The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[MarkE]

In case you didn't know, I don't dispute that Pi is equal to 3.14... for static circles that are non-changing without a time element involved.

There is no other kind of circle in Euclidean geometry:  The geometry for which Pi is defined.

However, I do dispute that Pi is equal to 3.14... for dynamic circles which have a time element and is changing due to our expansion acceleration.

There is no such thing.

  It is you who is limited and stuck on 3rd grade math and not able to move beyond this level, and not me. 

Bill's post is an example of a psychological projection used by MarkE and his minions.

Gravock

It's back to those dark kitchen utensils.

[MasterPlaster]

I only dropped it to see what is the latest in OU research. I'll pop back in a few months to see if this thread has moved on!
I however want to to categoricly state I am not a minion in case I shall be judged in my absence!

[MarkE]

sarkeizen,

I have honestly tried to clarify my question to you in various ways without success.  Let's just agree to disagree on the theoretical side of the Pi issue for now.  In a way, I am at fault for allowing my thread to be hijacked by bringing the Pi issue into it.

IOW you have utterly and completely failed in your silly argument that you introduced and wish to withdraw from it.

It was off-topic and irrelevant to the main purpose and content of the thread.  I will restore the content that is relevant and not off-topic to the main purpose of the original thread at a later time so there may be a more meaningful discussion.  I do agree there is nothing wrong with a little heated debate, but let's not take it too far.  We need to realize when it's time to agree to disagree.

Gravock

LOL, you cannot show where you have done much of anything to either answer Sarkeizen's questions or otherwise reduce ambiguity.  Twelve times now he has asked you a very simple and direct question that you steadfastly refuse to answer:  Which elements in the Mathis drawing that you refer to and declare contains both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometric objects are Euclidean and which are not?

[ACG]

Correction:  Title 1 of N

Currently 3 of N

Now title 4 of N.  I have not monitored for a few days.  Could be title 5 or 6 of N.  So you got a possible free title reduction!

To my knowledge in 4 title changes, 2 of which included the name of forum members.  Fitting into the pattern just perfectly.  Which pattern you ask.  The smart ones here been figured that out.

[gravityblock]

I only dropped it to see what is the latest in OU research. I'll pop back in a few months to see if this thread has moved on!
I however want to to categoricly state I am not a minion in case I shall be judged in my absence!

I don't see how this thread will move on.  The minions have no respect for those who they disagree with.  If I was a casual reader and poster, I would think twice about posting a view which they oppose.  The minions headed by MarkE prefer not to be guided by truth in their postings, but by the rule of the gun (trolling, spamming, misdirections, psychological projections, etc). They have come to believe in their false exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destiny of this forum, that it is only them who can be right. 

However, you can have a view similar to theirs without being a minion by avoiding the rule of the gun they so often resort to when the debate isn't going in their favour.  It would be nice to see more people voice their opinions, but I doubt it will happen.  I would love to be proven wrong on this!  Stand up and speak out.  Rise above their suppression tactics.

Gravock