The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[MarkE]

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

LOL, no I don't have to play your games your way  just because you say so.  It's perfectly fine to stand back as you load up your pants and stay far back as you play with the contents.

[profitis]

@gravityblock..did mathis have anything to say about the standing of the second law thermodynamics?

[TinselKoala]

TK's example was based on movement and not static geometry, but he conveniently left out the time variable which is found in the real world, just as plane geometry conveniently leaves time out of the equation.  My reply to his example did not use static geometry.  Please show me otherwise!  Also, there are many high road low road videos showing the same result.  Also, I clearly stated that both cars had the same net fall in my original post, so you can not say you thought one track was level and the blue car would never reach its destination.  It is your pants that is full, and this is another psychological projection by you.

Gravock

Don't lie.

Note the frequent appearance of the quantity "SECONDS".... a TIME VARIABLE found in the real world.

The circumference of the orbit (assuming pi = 3.1416 and a circular orbit) is 2 x pi x 149.6 million km, or about 939.97 million km.

The tangential speed computed from the radius and the conventional value of pi is therefore 939.97 million km / 31,558,118 seconds or about 29785 meters/second.

The diameter of the orbit is about 299.2 million km. Traversing this distance at the tangential velocity of 29814 m/sec will therefore take about 10035553 seconds. Four times that is 40,142,212 seconds... but a year is only 31,558,118 seconds.  Curiously.... 10035553 x  3.1416 = about 31,527,693 seconds.... nearly exactly the number of seconds in a sidereal year.

Conclusion.....  The value of pi, for the real figure of the Earth's orbit, taking TIME and velocity into account, must be very close to 3.1416, and not close at all to 4.

Please feel free to show a working that demonstrates otherwise.

Or just continue to flail and flop about, gasping and protesting .... but your pants are developing a pretty smelly leak, when you have to start lying to try to support your silly points.

[gravityblock]

@gravityblock..did mathis have anything to say about the standing of the second law thermodynamics?

Mathis has an article on entropy and he defines heat as photon density.

Gravock

[sarkeizen]

He has an article on entropy.  Mathis defines heat as photon density.

So uh...when are you going to get back to me on my question.  It was clear, in plain English and somehow devoid of profanity.

In case you forgot, it's right here.

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

I can give you an easier question if you can't answer this one.