The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

A plane geometry object has nothing to do with time.  Plane geometry is a field of mathematics.  If you want to play:  "You can't do XYZ in the physical world" then you are already stuck with much bigger problems than whether chords can be mapped between presumed squares with presumed vertices at static positions in space.

Plane geometry must also obey the laws of physics when dealing with the physical world.  In other words, if you want to use geometry to analyse the motion of a physical object, then a circle should be drawn in discrete jumps to represent the discrete jumps in the physical world.  If the physical world says matter moves in discrete jumps at the planck scale, then the geometry must correctly represent this.  If not, then you are using geometry to break the laws of physics.  Now, if you're analysing an abstract circle with no time variable, then you are free to show a continuous motion by connecting the inner vertices with chords to show a continuous motion.  However, this is not the case for a real circle with a time variable.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

That's rubbish.  The Manhattan path has no time element to it.  It is plane geometry.  How long are you going to insist on this silly game?

The Manhattan path does have a time element to it when we are at the planck scale.  The planck time is the amount of time it takes light to move one planck length.  Since we can't go beyond the planck length in the Manhattan path without breaking the laws of physics, then the planck length correctly represents the time as points in those discrete jumps

Gravock

[MarkE]

Plane geometry must also obey the laws of physics when dealing with the physical world.  In other words, if you want to use geometry to analyse the motion of a physical object, then a circle should be drawn in discrete jumps to represent the discrete jumps in the physical world.  If the physical world says matter moves in discrete jumps at the planck scale, then the geometry must correctly represent this.  If not, then you are using geometry to break the laws of physics.  Now, if you're analysing an abstract circle with no time variable, then you are free to show a continuous motion by connecting the inner vertices with chords to show a continuous motion.  However, this is not the case for a real circle with a time variable.

Gravock

That is some really tortured boot strapping.  You have as far as I know been arguing that Pi = 4 based on the plane geometry of a circle.  The behaviors of a circle do not change because of how you might want to apply a circle in a model or an experiment.

[MarkE]

The Manhattan path does have a time element to it when we are at the planck scale.  The planck time is the amount of time it takes light to move one planck length.  Since we can't go beyond the planck length in the Manhattan path without breaking the laws of physics, then the planck length correctly represents the time as points in those discrete jumps

Gravock

Two dimensional geometry has no time element. 

[verpies]

I have yet to see any such description.
If you think you have provided one kindly point at the post that provides it.

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.

Once again you misstate what I have said.  Pi is a defined relationship. 

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

The value of that relationship has been reliably approximated to eight decimal digits as: ~3.1415953.  I have said that a geometric object that purports to have a circumference to diameter ratio that does not conform within the measured and/or calculated error bands to a correspondingly precise expression of Pi, then the the object fails to demonstrate a basic property of circles. 

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.

This tortured idea that an object that fails to demonstrate a circumference to diameter ratio in close accord with a reliably approximated value of Pi is completely silly.  How long do you two intend to keep this nonsense up?

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.

Circles are plane geometry objects.  They exist in two dimensions.  That is not my doing.  That is the accepted definition.

This is true of abstract circles only. 
What is "that" in the article you quoted ?