Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

Author Topic: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!  (Read 221471 times)

gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #90 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

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #91 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.

verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #92 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.

verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #93 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.

gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #94 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

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #95 on: May 19, 2014, 04:58:36 PM »
The definition was in this post.
"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 ?
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.

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #96 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.

gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #97 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

verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #98 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 on a smooth level surface?
Empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #99 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 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.

gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #100 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

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #101 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?

verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #102 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.

verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #103 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.
Why don't you answer it?

Mathis has been disproven.
Where can I read a rigorous critique of his paper ?

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #104 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.
This is just sad.
Quote
If you let him conflate the static situation with the dynamic one, he will be successful in refuting your postulate.