The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

Since there are those here who like to read and take things out of context, or to put things into a completely different context than there original meaning, then I will put it back into context for them.

iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry.  Agree or disagree?

Is the bold portion in question 3 in reference to question 1 or question 2?

Gravock

Out of curiosity - is there a reason you can't construct sentences that completely contain your question?  For example....

When you say "If yes" in question 3.  Do you mean: "If the basis for your objection (to the implication of the diagram) is that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry then something in the diagram must represent something in non-euclidean geometry?"

Out of curiosity - why can't you connect the dots for yourself?  Why do you need someone to spoon feed you every step of the way?  You know exactly what I am asking you, so don't play the stupid card and psychologically project it unto me.

Gravock

Now, let me connect the dots for you.  Question 1 is a yes or no answer, and question 2 is a yes or no answer.  So, does the "If yes" in question 3 refer to the answer for question 1 or does it refer to the answer for question 2?  It doesn't really matter, because I am done with the theoretical side of this and will move onto the empirical side for those who lack any kind of common sense.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

@Gravityblock.
Do you realize that this is provable empirically by some computer controlled airpucks on a smooth level surface?
Empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.

I agree empirical proof is much stronger than any theoretical proof.  I also agree that this is provable empirically by some computer controlled air pucks on a smooth level surface, in addition to empirically proving the expansion acceleration of matter.

Gravock

[sarkeizen]

Out of curiosity - why can't you connect the dots for yourself?

This is really interesting from a psychological point-of-view.  If I was guessing, you're deliberately trying to stall the argument.  I wonder why?  Clearly I did "connect the dots" into *some* pattern.  The crazy thing is that you won't tell me if it's the right pattern.  I mean why would anyone interested in progressing the argument ever want to encourage ambiguity?

Check it...even in the portion of my post that you quoted I say:

When you say "If yes" in question 3.  Do you mean: "If the basis for your objection (to the implication of the diagram) is that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry then something in the diagram must represent something in non-euclidean geometry?"

I'm asking if you are asking this question.  Which I created from inserting the relevant parts of questions 1 and 2 into a single question.

Why do you need someone to spoon feed you every step of the way?

You are asking me a question right?  What on earth is the problem with wanting to know if I understand it correctly? Laypeople who want to educate mathematicians in math always seem to wildly underestimate the amount of rigor required.  As I said earlier there are 200+ page proofs for 1+1 = 2.

So shall I ask my question a tenth time?  Would it matter? Again you present yourself in a way that leads me to believe that it would be trivial to answer.  You know the answer would be valuable for progressing the argument.

Why would you NOT wan't the argument to progress?  Especially if it costs you almost no time or energy to do so?

[MarkE]

Consider that someone who has painted themselves into a deep corner may hope that they can hide that fact in a shroud of ambiguity.

[sarkeizen]

Consider that someone who has painted themselves into a deep corner may hope that they can hide that fact in a shroud of ambiguity.

I just noticed that this page: http://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/a-reply-to-%E2%80%9Cthe-extinction-of-pi-the-short-version%E2%80%9D/

has the proof showing the same contradiction that I do (see disproof #2).  Funny, as I implied earlier this is something I saw in high-school.

Mathis mentions this but makes no response except to give a mild endorse ment to this guy: http://sagacityssentinel.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/a-reply-to-%E2%80%9Ca-reply-to-the-extinction-of-pi-the-short-version/

Who's counter-argument appears to be "You didn't do this exactly the same way Mathis did".

Which is interesting since it's only half an argument.  It's not sufficient, in my opinion to state that "this change may cause an error" that's the way politicians and health-food nutters argue.  What you need to do is show how this change explains the gap in the results.  Talking about potential error sources is simply an expectation and has very little statistical power.  Confirming that a prediction results in the expected difference in measurement is a met expectation and demands that we re-evaluate our premises.

That said, it's probably only half-an-argument because it's wrong. (at least as best as I can tell, as the argument has no useful level of formalism)