The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

I answered that question clearly, fairly and honestly.  You asked me "Are you saying" and I clarified exactly what I was saying.  How was that insufficient?

My question still stands (now asked SIX 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?

Please show me where you answered my question clearly, fairly and honestly.

Gravock

[MarkE]

ROFL

[gravityblock]

So you're refusing to answer a clearly worded, plain English question again?

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?

If you disagree how can your objection to my proof about the diagram be unrelated to the diagram?  If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.

i) Yes, this implies the pythagorean theorem is false on the basis that it is non-euclidean.  In other words, the pythagorean theorem is false and doesn't hold in non-euclidean geometry.
ii) N/A due to my previous answer.
iii) Yes, the pythagorean theorem being false in the diagram represents something in non-euclidean geometry.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

ROFL

At least sarkeizen has a legitimate rebuttal and is contributing to this thread, unlike yourself. 

Gravock

[MarkE]

LOL.  You do realize don't you that now that you say that the geometry is non-Euclidean you are stuck both with stating what geometry system is represented and why under that geometry Mathis' taxi cab path has any validity?