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.

### GDPR and DSGVO law

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 187648 times)

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #30 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.

#### verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3466
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #31 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.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #32 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.

#### verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3466
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #33 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.

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.

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 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 or just brush it off as an inconvenient piece of data that does not fit your preconceptions.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #34 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.

#### Pirate88179

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 8366
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #35 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

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #36 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

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #37 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

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #38 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.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #39 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.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #40 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

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #41 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

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #42 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.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #43 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

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #44 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.)