The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[MarkE]

MarkE is trying to use plane geometry, which has left the time element out in it's current form, in order to measure a physical circle that does have a time element.  He tells me I can't use the Manhattan path to measure Pi = 4 in a physical circle because the Manhattan path has no time element, which I disagree with when the points are at the planck scale.  However, he is doing what he said I couldn't do in plane geometry.  The summation of his own logic and his own definitions are conflicted and contradictory to each other in every way.

Gravock

There is no time dependency of any kind in plane geometry.  You keep promoting the fallacy that by making the segments smaller, that the Manhattan estimate of the circumference path length improves.  It does not because for every segment, no matter how long or how short that returns to the circumference, a matching segment turns away from the circumference.  Making the segments smaller inversely increases the number of segments, including all those segments that turn away from the circumference.   One can easily come up with star burst patterns where the inner vertices approximate the outline of a circle better and better with more and smaller sections but where the path length does not converge towards that of the circle's circumference.  Using the inane Mathis argument that you have borrowed for the Manhattan path for a star burst path, one could erroneously claim Pi = 5 or even 500.  In order to converge on the length of a path each segment must point back to the curve.  Alternately, applying the Manhattan path to a right triangle would lead to the bull shit conclusion that the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the sides instead of equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the sides.

In the meantime, whether one uses Archimedes' method or any variation on it, the approximation to the demonstrable circumference length quickly converges towards ~3.14159265358979.  A simplified form of Archimedes' method reaches 3.14 on the fourth iteration, 3.141593 on the eleventh iteration, and 3.14159265358979 on the twenty-third iteration. 

Your claim that Pi = 4 fails when performing a comparison of circumference to the perimeter of a square any fourth grader can handle with a string.  It fails if one compares the volume of a square cross section vessel with the volume of a cylinder of the same height where the ID is the same as the width of the square cross section vessel.  It fails when one compares the transit time of an object following a circular path at a tangential velocity: V₁ compared to the same object following a square path that the circular path inscribes at the same tangential velocity V₁.  It fails when one checks the published revolutions per mile of any automobile tire.  IOW, it is a complete fail.

Are you Mathis?  Or do you just have an acute desire to insist on similar crackpot ideas as Mathis?

[gravityblock]

What's the matter, too much actual math? Did you "Pi=4" claimants not notice that I have proven you wrong, YET AGAIN, using a real physical circle with time element involved?

I don't agree with your calculations and your values for those calculations.  For example, I can show how the orbit time is an exact lunar year of 30591067.1428570401.  I can also tie it to gravity and the speed of light:  G * Z or 9.80 * 30,591,067.1428570401 = 299,792,458 (speed of light).  Also, your math doesn't take into account the helical orbit of earth.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

deleted...

Gravock

[TinselKoala]

I don't agree with your calculations and your values for those calculations.  For example, I can show how the orbit time is an exact lunar year of 30591067.1428570401.  I can also tie it to gravity and the speed of light:  G * Z or 9.80 * 30,591,067.1428570401 = 299,792,458 (speed of light).  Also, your math doesn't take into account the helical orbit of earth.

Gravock

You are once again claiming things you are not showing. I showed my work and where I got my numbers from, remember? And I didn't use false precision either.

You can agree with me or not, but if you don't, you have the rather daunting task of explaining how people who DO agree with me -- or rather, whom I agree with -- were able to land a robot spacecraft on Titan, after years of travel time and complicated slingshot maneouvers, with only a few midcourse corrections.  For just a single example.

[gravityblock]

MarkE,

Your last few posts gave me some valuable insight into how you think.  You perceive time as not being real and is a man made concept used for measurement.  I don't agree!  However, by knowing how you perceive things, it will allow me to have a more productive debate with you from here on out.

Gravock