass. With that simple concept you easily explain away the need for cold dark matter and a load of other b.s. , as En's would naturally be driven kinetically to replace that mass. The galaxy thins out at the edges from a bulge, does it not? Solar wind does exist? Galaxies must move to exist and stars must have a galaxy to exist? Serioiusly, how long do stars last once they exit a galaxy to any good distance? They don't, unless they're making their own new particles as a middleweight black hole or greater.
So, who wants the formula for unification? Credit mikefromspace on youtube;
It is very elementary; 4/3 pie R to the 3rd , which is the volume of a sphere. Apply this to 4 spheres. 3 line up inside the 4th. Sphere #1 is .00012 more energy than the sum of spheres 2 and or 3, depending on what particles the star(s) create, but for practical purposes you can assume sphere 2, the positive pole, counters most. So, negative , positive, matter, while the remaining volume in sphere 4 is energy, so in a 3 phase environment (required to form gridlock on 2d building block planes) all 3 spheres modulate in and out of energy and mass when situated on the 2d plane(zero point vortex) for matter creation. Otherwise they are unconfined and without matter relative to define their actions lean to being 1 dimensional.
This means the universe is infinite with no big bang. That the thermal constant is merely due to DeBroglie waves made through the least recycled particle (neither in supply nor demand due to it's mass, k meson #2). REDSHIFT is merely a result of DeBroglie waves slowed and sped up due to particle recycling! Just think about it. I've applied this model to every conceivable appication, finding zero fault.  Space is simple. Atoms are constantly exploding and imploding with zero point. Zero point is defined best by Tom Bearden and Nikola Tesla; The secret of zero point is the implosion of pump z waves through a nonlinear medium. Waves set in sync yet out of phase must combine to form a sum of wave peaks after focus. ...So taking this further I figured out that a carrier wave will cause carried waves to become pump z waves and that carrier waves will naturally become pump z waves if the carried wave is transformed before it can continue the other 180d or 120d of it's 360d cycle.
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on September 01, 2017, 08:57:28 PM
So, who wants the formula for unification? Credit mikefromspace on youtube;
It is very elementary; 4/3 pie R to the 3rd , which is the volume of a sphere.

Welcome to the forum.  I see this is your first post and I find it very suspect in you choosing to post your unification theory based on the volume of a sphere in this thread after it's been buried for 3 years, until yesterday.  Why haven't you created your own thread, since you've known about this for the last 20 years?

Why did you choose the volume of a sphere, which is based on an irrational number (pie), as a model for your unification theory?  The radius of the sphere could never reach pie, since pie is an irrational number and goes to infinity.  This is nothing more than a mathematical fantasy and is a figment of the imagination of mankind that can't be modeled in the real world.  This is the reason you have concluded that the universe is infinite with no big bang.  Why didn't you use the volume of a circular disc (the quantized perimeter) of 4r2h, which is based on a rational number, that actually works in the real world?  A wheel inside a wheel (Ezekiel's Wheel).

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: mikefromspace on September 01, 2017, 09:30:43 PM
In a perfect world of fractions, pie is mute, but here it must be used to relate known experimental evidences such as mass quantities summised as 90 degees of Arc.
I believe your intentions are right on man, but the idiots who run those nice atom smashers need something linear. I try to speak their language so they understand how to make a smooth transition to reality, which I started using H.S.M.Coxeter's projective geometry in 1995.
There is much inspiration here. Do much with golden numbers?
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: lancaIV on September 01, 2017, 09:51:37 PM

This is nothing more than a mathematical fantasy ....

e=mcv2   M1-M2=m   m=decay quantum from M1-body

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov)
and you will get more constructive algebraic and geometrical Fantasia !

To become G.U.T. enough !
"This is nothing more than a mathematical fantasy ...."

This "nothing more" are enough for G-master ,
only servants call for more.

ora
10 commandments
11     ?
commandment= Kategorie
latin vocativ = Imperativ
et labora
11 commandment = kategorische Imperativ ,Immanuel Kant

NIKE: Just Do It

Happy weekend !
OCWL
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on September 01, 2017, 11:43:49 PM
In a perfect world of fractions, pie is mute, but here it must be used to relate known experimental evidences such as mass quantities summised as 90 degees of Arc.
I believe your intentions are right on man, but the idiots who run those nice atom smashers need something linear. I try to speak their language so they understand how to make a smooth transition to reality, which I started using H.S.M.Coxeter's projective geometry in 1995.
There is much inspiration here. Do much with golden numbers?

I do agree that in a perfect world of fractions, pie is mute.  However, how can you have a perfect world of fractions with an imperfect sphere based on an irrational number that doesn't work in the real world?  I also agree with you that those guys running the atom smashers are idiots.  It's as if they're trying to create or open another universe that is based around their imperfect sphere of irrational numbers by breaking the symmetry of time, in which they can escape into in order to avoid their judgment.  In the process, they're opening up portals to their imperfect world in order to corrupt and destroy this perfect world.  Shiva, the destroyer.  In summary, they're trying to destroy this perfect world while escaping into their imperfect simulated spherical world to avoid their judgment.

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: lancaIV on September 02, 2017, 12:03:46 AM
I do agree that in a perfect world of fractions, pie is mute.  However, how can you have a perfect world of fractions with an imperfect sphere based on an irrational number that doesn't work in the real world?  I also agree with you that those guys running the atom smashers are idiots.  It's as if they're trying to create or open a simulated universe that is based around an imperfect spherical world of irrational numbers by breaking the symmetry of time, in which they can escape into in order to avoid their judgment.  In the process, they're opening up portals to their imperfect world in order to corrupt and destroy this perfect world.  Shiva, the destroyer.  In summary, they're trying to destroy this perfect world while escaping into their imperfect simulated spherical world to avoid their judgment.

Gravock

Pardon Gravock, I am probably an "Augustus"
( Title cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianca_Lancia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianca_Lancia) )
who only like to make eugenical conversation with aristocrats,so my wondering and my disbeliwve about theae statement :
Shiva, the destroyer.
compared to
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyffh%C3%A4user (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyffh%C3%A4user)
Kyffhäusersage (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Barbarossas_Erwachen_%28Wislicenus%29_gro%C3%9F.jpg/290px-Barbarossas_Erwachen_%28Wislicenus%29_gro%C3%9F.jpg) (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Barbarossas_Erwachen_%28Wislicenus%29_gro%C3%9F.jpg)   Barbarossa erwacht – die Raben fliegen davon: Wandbild von Hermann Wislicenus (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Wislicenus) im Bilderzyklus der Kaiserpfalz Goslar (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandbilder_des_Kaisersaals_in_Goslar) (um 1880), der die Kyffhäusersage auf die Reichsgründung von 1871 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Reichsgr%C3%BCndung) bezieht   Der Kyffhäuser ist der zentrale Punkt einer Sage (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sage) der Bergentrückung (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergentr%C3%BCckung), in der sich der über Jahrhunderte populäre Volksglaube an die Rückkehr eines Friedenskaisers (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedenskaiser) ausdrückt. Nach dieser Sage schläft in einer Höhle des Kyffhäuserbergs der Kaiser Friedrich I., genannt Barbarossa (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_I._%28HRR%29), mitsamt seinen Getreuen, um eines Tages zu erwachen, das Reich zu retten und es wieder zu neuer Herrlichkeit zu fuehren

An aunt worked in Northeim/Harztor in a A-bodega/Apotheke "Corvinius"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefferhausen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefferhausen)
there lived my grand-aunt : Augusta Waldhelm

;)   http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2rwilc (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2rwilc)   ;)
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on September 02, 2017, 12:39:44 AM
Pardon Gravock, I am probably an "Augustus"
( Title cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianca_Lancia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianca_Lancia) )
who only like to make eugenical conversation with aristocrats,so my wondering and my disbeliwve about theae statement :
Shiva, the destroyer.
compared to
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyffh%C3%A4user (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyffh%C3%A4user)
Kyffhäusersage (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Barbarossas_Erwachen_%28Wislicenus%29_gro%C3%9F.jpg/290px-Barbarossas_Erwachen_%28Wislicenus%29_gro%C3%9F.jpg) (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Barbarossas_Erwachen_%28Wislicenus%29_gro%C3%9F.jpg)   Barbarossa erwacht – die Raben fliegen davon: Wandbild von Hermann Wislicenus (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Wislicenus) im Bilderzyklus der Kaiserpfalz Goslar (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandbilder_des_Kaisersaals_in_Goslar) (um 1880), der die Kyffhäusersage auf die Reichsgründung von 1871 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Reichsgr%C3%BCndung) bezieht   Der Kyffhäuser ist der zentrale Punkt einer Sage (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sage) der Bergentrückung (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergentr%C3%BCckung), in der sich der über Jahrhunderte populäre Volksglaube an die Rückkehr eines Friedenskaisers (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedenskaiser) ausdrückt. Nach dieser Sage schläft in einer Höhle des Kyffhäuserbergs der Kaiser Friedrich I., genannt Barbarossa (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_I._%28HRR%29), mitsamt seinen Getreuen, um eines Tages zu erwachen, das Reich zu retten und es wieder zu neuer Herrlichkeit zu fuehren

An aunt worked in Northeim/Harztor in a A-bosega/Apotheke "Corvinius"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefferhausen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefferhausen)
there lived my grand-aunt : Augusta Waldhelm

;)   http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2rwilc (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2rwilc)   ;)

You have inverted all Truths!

Shocking 2017 Cern Tunnel Opening Ritual Deleted Scenes Opening The Portal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIazxDwj-m8)

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: lancaIV on September 02, 2017, 03:18:49 AM
Cern,C.E.R.N. ?

http://quer-denken.tv/gotthardtunnel-eroeffnungsfeier-wer-steckt-hinter-den-satanischen-ritualen/

St.Gotthard-Tunnel/Channel !

Tschuessele
OCWL
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: gravityblock on September 02, 2017, 04:54:19 AM
Cern,C.E.R.N. ?

cern (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/cern) = separate (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/separate) = divide into pieces or to cause division and this is what c.e.r.n. is doing by smashing atoms.

“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand".  Cern will be brought to desolation.  Desolation is a state of complete emptiness or destruction, anguished misery, or loneliness.  The town-folks previously tricked the adversary of mankind and sent a goat over the bridge instead of a human.   The adversary of mankind was physically changed into the image in which he wanted himself to be portrayed as (baphomet).  "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he".  That was one hell of a bitch slap to your pathetic idol and he never saw it coming, ROFLMAO!!!

Gravock
Title: Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
Post by: lancaIV on September 02, 2017, 09:50:35 AM
Um bom Dia,ao Senhºr / a sua Excellencia  ::) !

longe/langu-age/tongue/Dialektik Sprache
has got "the devil/veritas(Janus) in(the)detail("cut")

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/concern (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/concern)

altus,alt: high and -diametral(180° meaning change)- deep
engl.:    old
german: alt

Dialektischer Materialismus(metaphysic,metamorphose) :
words constructing an image/vision,plan and wise/vice-versa

= lingual algebra and geometria

In an discussion 2 and more could have the same futur(e) target
cause they all know the complexity of friendly/opponent search
for vigor and rigor bit ever there has to be the need to recognize
each side about the deep of cognitive and involved experience and
cause this suddenly coincidence of the meanings in words and/or images and/or Lust(german ! ?) or (Bal-)Last(also german !  ?)

:o ::) :-[ :-\ :P : :) :) :)