The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[MarkE]

No, your assertion is not true, because you are not taking the expansion acceleration of matter and space into consideration!  In addition to this, your assertion wrongly assumes a continuous motion.  This is yet another fail for a false assertion by you.

Gravock

LOL, is this yet another Mathism that you promote ?  A change in velocity: direction or speed is the result of an acceleration: period.  You are free to try and show actual credible references to experiments that show a change in velocity without acceleration.  You are free to try and show an example of a true instant 90 degree turn taken by anything, anywhere.

[MarkE]

Euclidean geometry does not represent the real world.  It is not quantized and gives the impression that matter can move in a curve or in a straight path over long distances through space with a continuous motion.  It takes the time element out of the equation.  Time is motion, or motion is Time.  Taxicab geometry has discrete steps (quantization) and shows the correct movement of matter through space, and that is in discrete jumps with a rectilinear motion which correctly represents the real world.

If you don't ask the right questions, then you don't get the right answers.  I can't give a right answer to a wrong question.  However, the right question and the right answer can both be found in this post!

Gravock

LOL, let's see you demonstrate one of these instant 90 degree motions that you insist are the basis of all real trajectories.  Let's see you show the 90 degree movements that you claim are "correct movement of matter through space" for a collimated beam of light such as a LASER.

[Qwert]

LOL, is this yet another Mathism that you promote ?  A change in velocity: direction or speed is the result of an acceleration: period.  You are free to try and show actual credible references to experiments that show a change in velocity without acceleration.  You are free to try and show an example of a true instant 90 degree turn taken by anything, anywhere.

Hi. I find gravityblock quite a knowledgeable guy; his only problem I found through this forum, is, he is a Creationist and all his theories are subject of Creationism.

[MarkE]

Do you believe his assertion that objects follow paths that consist of a series of perfect 90 degree deflections?  Do you believe his claim that such deflections are even possible without unlimited power?

[sarkeizen]

Kentucky is a state

A fact I'm well aware but you talked about the posters hometown.  Clearly you must also be insulting a town.  Also in my hometown they taught us that other peoples bigotry does not excuse your own.  Perhaps they didn't teach that lesson in yours?  Anyway the point was, you appear to have time to make bigoted comments but not answer my question.

Why don't you tell me which parts!  Or, do you not know?

I assume you mean that I should tell you what parts in Mathis diagram which are non-euclidean.  Again I think I need to remind you that the assertion "Some of that diagram is non-euclidean" is yours and for some reason you think I should be responsible for explaining your assertion.   If I understood your assertion then I wouldn't need you to explain it.   Which would preclude my asking the question.  Your assertion I suspect is wrong but as I mentioned before it's a good idea to hear out the argument before passing judgement.  So far you simply are being dishonest and unfair about the whole process of understanding your argument.

You don't even know if the "If yes" portion in question 3 refers to the answer for question 1 or to the answer for question 2, in regards to the questions you've been asking me.

No, I don't know what you mean by your question.  That's a different thing.  A thing you absolutely refuse to clarify.  I explained why your question doesn't make sense to me (as in some sense "refer" applies to all aspects of the questions since they are words, which refer to sentences which refer to an overarching argument).  I provided a question which I think might be what you are trying to express - which you refused to say anything about and I provided you with a pretty clear general format for asking me a question which would clarify the situation.   What more do you want?

It's because you are trying to play both the "yes card" and the "no card" simultaneously for the same question.

I have no idea what you mean here because again I have no idea what your complaint is.  If this is about the three pointed syllogism I gave you.  You already answered it enough to get to the point.  However that is not the question you constantly refuse to answer.  The question you refuse to answer (now asked THIRTEEN TIMES) is: "When you say that Mathis http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg diagram contains euclidean and non-euclidean geometries.  Please point out which elements are in which geometries."

The three-point syllogism was just to show that you must be able to do this.

This is the basis for why I am refusing to answer your question, so you can't play both cards against me.

Personally I don't see why anyone arguing would care about "cards" at all.  Just ask questions and see where the argument goes.  Seems like a more honest way to find the answer than what you are doing.

You need to grow up!

I'm not sure what passes for adult behavior where you are but your antics here remind me of what I was like when I was 18 which is when I knew jack about shit.

I am no longer having a discussion with you on this issue

Did this qualify as a discussion?  You kept pretty much your argument secret and I laid mine out to be examined.  If this was a discussion, can you tell me what it was about?

because you will do anything, regardless if it is wrong, to win an argument.

I'm beginning to this is more about you doing anything, regardless if it is wrong to avoid losing an argument.