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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!  (Read 208906 times)

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #285 on: June 05, 2014, 10:01:43 AM »
Since there are those here who like to read and take things out of context, or to put things into a completely different context than there original meaning, then I will put it back into context for them.

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

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?"

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

Now, let me connect the dots for you.  Question 1 is a yes or no answer, and question 2 is a yes or no answer.  So, does the "If yes" in question 3 refer to the answer for question 1 or does it refer to the answer for question 2?  It doesn't really matter, because I am done with the theoretical side of this and will move onto the empirical side for those who lack any kind of common sense.

Gravock

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #286 on: June 05, 2014, 10:28:26 AM »
@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.

I agree empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.  I also agree that this is provable empirically by some computer controlled air pucks on a smooth level surface, in addition to empirically proving the expansion acceleration of matter.

Gravock

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #287 on: June 05, 2014, 01:20:36 PM »
Out of curiosity - why can't you connect the dots for yourself?
This is really interesting from a psychological point-of-view.  If I was guessing, you're deliberately trying to stall the argument.  I wonder why?  Clearly I did "connect the dots" into *some* pattern.  The crazy thing is that you won't tell me if it's the right pattern.  I mean why would anyone interested in progressing the argument ever want to encourage ambiguity?

Check it...even in the portion of my post that you quoted I say:
Quote from: me
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?"
I'm asking if you are asking this question.  Which I created from inserting the relevant parts of questions 1 and 2 into a single question.
Why do you need someone to spoon feed you every step of the way?
You are asking me a question right?  What on earth is the problem with wanting to know if I understand it correctly? Laypeople who want to educate mathematicians in math always seem to wildly underestimate the amount of rigor required.  As I said earlier there are 200+ page proofs for 1+1 = 2.

So shall I ask my question a tenth time?  Would it matter? Again you present yourself in a way that leads me to believe that it would be trivial to answer.  You know the answer would be valuable for progressing the argument.

Why would you NOT wan't the argument to progress?  Especially if it costs you almost no time or energy to do so?

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #288 on: June 05, 2014, 01:47:02 PM »
Consider that someone who has painted themselves into a deep corner may hope that they can hide that fact in a shroud of ambiguity.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #289 on: June 05, 2014, 03:35:57 PM »
Consider that someone who has painted themselves into a deep corner may hope that they can hide that fact in a shroud of ambiguity.
I just noticed that this page: http://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/a-reply-to-%E2%80%9Cthe-extinction-of-pi-the-short-version%E2%80%9D/

has the proof showing the same contradiction that I do (see disproof #2).  Funny, as I implied earlier this is something I saw in high-school.

Mathis mentions this but makes no response except to give a mild endorse ment to this guy: http://sagacityssentinel.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/a-reply-to-%E2%80%9Ca-reply-to-the-extinction-of-pi-the-short-version/

Who's counter-argument appears to be "You didn't do this exactly the same way Mathis did".

Which is interesting since it's only half an argument.  It's not sufficient, in my opinion to state that "this change may cause an error" that's the way politicians and health-food nutters argue.  What you need to do is show how this change explains the gap in the results.  Talking about potential error sources is simply an expectation and has very little statistical power.  Confirming that a prediction results in the expected difference in measurement is a met expectation and demands that we re-evaluate our premises.

That said, it's probably only half-an-argument because it's wrong. :D (at least as best as I can tell, as the argument has no useful level of formalism)


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #290 on: June 05, 2014, 04:09:16 PM »
No doubt the day will bring a spate of claims that you have not used "scientific arguments" to explain something equivalent to why we don't use color saturation as a measure of the weight of solid objects.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #291 on: June 05, 2014, 04:40:24 PM »
No doubt the day will bring a spate of claims that you have not used "scientific arguments" to explain something equivalent to why we don't use color saturation as a measure of the weight of solid objects.
Well I'm sure I'm capable of showing a non-uniform staircase ALSO not converging on the hypotenuse of a triangle.  It seems trivial enough.

I agree empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.
This probably comes down to some silly special definition on the term "proof" but this sounds a lot like "one magic trick should be more compelling than the proof that sqrt(2) is irrational"

I...will move onto the empirical side for those who lack any kind of common sense.
I'm probably reading this differently than gravityblock intended...
« Last Edit: June 05, 2014, 09:47:07 PM by sarkeizen »

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #292 on: June 05, 2014, 11:13:47 PM »
Well I'm sure I'm capable of showing a non-uniform staircase ALSO not converging on the hypotenuse of a triangle.  It seems trivial enough.
Yes, but what if the triangle is blue?  Does your geometry consider color?
Quote

This probably comes down to some silly special definition on the term "proof" but this sounds a lot like "one magic trick should be more compelling than the proof that sqrt(2) is irrational"
I'm probably reading this differently than gravityblock intended...
I doubt it.  It sounds like you have him pegged.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #293 on: June 06, 2014, 01:22:32 AM »
Yes, but what if the triangle is blue?  Does your geometry consider color?
You're absolutely correct by Mathis logic: "The pencil must have some velocity or acceleration as it moves along the line or curve. "  A circle drawn in the REAL WORLD has a color, a nib width and even a depth (as ink is not 2-dimensional).  It's amazing that Mathis can mentally perform a projection onto a plane that is of uniform colour, depth, and thickness in his head but gets stuck on the time parameter.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #294 on: June 06, 2014, 01:58:17 AM »
You're absolutely correct by Mathis logic: "The pencil must have some velocity or acceleration as it moves along the line or curve. "  A circle drawn in the REAL WORLD has a color, a nib width and even a depth (as ink is not 2-dimensional).  It's amazing that Mathis can mentally perform a projection onto a plane that is of uniform colour, depth, and thickness in his head but gets stuck on the time parameter.
And how does the pen nib feel?  Has anyone asked the nib if it feels car sick when pushed around a circle?

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #295 on: June 07, 2014, 12:15:48 AM »
And how does the pen nib feel?  Has anyone asked the nib if it feels car sick when pushed around a circle?
Where's Joe Blockhead?  Did we break him?  I was always too rough with my toys.

Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #296 on: June 07, 2014, 12:59:18 AM »



 I don't think he appreciates a joke,
                               John.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #297 on: June 07, 2014, 01:12:54 AM »
Where's Joe Blockhead?  Did we break him?  I was always too rough with my toys.
I think that perhaps thankfully he may have finally gotten tired of trying to play a poor imitation of a Sacha Cohen character. 

Offline neziekras

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #298 on: June 07, 2014, 04:37:54 AM »
just been following along.  i don't understand how people aren't just seeing that pi=4 for normal geometry.  i read the short 'extinction' paper and it seems pretty much right.

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #299 on: June 07, 2014, 04:39:26 AM »


 I don't think he appreciates a joke,
                               John.

I can appreciate a joke, but not a joke that is being psychologically projected on to another.  The joke is now once again on them!

I will restore the original topic, without all of the spam and meaningless posts, when I have more time.

Gravock