The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

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]

It seems you think that the thread is all about you.

[gravityblock]

    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]

    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]

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.