The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[MarkE]

The definition was in this post.
"A circle is a set of points on a spatial plane equidistant from the center of the circle. The difference between an abstract and physical circle is whether these points have time coordinates or not.  Physical circles do and those coordinates are not the same" - Later you even asked me what the phrase "not the same" referred to.

You have jumped from a "spatial plane" to an undefined space that has a time dimension.  Circles are two dimensional planar objects.  This has fully degenerated into a nonsense fest.

No I do not.  You are plainly stating that a circle is not a circle if the relationship of circumference to diameter is not ~3.1415953 while failing to define the circumference of a physical circle and conflating it with the circumference of an abstract circle.

A "physical circle" is some imaginary construct of yours where time has entered into plane geometry.  If you can locate an academic reference that supports your idea then kindly link it.  Otherwise, you are simply making up nonsense.

By doing it you are letting ~3.1415953 define the circle instead of letting the Circle define the ratio between its circumference and diameter.  Such reversal makes a conclusion out of the premise.

No, Pi follows the relationship of the geometric plane object known as a circle.  That relationship has been quantified to great precision.  A claim that some object alters that quantity by a large value is silly and specious.  The proposed object by failing to conform with the known ratio fails to demonstrate a basic property of the plane geometry object known as a circle.  A dog is not a kangaroo with a very small pouch.

I agree with you you that Pi=c/d but I disagree with you how c & d are measured physically.

When a measurement is inconsistent with the established properties of an object, then either the object is not what is believed, or the measurements are in error.  Who do you think you can sell on this silly boot strapping game of trying to redefine a circle so that you can subsequently redefine Pi?  This exercise is getting beyond tedious.

This is the reversal. You are attempting to prove that circle is not a circle because it does not conform to your expected ratio of circumference to diameter.

It's not my expected ratio.  It is a well established ratio.  The burden is on you to establish that this thing you call a "physical circle" is anything other than an invented construct of yours.  It is up to you to show that even though it fails to demonstrate a well established property of circles that it is in fact a circle.

Silly is only your insistence on conflating the circumference of an abstract circle to a circumference of a physical circle and using the same measuring processes for both.
I will keep it up a long time if you won't answer my questions directly.
This is the definition of abstract circles only. 
What is "that" in the article you quoted ?

A circle is a circle is a circle is a plane geometry object.  A circular path is a trajectory that follows the plane geometry of a circle.

[MarkE]

Prove my illustration is wrong instead of simply asserting geometry is independent of time.  Is the illustration 2D?  Yes it is!  Does it have a time element?  Yes it does!  Does it correctly represent the real world and physics with time?  Yes it does!

Gravock

Pick up a geometry primer.  There is no time element in your 2D figure.  The figure itself does not in any practical sense change with time.  You have chosen to use a 2D figure to represent some temporal relationship.

[gravityblock]

Pick up a geometry primer.  There is no time element in your 2D figure.  The figure itself does not in any practical sense change with time.  You have chosen to use a 2D figure to represent some temporal relationship.

If a car took the path of the dots from left to right, then we know the car was travelling one meter per second.  We also know how many meters the car travelled along this particular path by counting the dots.  It doesn't matter if the figure changes or not, but rather what the figure is representing in the real world.

Gravock

[verpies]

You have jumped from a "spatial plane" to an undefined space that has a time dimension.  Circles are two dimensional planar objects.  T

The equidistance constraint is a spatial constraint. The existence of this constraint in the definition does not preclude the existence of temporal aspect of a circle.

A "physical circle" is some imaginary construct of yours where time has entered into plane geometry.  If you can locate an academic reference that supports your idea then kindly link it. 

Appeals to authority do not work on me.
The mainstream science has been ignorant about this issue since Newton and in my eyes they deserve no respect for that.
I do not expect to find there a rigorous distinguishment between an abstract geometric circle and circular path.

A circular path is a trajectory that follows the plane geometry of a circle.

Since you had finally given me an acceptable name to you for a physical circle.  From now on I will call it a "circular path" instead of "physical circle" to make you happy.

It still does not change anything, though. 
I still claim that the ratio of the circumference of a "circular path" to its diameter is 4, when measured inertially.
And I still claim that a "circular path" of a massive object is not formed by an acceleration/force that lays on lines passing through the center of this "circular path".

I guess I still owe you vector math with special attention to intervals and observation points that prove the above claim.
Mathis has already shown exhaustively that the angle ABD reaches the 90º limit before the angle BAD reaches 0º so I will not repeat that.

@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.

[MarkE]

The equidistance constraint is a spatial constraint. The existence of this constraint in the definition does not preclude the existence of temporal aspect of a circle.

Plane geometry does not have anything to do with time.

Appeals to authority do not work on me.

Without a reference your quirky ideas of circles that aren't circles lack foundation.

The mainstream science has been ignorant about this issue since Newton and in my eyes they deserve no respect for that.

LOL, sure you lack evidence but it is the whole world of science that has been wrong for centuries.  Good luck with that.

I do not expect to find there a rigorous distinguishment between an abstract geometric circle and circular path.
Since you had finally given me an acceptable name to you for a physical circle.  From now on I will call it a "circular path" instead of "physical circle" to make you happy.

Now your problem is to show how a circular path doesn't have the identical geometry of the "abstract circles" you keep claiming that it differs from while still being circular.

It still does not change anything, though. 
I still claim that the ratio of the circumference of a "circular path" to its diameter is 4, when measured inertially.

Then you are utterly and completely wrong.

And I still claim that a "circular path" of a massive object is not formed by an acceleration/force that lays on lines passing through the center of this "circular path".

Then once again you are completely wrong.

I guess I still owe you vector math with special attention to intervals and observation points that prove the above claim.

Yes, valid vector math might provide useful evidence.  If you do it right, you should see your errors.

Mathis has already shown exhaustively that the angle ABD reaches the 90º limit before the angle BAD reaches 0º so I will not repeat that.

Mathis has been disproven.  His objection to Lemma VI is highly contorted.

@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.

Experiment triumphs theory when adequate controls are in place and proper care has been taken to ensure that the observations are what they appear to be.  One can mess up an experiment as easily as getting any theory wrong.