The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

It's like MarkE said, a circle is really a square in taxicab geometry.  Likewise, a circle is really a square or made up of pixels in the real world.  As you can clearly see, taxicab geometry correctly represents the real world!

Gravock

[MarkE]

LOL, no, as anyone who cares to check can see:  I have correctly stated that a Taxicab circle is a Euclidean square.  I have not as GB claims stated that a Euclidean circle is a Taxicab square.  GB is free to quote any of my posts where he thinks he can show otherwise.  Of course he cannot do so, just as he cannot support his other false declarations.

GB has been unable to show support for his claims instant 90 degree movement claims.  He merely asserts and his assertions fail to directly address his claims or the challenges to them.  He has today added a new pant load that light is motionless and all things accelerate at a rate close to the acceleration due to gravity at sea level on earth, millions of verified observations directly contradicting his claims be damned. 

[gravityblock]

LOL, no, as anyone who cares to check can see:  I have correctly stated that a Taxicab circle is a Euclidean square.  I have not as GB claims stated that a Euclidean circle is a Taxicab square.  GB is free to quote any of my posts where he thinks he can show otherwise.  Of course he cannot do so, just as he cannot support his other false declarations.

GB has been unable to show support for his claims instant 90 degree movement claims.  He merely asserts and his assertions fail to directly address his claims or the challenges to them.  He has today added a new pant load that light is motionless and all things accelerate at a rate close to the acceleration due to gravity at sea level on earth, millions of verified observations directly contradicting his claims be damned.

Yes, but a euclidean circle doesn't correctly represent a circular path made of pixels in the real world.  However taxicab geometry does.  I have provided you with the mechanism for the 90 degree movements.  I also never stated all things accelerate at a rate of 9.8m/s² as you wrongly asserted.  I only said our expansion acceleration in our surrounding space of the earth is 9.8m/s².  Light only reflects off a curved surface at one proper angle.  If light was moving, then we wouldn't see the entire circumference of the moon, but would see a dot.  Now, taking the craters on the moon into consideration, then the moon would look like a random cluster of stars if light was moving.  Since we see the entire circumference of the moon, then this is evidence that light is stationary, and it is us moving past stationary light via expansion acceleration.  There are many more proofs for this.  I had an accident and cut three fingers down to the bone, so it's taking a long time for me to type this out.  I'm also in the process of moving.  So, please be patient with me!

Gravock   

[MarkE]

Yes, but a euclidean circle doesn't correctly represent a circular path made of pixels in the real world.  However taxicab geometry does.  I have provided you with the mechanism for the 90 degree movements.  I also never stated all things accelerate at a rate of 9.8m/s² as you wrongly asserted.  I only said our expansion acceleration in our surrounding space of the earth is 9.8m/s².  Light only reflects off a curved surface at one proper angle.  If light was moving, then we wouldn't see the entire circumference of the moon, but would see a dot.  Now, taking the craters on the moon into consideration, then the moon would look like a random cluster of stars if light was moving.  Since we see the entire circumference of the moon, then this is evidence that light is stationary, and it is us moving past stationary light via expansion acceleration.  There are many more proofs for this.  I had an accident and cut three fingers down to the bone, so it's taking a long time for me to type this out.  I'm also in the process of moving.  So, please be patient with me!

Gravock   

LOL, you just keep filling up one pant load after another.  You have not and cannot show proof of your claim that in the "real world" that circular paths are made of pixels.  And by the way Taxicab geometry does not do what you claim either.  And no you have not provided a mechanism for sequences of perfect 90 degree movements.  You have made claims of two forces acting at 90 degrees to each other.  So, it's just one pant load after another from you.

Now, you're offering up new pant loads about the circumference of the moon not being visible by reflected light.  Did you cut your fingers thinking that a circular saw is non-Euclidean?

[sarkeizen]

As you can clearly see, taxicab geometry correctly represents the real world!

Why can't you tell me what in this diagram http://milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg is euclidean and non-euclidean.  Do you no longer assert that it has both euclidean and non-euclidean geometries in it?

And by the way Taxicab geometry does not do what you claim either.

No kidding.  Depending on which things are being asserted (which gravityblock keeps secret by not answering questions) I could think of a dozen problems that crop up because of this.