The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

I think it would be rather hilarious to take a walk in the city with gravock. When you come to that vacant lot and want to cut across the diagonal to get over to the next Starbuck's... he will be constrained to make little right-angled segments that are parallel to the streets, while you simply walk the diagonal and get your decaf nonfat Grande Latte halfway drunk by the time he walks in the door.

Obviously you, sarkeizen, and MarkE would jump into the green car and take the straight and shortest path, while I jump into the yellow car taking the curved and longest path and win the race!  In your example above, you once again conveniently left out the time element by not allowing me to have the same acceleration along the rectilinear path as one would have by travelling a curved path in the real world with a time variable.  You on the other hand would only have a velocity across the diameter.  You do not win TK, for there is no such thing as an orbital velocity.  It is an acceleration along the perimeter or circumference of a curved path and only a velocity across the diameter.

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.

It is you who is trying to mislead the reader.  The Starbuck's example I am now referring to, which conveniently had no appearance of quantity of seconds or a time variable in order to give me an acceleration, has nothing to do with a previous post made by you which does have quantity "seconds" or a time variable.  There is no doubt the reader will see this deliberate misdirection made by you.

Gravock

[sarkeizen]

It is you who is trying to mislead the reader.

Is answering a few clear, plain English, yes/no questions so hard?  Here they are again, in case you forgot...

i) If I say that this diagram: http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg showing a bunch of "steps" implies that the pythagorean theorem is false.  Do you agree with me or not?
ii) If not, then is your basis for your objection that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry?.  Yes or no?
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry.  Agree or disagree?

If you disagree how can your objection to my proof about the diagram be unrelated to the diagram?  If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.

[gravityblock]

So you're refusing to answer a clearly worded, plain English question again?

i) If I say that this diagram: http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg showing a bunch of "steps" implies that the pythagorean theorem is false.  Do you agree with me or not?
ii) If not, then is your basis for your objection that the pythagorean theorem is not applicable to non-euclidean geometry?.  Yes or no?
iii) If yes, then clearly that diagram has to represent something in non-euclidean geometry.  Agree or disagree?

If you disagree how can your objection to my proof about the diagram be unrelated to the diagram?  If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.

If you are not able to distinguish between euclidean and non-euclidean geometry, then you are beyond help.  I can not see the relevant parts for you, it is something you must see for yourself.  In your diagram, you are trying to use euclidean geometry to prove a non-euclidean geometry to actually be euclidean.  The fact that the Pythagorean theorem is proven false, should be a good indicator for you that it is not euclidean geometry and is actually non-euclidean.  You are caught in a contradiction, and there is no way out for you, except to assert that you do not see the relevant parts of your diagram which expressly states it as being non-euclidean.

Gravock

[sarkeizen]

it is not euclidean geometry and is actually non-euclidean.

So in other words this diagram http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg is non-euclidean right?

[gravityblock]

So in other words this diagram http://www.milesmathis.com/vel5.jpg is non-euclidean right?

It has both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry in it.  Your question wrongly implies it has one or the other, when in fact it has both.  This is a deliberate misdirection made by you.

Gravock