reverse

what I thought would be a good one, was to modify this planet, rubber band one. so you get the planet. put a horizontal and vertical axis through it., but extend both axis right outside the circle. Then overlay a square with its sides the same length as the diameter of the circle. Now by rotating both shapes about their centre you will reach two interesting limits. The one where the tangent is parallel to the horizontal axis, and the one where there is a 45 degree angle on each side of the ladder. (You can even overlay another square, moving in exactly the mirrored direction) So I guess the question is, for what height of ladder do you calculate that your formula will first fail. ignore what they told you. think inside the square

I found a web page that shows some boffins solving these sorts of problems using way less obvious methods. Now where did I put that link. ahh here it is. http://www.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de/~sillke/PUZZLES/rope-around-earth

are you calling the surface of the planet a straight line? can you do that?

ok found out more about this one. it's by langman from 1935. there is also a paradox named after him.

oh I see, the problem I saw was slightly different. it was string not elastic.. I see what you mean. It's about triangles and circles. that ratio of 64k to 0.5, is going to make for an interesting tangent. I'm still suspicious that this may not be a simple math trick. well if it was just math, you can get the length of a side by adding the ladder on to the radius which is related to the diameter through the Pi ratio? and you know the length of your other side already. so Pythagoras told us how to get the last side length? (and also how to find the angle at the hub or core of the planet... which we double for the other side of the ladder)...then subtract twice the shortest sides of the triangle form the % dia...??? this is way too sluggish. there must be a shortcut. that's it...I dont enjoy math,I'm going to build something. later.

I don't enjoy math sorry. But I seriously do remember this problem in a slightly different variation from ages back. Hey Callipygous, What was the main hitch you saw in solving this one?

no offence intended. I have no way of telling if you are a clever twelve year old going to put a wire in the electrical outlet in the living room or a industrial electrical engineer just killing time before commissioning a atomic power plant. What I really wanted to do was cover all the bases. If you were a youngster, I didn’t want you to simply accept and remember particular formulae or rule; I wanted you to understand it in context. That would give you the greatest power to bend and twist it to your real world application. If there was some way I could get you in that room with Thales as he observed the straw sticking to amber or slide you in a chair next to Galvani as he watched those legs twitch...that would be fantastic. I thought the links would have to do as a second rate substitute.

I'm thinking, start by removing all the distracting Cr**. it's not a sphere, its a circle. it's not a rubber band, its another circle.,. it's not 64K it’s just 64. and so on. I have herd this one before, and the answer was surprising to me. man, three post's in a row. what a post hog.

The answer is in understanding the mental process of the "merge". that has a lot more value (to me anyway) than what the monk did to kill a few days.

because I want you to have some closure on this, I will say that a true monk is able to go up the mountain without ever leaving. It's part of their enlightenment. they bring all places together at the same moment. so the answer is..... "always", or everywhere .

Grab the handrail. It’s all just hypothetical at the moment. Or should I say Hyper-theoretical. So can we think of an experiment to test if there is any value in connecting the place where hyper cubes play out their rules and dreams form?

because?? it might be difficult to test cause and effect because of the scrambling effect one might theoretically attribute to our hypothetical zone. theoretically. PS; wouldn’t it really Pi** you off to find out that in dimension 4, there was some really simple number to relate the diameter of a circle to its circumference.

Yep my original title was "computer dreams", but I couldn’t resist the P K Dick Blade runner restyling. Stolen! Some people might take exception to that. but I’m not one of those people. (I wont go down the side track of why you cant credit the variation to Mr Dick ). I think he also did Minority Report and Blade Runner and Total Recall. He might be dead now unfortunately. This whole idea of an actual place called Hyperspace grew out of a thread a few days back. the basic idea was that X was a line, X squared was an area. X cubed was a volume and X to the forth power was a hypercube that existed for arguments sake in hyperspace. What struck me was the way the math was able to link the three real dimensions. The fact that a circle expanding in the “Area” dimension was mimicked by a proportionally growing line in “length” dimension , that’s significant. The fact that the volume of a sphere grows proportionally in the “Volume” dimension mimicking a growing circle in the “Area” dimension is also significant. So could math be a tool to let us look outside reality and get some shadow of what is going on in dimension four? Apparently so. A tool to look outside the confines of reality, that is some tool. Was it the only tool I wondered? Was there any other way we could look outside reality?

I think he got the question wrong. here is a link to its origin. dont click it if you want to think it through. http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~faucon/151/Elements%20of%20blending.pdf

ok I have another answer. It uses the idea of the "blend". ps (are you sure you got that question exactly right?)

I wont spoil it. But I’m thinking that the fact he is a Buddhist monk is significant.

well it's all Greek to me. I'm guessing he has realised that the various forms can go into only five groups, each containing the single root form appearing as different only due to a trick of POV. Yes, and utopia is in hyperspace as well. utopia = no place.

As some consolation . could you imagine the horror of living in a world where all those kids that did not want to learn where simply tossed out at an early age. It would be a land ripe for superstition and crime. .

As usual my brain has come up with an odd theory that I need to hammer out with other minds to see if there is any value whatsoever in it. Starting point was the thought that all the complex equations devised hundreds of years ago to approximate reality are now finding an unintended use in making Computer generated films like Lord of the rings and so on. Added to that the thought that many of these equations describe events that seem to exist outside out three dimensional world. Call it Hyperspace. So without going into the details of it. It struck me as kind of funny that we might actually dream in hyperspace. And that reason can not exist in hyperspace ( the rules are not the same as the physical world ) So dreams make no logical sense. And the finally bit of humour comes from the loop of: a film maker using these abstract formulae to express a dream or imagination so that we can see what he/she has seen in hyperspace. Do we dream in hyperspace?

I'm really not smart enough to understand that sort of thing. My appreciation for things goes as far as observing an effect and finding out how the people who stumbled across it got there.

the pictures are the main thing. I'm guessing you want something that can fly using this effect. to make a really cool device, you will be required to understand the concept behind it all. If you are a really interested beginner, you can start where we started. Here. http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Biographies/GalvaniBio.htm and even before that look what Thales did with old tree sap here, http://library.thinkquest.org/6064/history.html I wont dig up any more links for you because I will be doing you a disservice by not allowing you to fine tune your research skills.

Euclid from 200 B.C., http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Euclid.html Ludwig Schlafli from 1901. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Schlafli.html

You are going to need a light powersupply if you want it to be free roaming. http://www.edu.aytolacoruna.es/aula/fisica/fisicaInteractiva/sacaleE_M2/Triboelecetricidad/vanderGraff/GeneradorEVG_Trabajo.htm dont say I never do anything for you.

This guy is not really worth spending time on.

Wonder what sort of education he has had?