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 218241 times)

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3286
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #270 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

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #271 on: June 04, 2014, 11:50:38 AM »

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3286
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #272 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

#### minnie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1244
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #273 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.

#### sarkeizen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1923
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #274 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. If so that would be a little dishonest of you.

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.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 05:37:00 PM by sarkeizen »

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3286
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #275 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 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?

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3286
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #276 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 (first image below).  The arc of a cycloid is 8r, which pi is also replaced by 4, just as in the Manahattan metric.

Gravock

#### sarkeizen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1923
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #277 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.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3286
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #278 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

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #279 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.

#### sarkeizen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1923
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #280 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.

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3286
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #281 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

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3286
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #282 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

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #283 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.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #284 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.