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 243119 times)

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #105 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".

#### verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3473
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #106 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.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #107 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.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #108 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.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #109 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

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #110 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?

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #111 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

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #112 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

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #113 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

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #114 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.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #115 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?

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #116 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

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #117 on: May 22, 2014, 03:00:13 AM »
deleted...

Gravock

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #118 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.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #119 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