The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[sarkeizen]

Is the bold portion in question 3 in reference to question 1 or question 2?

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?"

Also: What things are non-euclidean in the diagram? (Now asked NINE times).  Clearly since you without a second thought were able to declare the diagram (by inspection) containing both kinds of geometry.  It should be trivial for you to point out which ones are which.

[gravityblock]

Do we agree the arc of a cycloid generates a circular path which is larger than the circular wheel that generated it?  Let's say we have a wheel with a diameter of 1 with a circumference of 3.14....  and the circular path of the cycloid will have a circumference of 4.  Now, let's find the ratio between these two,  4 / 3.14 = 1.2714.  Now, let's find the difference between these two, 4 - 3.14 =  0.86048.  Now, let's multiply the ratio between the two with the difference between the two, 1.27 * 0.86 = 1.093404.  I have already shown the 1.093404 is related to the quantum transitional speed and how these dimensionless numbers in this example can have dimensions/units if we include them.  In other words, the ratio and the differences between the two is due to our expansion acceleration of 9.8m/s².  In summary, this is evidence that we are expanding in all directions with an acceleration of 9.8m/s².  It's like blowing a balloon up with air.  This is why you can't take the ratio of an acceleration along the circumference that is expanding to a velocity across the diameter that is also expanding and expect to get the same results as you would with something that is static and non-changing with no time element involved.  I am done with the Pi issue, for anyone with any common sense knows the dynamic is not the same as the static, and to use the same methods to compare the two is foolishness.

God will catch the wise in their own craftiness!

Gravock

[gravityblock]

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?"

Also: What things are non-euclidean in the diagram? (Now asked NINE times).  Clearly since you without a second thought were able to declare the diagram (by inspection) containing both kinds of geometry.  It should be trivial for you to point out which ones are which.

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

[MarkE]

Do we agree the arc of a cycloid generates a circular path which is larger than the circular wheel that generated it?

No we don't:  A cycloid is not a circle.[/quote]

Let's say we have a wheel with a diameter of 1 with a circumference of 3.14....  and the circular path of the cycloid will have a circumference of 4.[/quote]
the cycloid path length is 4.  Since the cycloid is not a closed shape, it does not have a circumference.

  Now, let's find the ratio between these two,  4 / 3.14 = 1.2714.  Now, let's find the difference between these two, 4 - 3.14 =  0.86048.  Now, let's multiply the ratio between the two with the difference between the two, 1.27 * 0.86 = 1.093404.  I have already shown the 1.093404 is related to the quantum transitional speed and how these dimensionless numbers in this example can have dimensions/units if we include them. 

Your pants again explode.  All that you showed was that you could work up some algebraic identities.

In other words, the ratio and the differences between the two is due to our expansion acceleration of 9.8m/s².  In summary, this is evidence that we are expanding in all directions with an acceleration of 9.8m/s².  It's like blowing a balloon up with air.

No that is only your pants.

This is why you can't take the ratio of an acceleration along the circumference that is expanding to a velocity across the diameter that is also expanding and expect to get the same results as you would with something that is static and non-changing with no time element involved.

Pop!  There they go:  Bull shit argument leads out bull shit conclusion with the result that there is now bull shit everywhere.

I am done with the Pi issue, for anyone with any common sense knows the dynamic is not the same as the static, and to use the same methods to compare the two is foolishness.

God will catch the wise in their own craftiness!

Gravock

Completely cornered perhaps you will give up on this obscenely silly campaign.  We can only hope.

[MarkE]

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

That's nine times that Sarkeizen has asked you politely, and nine times that you have refused his simple request to state unambiguously specifically what you claim is Euclidean, and what you claim is not Euclidean in that diagram.