The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

Yes, your pants are very full.

You have yet to show how my response to TK's example used static geometry as you wrongly and falsely asserted.  It is your pants which are very full.

Gravock

[sarkeizen]

You have yet to show

So dude, what is the hold up...there must be a clear problem with my proof right?  Or is Mathis...*GASP* wrong and fallible?

Again....

i) "Drawing those little steps" accurately measures a curve
ii) If i) then it must also accurately  measure a line segment.
iii) The hypotenuse is a line segment.
iv) If ii) and iii) then the results of "drawing those little steps" will match the pythagorean theorem.
v) iv) is false by virtue of far too many proofs to count.
vi) i) can not be true.

[gravityblock]

Especially since he also proves (perhaps inadvertently) that the pythagorean theorem can't possibly be true.  Something we have something like a hundred distinct proofs for.

This is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal, and is an argument by assertion with nothing to back up your false claims.

Gravock

Shut.  The FUCK. Up. 

You have wrongly assumed and asserted the Pythagorean theorem holds true in a non-Euclidean geometry, but it doesn't.  Your argument that Mathis inadvertently proves the Pythagorean theorem can't possibly be true, is only based on wrong assumptions and false assertions made by you.

Gravock

[sarkeizen]

You have wrongly assumed and asserted the Pythagorean theorem holds true in a non-Euclidean geometry, but it doesn't.

Explain what part of this diagram is expressly stated as non-euclidian.  http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg

[minnie]

   Gravityblock, you're oh so very clever, like your argument add in time
   and maturity should come.
                                  John.