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 236701 times)

#### sarkeizen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1923
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #240 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?

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #241 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.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #242 on: June 04, 2014, 03:34:51 AM »
sarkeizen,

Are you saying the taxicab geometry is euclidean?

Gravock

Gravock

#### sarkeizen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1923
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #243 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?

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #244 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.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #245 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
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 08:25:42 AM by gravityblock »

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #246 on: June 04, 2014, 05:55:58 AM »
ROFL

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #247 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 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

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #248 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

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #249 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?

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #250 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.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #251 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

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #252 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

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #253 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

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

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #254 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?