The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[MarkE]

Pi by definition is a constant, related to geometric circles, when computing some things ivolvong an apparent circle and radius the constant is 4 in certain applications, and not pi as one would expect...

The definition of Pi refers to the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle in Euclidean geometry.  It has been reliably computed to over a trillion places, the first nine:  3.14159153.  The hapless argument that Mathis offers and GB has taken up is complete silliness.  Is it really any wonder why GB refuses to state which elements of the example that he uses are Euclidean and which are non-Euclidean?  Is it any wonder that he operates in a confused state when he keeps talking about circles in Taxicab geometry which look like squares in Euclidean geometry but then invokes Euclidean circles? 

[d3x0r]

The definition of Pi refers to the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle in Euclidean geometry.  It has been reliably computed to over a trillion places, the first nine:  3.14159153.  The hapless argument that Mathis offers and GB has taken up is complete silliness.  Is it really any wonder why GB refuses to state which elements of the example that he uses are Euclidean and which are non-Euclidean?  Is it any wonder that he operates in a confused state when he keeps talking about circles in Taxicab geometry which look like squares in Euclidean geometry but then invokes Euclidean circles?

Right

[sarkeizen]

I will restore the original topic, without all of the spam and meaningless posts, when I have more time.

Seriously?  Take a look at your posting pattern.  You yourself claimed....

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

...and what do you spend virtually ALL your time doing?  Responding to people like this:

Yes, it is too bad thanks to people like you and your limited thinking and thought process, for reasons shown in the quotes below from another thread.

If there's anyone encouraging meaningless posts it is you.

So for the ELEVENTH time.   Please state clearly what parts of this diagram are in what geometries.

[gravityblock]

Seriously?  Take a look at your posting pattern.  You yourself claimed....

...and what do you spend virtually ALL your time doing?  Responding to people like this:

If there's anyone encouraging meaningless posts it is you.

So for the ELEVENTH time.   Please state clearly what parts of this diagram (http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg) are in what geometries.

When are you going to answer my question, in regards to question 3, in which the "If yes" portion of question 3 could refer to either of the two previous questions?  You arranged and formed the questions in a way where there is no right answer.  Also, there was a rebuttal to the diagram in question, which you say the argument is "probably only half-an-argument because it's wrong. (at least as best as I can tell, as the argument has no useful level of formalism)".  You won't find any formalism in it until you realize how are calculus is wrong.  You use the phrases and words "probably", "half", "no useful level of formalism", "at least as best as I can tell", in order to assert the rebuttal is wrong.  You need to get real and true to yourself.  You need to reconcile this with yourself, and not with me.  I have enough wisdom to realize there is no way for me to convince you otherwise.  You will only change your views after it is accepted by the mainstream in the future.  History does repeat itself.  Just have a look at the small list below for another incredible example of inopportune opportunity for human opposition to Truth and Discovery.

Galileo (1600)

It was not the authorities who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. It was his fellow scientists!  They declared that using a telescope was a waste of time, for even if they did see evidence for his claims, it would only be because Galileo had unfairly bewitched them as he dare propose the evil Copernican viewpoint that the sun was the center of our galaxy.

William Harvey (1630)

The first western scientist to describe the circulatory system with the heart as its central pump.  Unfortunately he described it in the early 17th century and was nearly drummed out of the scientific community for doing so.  Yet he fared far better than Servetus who described the pulmonary circulatory system in the 1500's and was rewarded by being burned at the stake.

Andre Ampere (1800)

For 10 years the famous Mr. Andre Ampere's work was ridiculed and ignored including his grand discovery that force between current elements does not obey a simple inverse square law.  Today his name is the root of Electricity.

George Ohm (Ohm's Law) (1830)

Ohm's initial publication was met with ridicule and dismissal.  His work was called "fantasy".  Ten years passed before scientists finally recognized its great importance but definitely not before Ohm was forced to resign his job as a high school teacher.  After 10 years of "resistance", the scientific community finally figured out that Ohm's law was absolutely correct.

Julius Mayer (The Law of the Conservation of Energy) (1850)

Mayer's original paper was contemptuously rejected by the leading physics journals of the time.  Guess what, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Man can neither create nor destroy; Mass, nor Gravity, nor Distance.

Nikola Tesla  (King of all Physicists) (1900)

Tesla was greatly ridiculed for his claim that the whole earth would resonate electrically at 7Hz, 14Hz, 21Hz, etc. all the way up into the tens of kilohertz.  He claimed to discover this phenomenon during his radio observations of lightning strikes.  The physicists of the time would have nothing to do with it.  Decades later in the 1950's after Tesla was safely dead, during investigations of the VLF radio signals produced by lightning it was discovered that indeed the whole earth resonates electrically at  7Hz, 14Hz, etc.

Jacobus Van't Hoff (Theory of 3D molecules) (1900)

As a relative newcomer and quite unknown, Jacobus was attacked and ridiculed for proposing that a 3D tetrahedral structure would explain many problems in chemistry.  His foes rapidly went silent as his ridiculous cardboard models won the first Nobel Prize in chemistry.

Barbara McClintlock (Transposons) (1983)

Barbara finally won the Nobel Prize in 1984 after enduring 32 years harsh ridicule and being ignored for her work on the mobility of genetic sequences of DNA that move to different positions within the genome.

The atomic bomb will never go off......and many more!

Gravock

[sarkeizen]

When are you going to answer my question, in regards to question 3,

When it's clear to me what you are asking.   I've asked you to clarify.  You refused.  I posited a question which appears to be what you are asking.  You won't say if it's what you mean.

I have no problem with you asking questions but if you are only going to mock me or shut up when I try to understand what you are saying.  Then clearly you're not being very fair or honest in this process.

You arranged and formed the questions in a way where there is no right answer.

I arranged the questions to clarify what you mean.  If a diagram contains items from various geometries.  You should be able to point out which parts are which.  If you can't, you should be able to state why.

Also, there was a rebuttal to the diagram in question, which you say the argument is "probably only half-an-argument because it's wrong.

I asserted that the counter-argument, as best as I can understand it - is wrong.  The caveat is that the person doesn't appear to understand how theorems are proved in mathematics.  Neither do you or Mathis for that matter.

there is no way for me to convince you otherwise.

Where does this come from?  All I've done is ask you a few simple questions and all you have done is everything you could not to answer them.  I'm happy to answer your questions but you won't clarify anything AND when I attempt to restate you won't tell me if I'm right or what changes need to be made to correctly understand your question.

Clearly I am trying to understand your argument and I think you are trying hard not to be understood.

For the Twelfth time: What parts of http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg  this diagram are in which geometries?