SamBridge

You have failed to prove that you can prove the location of an object in the box merely by arbitrarily placing 6 points around it. I can arbitrary imagine 6 points around anything, but that in no way effects my knowledge of how far away it is from me, and nor should it. The reason you cannot prove your method is because it is merely an extension of a 3D Cartesian coordinate system, and is inefficient.

Again your ignorance of mathematics leads you to false conclusions. Take calculus. I explicitly stated that you yourself never add an infinite number of boxes or that an input value ever equals infinity. What we do in calculus to absolutely find the exact area is to see what number the pattern of becoming indefinitely thin leads us to in nearly the same exact manner as I described with y=1/x. We never divide 1 by infinity, but we can still state that as x approaches infinity or becomes indefinitely larger, y becomes closer to 0 and indefinitely smaller. As boxes become indefinitely thin, the number of them indefinitely increases and we see a different number that this function approaches as the number of boxes goes to infinity, or as the thickness of the boxes goes to 0 and thus see what the area becomes as we get an indefinitely increasingly exact number. .9 does not equal 1, .99999999... equals 1, the action of assuming that .9999... is infinitesimally close to one allows us to treat it as the number one, in a slightly different manner than the logic above.

Based on the fact that I observed this phenomena so easily it is my guess that this trait of ants was discovered at least a decade ago. I did some googling and it appears this phenomena was already known. Still interesting though.

1. You can collide matter with anti-matter, thus making the net matter 0. All that's left is the energy the pieces of matter converted into, so in a way no matter isn't necessarily infinite. There's also the case of whatever black holes do. 2. In some sense yes, you can make energy from mass and mass from energy. 3. States such as solids, liquids and gases cannot be defined by a single atom, they are properties of how groups of atoms behave. Otherwise I don't know what you mean, otherwise we know of a few different states beyond the traditional 3, it's possible there's a few more to be discovered. 4. In a sense, but it's not that simple. Matter and light can be thought of as waves of probability, but they have properties not like waves or not like classical objects at all and we have not been able to find a single equation that can prove all particles are interchangeable with each other. 5. That doesn't exactly make sense

Not sure about you're statement, but an infinite number of .33 after the number 3 mathematically equals 1/3, whether you like it or not. You can get the exact volume of the are under a curve by doing a summation of infinite boxes that are infinitely thin. The trick is that you never just "say" infinity boxes, you use properties of mathematics to see what the result is as the number approaches infinity. For instance, as x approaches infinity in y=1/x, y approaches 0. You never say that x=infinity and that y=0, you just say what the answer is as x is indefinitely approaching infinity, the concept of which has a wide variety of uses in mathematics and engineering as well as physics.

Take calculus and you'll find out.

You don't rest your case at all, that phrase isn't even used in real course. On top of that, your 6-point system with an arbitrary and inefficient 7th "course plot" does nothing more to identify a location of any distance than mine. The difference is your 6 points are merely duplicates of locations on my 3 axis Cartesian coordinate system. It seems like many, pop-science has led you to misunderstand basic concepts. The purpose of Schrodinger's thought experiment in way way reflected on his view of reality, it merely demonstrated a seeming dilemma in applying quantum physics to the macroscopic world in the same manner. Any object can be mathematically formed using a summation of infinite of an object of a lesser dimension. However, we have found there are more ways to move and more ways to identify the locations of objects than two dimensions. We may move in more principal ways than two.

Yes, it' location is (x,y,z), represent any possible distance. You do not need to know specific numbers to know that something has x,y,z coordinates. As I said before, it doesn't matter if I know the specific numbers, all locations in 3-D space can be described as relative distances on 3 axis, as numbers, or variables. I suggest you take a class of at least high-school algebra 2 to better understand this phenomena. There are of course limits of summations, but you're going to have to get use to the 4-D world because that's where you live.

Well, are we talking about a snowball Earth 2.7 billion years ago? There were some ice age events in the Phanerozoic eon within 543 million years ago as well as some snowballs 580-730 million years ago, but Earth's atmosphere started oxygenating heavily around 2.7 billion years ago, at which point there was not much ice.

But early Earth was quite hot, at least hotter than now by the time life came around and thus there was very little ice as most continents were also in the center near the equator as well, 2.7 billion years ago. The oceans were hot and highly corrosive to nascent continental rock and the high iron content combined with high ocean temperature sucked up most oxygen in the air naturally produced by Earth, which only left early life to create oxygen air.

It matters because 3-dimensional coordinates are the foundation for 3-D mathematics in every continent in the world.

There we go, problem solved.

You gave an answer, but you still did not give evidence, which makes the answer somewhat meaningless.

Your description is vague and irrelevant, there are coincidentally 8 vertices on a cube or 6 points on 3 lines, this has nothing to do with topology itself. I can always describe something as x, y and z units away from another location in 3-D space along their respective axis regardless of if I know what those distances are. I can describe a single location on the box on an x,y,z coordinate system and assume that box is connected such that all other points of the box translate with that point. If you want to draw a picture of the box then I suppose you need 8 vertices. As yourself this: "Why do I hate Cartesian coordinates?". Cartesian coordinate systems have been used in mathematics for a very long time, I have never heard of your system before and that is most likely because it is wrong and any points you describe in your 6 point system I can describe as being relative x y and z distances away from an object in the center of them.

Why would I be worked up in any way shape or form when all you do is rant on about random incoherent things and claim an uncivil tone to change the subject stifle providing evidence for your claims?

It is my answer to what I assume your answer is based on your lack of any viable evidence, or any evidence at all.

There often little that is uncivil in my tone. You are merely wrong, it is not a personal attack. You do not need 6 points to describe the location of an object in 3 dimensional space. All you need is the distance along an x axis, a y axis and a z axis. This has nothing to do with figuring out what those distances are, they can be anything they want to. No matter what you say, I can point to any object and say it is x distance and y distance and z distance away from me. I in no way need to know what those exact distances are, such knowledge does not effect the existence of those topological properties.

Well, there are super fluids that are friction-less like liquid helium (http://phys.org/news91000719.html) and super conductors that have 0 resistance and nearly-weightless metal, it would not be impossible that Prison Break got the idea from asking an actual scientist if it is theoretically possible, or researching to find such technology is being developed. But Indium and gallium seem like weird metals to use, they are close to semi-metals and gallium being able to be liquid at room temperature has a somewhat unstable structure that inhibits electrons passing though it to some extent, I suppose there's this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_wire But you need Vanadium, they probably only mentioned those elements so they could spell the word "bargain".

So the answer remains "no".

Care to try it out? Not that I'm challenging you, I just want to see it happen in the process, it would probably help robomont as well.

You're the one who has the audacity to posts random rants without any evidence, I wouldn't be so sure that I'm the one full of myself.

Once again, methods to figure how out to triangulate an object have nothing to do with topology itself. The method I stated above is used for an unknown distance, without radar necessarily. All you need is a distance on your planet and an angle, and you can use a trigonometric function to figure out the distance as shown in the second picture I posted. You in no way need to know a "plot course" to describe a object merely sitting in space. Any object can be described in 3 dimensional space as being x, y and z distances away from an starting position.

Except you only posted directly after you posted in response to me in another topic where I showed you had no evidence to support your claims. Furthermore, I was not discussing much with you on this topic.

I send a satellite up equipped with radio communications and long range radar and triangulate it's distance from the surface, although if I do not have satellites I would have to do it this way In fact, that only technically takes two dimensions to work it out. Is this as good as you thought it would be?

I'm starting to think that's not necessarily true. Force of gravity = (G * m)/r. Since you have the same mass but a smaller radius, it should in effect increase the gravitational strength. It would create a higher acceleration due to gravity which would in effect increase the range because in all instances of gravity, the strength get's weaker proportional to the square of the distance.