The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[sarkeizen]

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

So let's just clarify something here.  You think that I am deliberately misleading (somebody) by implying that the diagram must be either euclidean or non-euclidean in it's entirety.   Right?  So clearly this terrible bias of mine would show up in this thread?  Let's look shall we....

If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.

If you agree then please tell me what (perhaps everything) is non-euclidean.

Do you understand that in order for your comment to be relevant something in that diagram must be in non-euclidian geometry?

If you do somehow understand that then please indicate what.

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

Apparently my diabolical master plan was to ask you no less than FIVE TIMES to show me which parts were non-euclidean (and five times you did not show me).

So the question still stands.  What part of that diagram is non-euclidean geometry and what parts are not?

[MarkE]

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

LOL.  Your pants are overflowing.  The EPA may soon declare you your very own SuperFund site.

[gravityblock]

sarkeizen,

Are you saying the taxicab geometry is euclidean?

Gravock

You demand that I answer your question, while you refuse to answer my questions.

Gravock

[sarkeizen]

You demand that I answer your question

I'm not demanding anything in any useful sense of the word.  However there appears to be no rational reason for you to refuse to answer my questions.

Mathis made a mistake that an O-Level calculus student should have caught.  You think I'm wrong.  I've been nothing but open and honest and forthcoming about my argument for that point.  I've engaged you at every turn on this point.  I wish I could say the same for you.   It's taken me a considerable amount of time to get simple yes or no answers from you on well-defined points, on a topic you think is worth discussing and you claim to understand well.

while you refuse to answer my questions.

Are you saying the taxicab geometry is euclidean?

I answered that question clearly, fairly and honestly.  You asked me "Are you saying" and I clarified exactly what I was saying.  How was that insufficient?

My question still stands (now asked SIX times):  You say that the diagram contains both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry.  Which parts do you consider euclidean and which parts do you consider non-euclidean?

[MarkE]

I'm not demanding anything in any useful sense of the word.  However there appears to be no rational reason for you to refuse to answer my questions.

Mathis made a mistake that an O-Level calculus student should have caught.  You think I'm wrong.  I've been nothing but open and honest and forthcoming about my argument for that point.  I've engaged you at every turn on this point.  I wish I could say the same for you.   It's taken me a considerable amount of time to get simple yes or no answers from you on well-defined points, on a topic you think is worth discussing and you claim to understand well.

I answered that question clearly, fairly and honestly.  You asked me "Are you saying" and I clarified exactly what I was saying.  How was that insufficient?

My question still stands (now asked SIX times):  You say that the diagram contains both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry.  Which parts do you consider euclidean and which parts do you consider non-euclidean?

You will have to give GB some slack.  His pants have overflowed to the point that he can no longer see.