SamBridge Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) As far as your #1 Reply...this is a case of Physicists and Cosmologists trying to out smart themselves and look right past the obvious. The obvious being...although length, width, height and time have been assigned the roles of Dimensional states 1, 2, 3 and 4...with 4 being time...the REALITY is far more complex as only 4 Dimensional States assigned to our Universal Space/Time and all the Matter and Energy within it are NOT ENOUGH dimensional states for our reality to exist. And do you have any evidence for this? I placed a number...1, 2, 3, before each question so I can refer to them in such a manner given my penchant for multipurposeful sentence structure. LOL! As far as your #1 Reply...this is a case of Physicists and Cosmologists trying to out smart themselves and look right past the obvious. The obvious being...although length, width, height and time have been assigned the roles of Dimensional states 1, 2, 3 and 4...with 4 being time...the REALITY is far more complex as only 4 Dimensional States assigned to our Universal Space/Time and all the Matter and Energy within it are NOT ENOUGH dimensional states for our reality to exist. But still...the OBVIOUS is being over looked at that is...Every single Universal Dimensional State is interconnective and governed to every other existing Universal Dimensional State. So even though Hadrons such as Protons and Neutrons are comprised of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms which need far more Universal Dimensionality than 3-D or 4-D just to be able to exist...3-D as it would be used to describe an object with the words Length, Width and Height...are 3 specific dimensional states that cannot exist without each other within our Universal Space/Time reality. So we can't have 3-D without Time or 4-D...(in reality we can't probably have 3 or 4-D without at the very least 10 or 11-D and maybe as high as 26 to 48-D)...or more...but for argument sake...a 2-D object cannot exist...3-D objects cannot exist as Time is needed or 4-D to allow MOVEMENT for Electron Orbital Fields...and even 4-D cannot exist as this will not allow for Electrons and Photons and other Quanta to behave as both Particle and Wave as well as will not allow for Frequency. So as far as 1-D or Singularity...I will say that Singularity CANNOT be described as ZERO-D...as 1 Single Point of Reference MUST exist to allow all the other possible existing Universal Dimensionality to have a base construct upon which they can be interconnective and thus allow for all dimensional states to effect and be effected by each other. So whoever thought up...HEY! Let's pretend we are REAL SMART and tell everyone...LOOK NO HANDS!...or NO D!...really are not very smart at all! LOL! I guess I forgot to list 1,2,or 3 when posting so...oh well! Split Infinity And do you have evidence for any of this as well? I would think twice before complaining about a lack of evidence if I were you, as well as signing your name at the bottom. All a dimension is, is a way to describe a location of something. In 3 dimensional space, it takes 3 coordinates to describe the exact location of something, in 4 dimensional space it takes 4 coordinates to describe the exact location of something and ect. As I said before, mathematics is just a pattern we observe put into terms of numeric value, as such it does not constitute reality itself, but it does constitute the logic of the patterns we observe if the patterns we observe are consistent with the mathematics applied to them, which there are plenty of cases of. Edited May 27, 2013 by SamBridge
SplitInfinity Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 And do you have any evidence for this? And do you have evidence for any of this as well? I would think twice before complaining about a lack of evidence if I were you, as well as signing your name at the bottom. All a dimension is, is a way to describe a location of something. In 3 dimensional space, it takes 3 coordinates to describe the exact location of something, in 4 dimensional space it takes 4 coordinates to describe the exact location of something and ect. As I said before, mathematics is just a pattern we observe put into terms of numeric value, as such it does not constitute reality itself, but it does constitute the logic of the patterns we observe if the patterns we observe are consistent with the mathematics applied to them, which there are plenty of cases of. Excuse me but I was under the impression that it takes 6 points of position to describe the location of something and a 7th point to plot a course to it? Our Space/Time IS NOT 4-D as even for Space/Time to EXIST....we are going to have at a minimum 10 or 11 Dimensional States and even that number is probably not enough Dimensionality for Space?Time to exist. WHY? We know that Particles of Mass and Energy must exist as well are required and necessary for our Universal Space/Time to exist. This is a FACT as since such Particles of Mass and Energy are required for the EXISTENCE OF GRAVITY and Protons and Neutrons being the particles of Mass which at their very smallest Base Constructs are comprised completely of Quantum Particle?Wave Forms such as Quarks, Gluons, Mesons, Leptons and the all important Higgs-Boson which is the Quanta that gives Protons and Neutrons the ability TO HAVE MASS. Now Quanta and as example Photons and Electrons which are Particle/Wave Forms of ENERGY which have as a Wave Function...FREQUENCY. For such Quanta to even EXIST as both Particle and Wave never mind obtain and exist at a variety of Frequencies dependent upon condition....4-D is not nearly enough Dimensionality for such Quanta to exist as both particle and wave as well as obtain frequency. Since it is th Higgs-Boson or the GOD Particle...which allows Protons and Neutrons to have Mass as well as the existence of such Hadrons of Mass are responsible for the existence of such Hadrons to generate a Gravity Well or the Effect of Gravity...as well as the very existence of such Particles of Mass generating a Effect of Gravity....this shows us how our Universal Space/Time Geometric Dimensionality is dictated to a specific description or construct via the existence of Both Quantum Particle/Wave Forms as well as the particles of Mass they comprise such as Protons and Neutrons and I am waiting for someone to mention PIONS... a family of lighter particles called Pions that are made from pairs of quarks. They are made from pairs of Up and Down quarks. As far as the ZERO-D thing....well A state of Zero Dimensionality would be akin to a definition of NON-EXISTENCE....and well now...WE JUST CAN'T ABIDE BY THAT! LOL! Split Infinity...p.s...better to have an idea and talk about it risking being laughed at or ridiculed by others....than hunker down and keep ones Mouth Shut in some idiotic attempt to minimize RISK in order to gain the appearance of looking smart.
SamBridge Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) Excuse me but I was under the impression that it takes 6 points of position to describe the location of something and a 7th point to plot a course to it? I'm not even sure what that literally translates to in English. In any case, I'm assuming your initial assumption is wrong. It takes 3 coordinates to describe something in 3 dimensional space. Our Space/Time IS NOT 4-D as even for Space/Time to EXIST....we are going to have at a minimum 10 or 11 Dimensional States and even that number is probably not enough Dimensionality for Space?Time to exist. WHY? It's certainly possible, but we don't know that for sure, modern theories like to stop at 6 because of complex manifolds at a small level. We know that Particles of Mass and Energy must exist as well are required and necessary for our Universal Space/Time to exist. This is a FACT as since such Particles of Mass and Energy are required for the EXISTENCE OF GRAVITY and Protons and Neutrons being the Not sure exactly what this means. The fabric of space-time can easily exist if all the matter and energy in the universe was removed as the fabric of space-time is not composed of either. If it was, we would measure it having the properties of mass and energy. In fact, gravity can exist if you removed every particle except the Higg's Boson as well. Now Quanta and as example Photons and Electrons which are Particle/Wave Forms of ENERGY which have as a Wave Function...FREQUENCY. For such Quanta to even EXIST as both Particle and Wave never mind obtain and exist at a variety of Frequencies dependent upon condition....4-D is not nearly enough Dimensionality for such Quanta to exist as both particle and wave as well as obtain frequency. Ok? So what's your point? I agree, it would be hard to completely describe all physical interactions of particles using only 4 dimensions. As far as the ZERO-D thing....well A state of Zero Dimensionality would be akin to a definition of NON-EXISTENCE....and well now...WE JUST CAN'T ABIDE BY THAT! LOL! You can easily "abide" by it, you just do not have to accept that it physically exists. As I stated before, there are hypothesis that the interior of a black hole including the singularity is 0 dimensional and thus is uniformly a single complex object past the event horizon, everywhere within the black hole is pure uniformity, as there is no distance in any dimension separating points in any n-dimensional space inside. However, we have little evidence for the physical nature of this, which I am guessing you agree with. Split Infinity...p.s...better to have an idea and talk about it risking being laughed at or ridiculed by others....than hunker down and keep ones Mouth Shut in some idiotic attempt to minimize RISK in order to gain the appearance of looking smart. Yes, it is good to talk about ideas, but it is not good to troll, use improper grammar and thus make it harder to be understood or use no evidence to support your seemingly random and incoherent claims. Edited May 28, 2013 by SamBridge
SplitInfinity Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I'm not even sure what that literally translates to in English. In any case, I'm assuming your initial assumption is wrong. It takes 3 coordinates to describe something in 3 dimensional space. It's certainly possible, but we don't know that for sure, modern theories like to stop at 6 because of complex manifolds at a small level. Not sure exactly what this means. The fabric of space-time can easily exist if all the matter and energy in the universe was removed as the fabric of space-time is not composed of either. If it was, we would measure it having the properties of mass and energy. In fact, gravity can exist if you removed every particle except the Higg's Boson as well. Ok? So what's your point? I agree, it would be hard to completely describe all physical interactions of particles using only 4 dimensions. You can easily "abide" by it, you just do not have to accept that it physically exists. As I stated before, there are hypothesis that the interior of a black hole including the singularity is 0 dimensional and thus is uniformly a single complex object past the event horizon, everywhere within the black hole is pure uniformity, as there is no distance in any dimension separating points in any n-dimensional space inside. However, we have little evidence for the physical nature of this, which I am guessing you agree with. Yes, it is good to talk about ideas, but it is not good to troll, use improper grammar and thus make it harder to be understood or use no evidence to support your seemingly random and incoherent claims. In order to locate an object and pin point it's position in space....you need 6 points of position and a 7th point to plot a course. To clarify this further, if you have a known axis (i.e the center of the universe), then you could indeed use a three dimensional axis by using (x, y, z). This would give you the distance from the center of the universe on each axis. This is impractical however, because of the level of precision needed in something as massive as space would require a huge number for each axis...this would be impossible for a symbolic representation. As far as 4-D not being enough dimensionality for Quanta to exist as both Particle and Wave...even String Theory and M-Theory does not fully account for all behaviors of Quanta and what we talk about in Quantum Mechanics is only Behavior as we have no idea why and how Quanta does what it does. As far as you reply where you state that our Space/Time could and would still exist if all matter and energy were removed...well I try not to post in a negative manner or try to make others feel as if they are being targeted or picked upon for making a mistake but in your case you have purposely gone out of your way to post a reply in a negative and even insulting manner....so I will not hold back on my response to your reply. Your replied statement is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous and laughable one I have ever read upon this board and what makes it even more so is that you are not only convinced it is correct but you have even used this as a counter to my statement. It is the Matter and Energy or particles and wave forms of that were ejected at the moment of the Big Bang and their outward forced expansion that is CREATING SPACE/TIME. NO MATTER AND ENERGY = NO SPACE/TIME. As far as ZERO-D...well that concept regardless of any with possible credentials that my lay claim to it is just stupidity. Your last statement to me is unfortunate as I have attempted to form a friendship or at least a reality of mutual respect between us. I suppose that not everyone has an understanding of etiquette or friendly social interaction. When two people on this forum are having a debate...it is not important nor should the goal be..."I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG SO I WIN!" The goal should be the advancement of knowledge and understanding upon a great many levels....not just the ones specific to the science or math of an issue. You have demonstrated by your reply...you have a great deal to yet learn and I wish you good luck in that endeavor. Split Infinity
SamBridge Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) In order to locate an object and pin point it's position in space....you need 6 points of position and a 7th point to plot a course. No, you don't, you need x,y,z from any relative location. x units along the x axis, y units along the y axis, and z units along the z axis. To clarify this further, if you have a known axis (i.e the center of the universe), then you could indeed use a three dimensional axis by using (x, y, z). This would give you the distance from the center of the universe on each axis. You can always use a relative 3-d x,y,z axis in any relative location in 3-dimension space. Your replied statement is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous and laughable one I have ever read upon this board You have a great deal of scientists to laugh at then. It is the Matter and Energy or particles and wave forms of that were ejected at the moment of the Big Bang and their outward forced expansion that is CREATING SPACE/TIME. NO MATTER AND ENERGY = NO SPACE/TIME. As far as ZERO-D...well that concept regardless of any with possible credentials that my lay claim to it is just stupidity. Nope, space-time and particles are not interchangeable, there is absolutely no experiment or any evidence that matter and energy are interchangeable with the fabric of space-time. If you could even name one nut-case with even an associates degree in physics to support that I would be amazed. Your last statement to me is unfortunate as I have attempted to form a friendship or at least a reality of mutual respect between us. I suppose that not everyone has an understanding of etiquette or friendly social interaction. When two people on this forum are having a debate...it is not important nor should the goal be Split Infinity What you don't understand is you cannot make stuff up and call that science, you have 0 proof or even evidence of anything you are saying. Science requires evidence and at minimum coherent logic. Edited May 30, 2013 by SamBridge
SplitInfinity Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 No, you don't, you need x,y,z from any relative location. x units along the x axis, y units along the y axis, and z units along the z axis. You can always use a relative 3-d x,y,z axis in any relative location in 3-dimension space. You have a great deal of scientists to laugh at then. Nope, space-time and particles are not interchangeable, there is absolutely no experiment or any evidence that matter and energy are interchangeable with the fabric of space-time. If you could even name one nut-case with even an associates degree in physics to support that I would be amazed. What you don't understand is you cannot make stuff up and call that science, you have 0 proof or even evidence of anything you are saying. Science requires evidence and at minimum coherent logic. Oh...This is going to be good! OK.....there is a planet orbiting Bellatrix...a second magnitude star and the third brightest in the constellation of Orion. Now using your stated method...show me exactly how you would locate this planet. Split Infinity
SamBridge Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) Oh...This is going to be good! OK.....there is a planet orbiting Bellatrix...a second magnitude star and the third brightest in the constellation of Orion. Now using your stated method...show me exactly how you would locate this planet. Split Infinity 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? Edited May 30, 2013 by SamBridge
SplitInfinity Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 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 expected that you would skirt out of the question in this manner. Thing is....WE CAN SEE THE MOON as well as we can use anything from Radar, Laser...etc...broadcasts to determine the Moons distance and position. Now the question I have given you is you are to find a Planet orbiting at an unknown distance from Bellatrix using your stated method. Even if you knew the relative positions of 5 Stars or Planets specific to this Planet YOU COULD NOT DETERMINE IT'S LOCATION. You need 6 points of position known and relative to the object you are trying to find and a 7th point to plot a course. Split Infinity
SamBridge Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) I expected that you would skirt out of the question in this manner. Thing is....WE CAN SEE THE MOON as well as we can use anything from Radar, Laser...etc...broadcasts to determine the Moons distance and position. Now the question I have given you is you are to find a Planet orbiting at an unknown distance from Bellatrix using your stated method. Even if you knew the relative positions of 5 Stars or Planets specific to this Planet YOU COULD NOT DETERMINE IT'S LOCATION. You need 6 points of position known and relative to the object you are trying to find and a 7th point to plot a course. Split Infinity 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. Edited May 30, 2013 by SamBridge
SplitInfinity Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 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. I am well aware of how to triangulate an object using several methods as when the Apollo missions and especially Apollo 11 were going on...HAM Radio operators from all over the planet were triangulating the Apollo Missions craft as it approached the moon. Now I KNEW that this whole thing was a misunderstanding upon your part as I knew EXACTLY what you were talking about. The thing is you did not know that was aware of this and if you had just been so civil as to ask me why I stated 6 points of position were required to find an object in 3-D Space as I stated this because the manner you had stated that only 3 were needed is only true or relative if one already KNOWS where the object is whether it has been detected by Radar or Sight or whatever. If you DON'T know where something as say...the planet I have talked about orbiting a distant star is....but you know 6 other points ...say other planets or stars location relative to this unknown located planet....then all you have to do is draw straight lines through 3 groups of two objects and it will give you the exact location. To be able to plot a course a seventh point is needed and you would draw a straight line from the seventh position to the center of crossed lines detailing the location of this planet. Split Infinity....as it relates to this topic...the lingual theory of everything....MIKEY...as I have said...everything means EVERYTHING and that includes...IT TAKES ALL KINDS! LOL!
SamBridge Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) I am well aware of how to triangulate an object using several methods as when the Apollo missions and especially Apollo 11 were going on...HAM Radio operators from all over the planet were triangulating the Apollo Missions craft as it approached the moon. Now I KNEW that this whole thing was a misunderstanding upon your part as I knew EXACTLY what you were talking about. The thing is you did not know that was aware of this and if you had just been so civil as to ask me why I stated 6 points of position were required to find an object in 3-D Space as I stated this because the manner you had stated that only 3 were needed is only true or relative if one already KNOWS where the object is whether it has been detected by Radar or Sight or whatever. If you DON'T know where something as say...the planet I have talked about orbiting a distant star is....but you know 6 other points ...say other planets or stars location relative to this unknown located planet....then all you have to do is draw straight lines through 3 groups of two objects and it will give you the exact location. To be able to plot a course a seventh point is needed and you would draw a straight line from the seventh position to the center of crossed lines detailing the location of this planet. 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. Edited May 30, 2013 by SamBridge
SplitInfinity Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 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. OK...lets make this simple. We have a box....inside this box is an invisible object. Attached to the inside surface of the box is 6 hooks and each hook inside this box are at a KNOWN distance from the invisible object. We also have 3 strings. Now all I have to do is connect a string from one hook across the distance inside the box to another hook. I do this two more times and where the three strings all touch each other is the location of this invisible object. Now you have the same things as I and the same information and that even includes the actual distances of each hook to this invisible object. SO SHOW ME HOW YOU ARE GOING TO DO THIS USING YOUR METHOD WITH WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN HERE? Split Infinity This FOLKS is what I really wish we could all avoid. So many times a misunderstanding turns into a two or three page flurry of crap over...You said this! I said THAT! It is all a waste of time. Even if either of the two or more parties simply just stated what they either felt or knew to be correct and took a small amount of time to gain an understanding WHY another person might be posting something rather than jump to conclusions for the shear pettiness of being able to say...I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG!...then by taking this moment to figure out what another is thinking or trying to say...we wouldn't have to go through such things. Ask yourself this....what is more important? Being able to say to a person YOUR WRONG AND I'M RIGHT! Or gaining an understanding of what another person is thinking and THEN explain to them why you either believe or know what they are talking about is either incorrect or misdirected? For those who are trying to think BIG PICTURE as this TOPIC is about....what could be more...BIG PICTURE...than forming bonds and friendships with others which is a definite plus when attempting to convey a concept or idea? Split Infinity
SamBridge Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) OK...lets make this simple. We have a box....inside this box is an invisible object. Attached to the inside surface of the box is 6 hooks and each hook inside this box are at a KNOWN distance from the invisible object. We also have 3 strings. Now all I have to do is connect a string from one hook across the distance inside the box to another hook. I do this two more times and where the three strings all touch each other is the location of this invisible object. Now you have the same things as I and the same information and that even includes the actual distances of each hook to this invisible object. SO SHOW ME HOW YOU ARE GOING TO DO THIS USING YOUR METHOD WITH WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN HERE? 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. Ask yourself this....what is more important? As yourself this: "Why do I hate Cartesian coordinates?". Ask yourself this....what is more important? Being able to say to a person YOUR WRONG AND I'M RIGHT! Or gaining an understanding of what another person is thinking and THEN explain to them why you either believe or know what they are talking about is either incorrect or misdirected? For those who are trying to think BIG PICTURE as this TOPIC is about....what could be more...BIG PICTURE...than forming bonds and friendships with others which is a definite plus when attempting to convey a concept or idea? 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. Edited May 30, 2013 by SamBridge
Popcorn Sutton Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Guys, does it matter how many points are needed to determine a particles position in space? If you ask me, all you need is one, "There!". In other words, a one dimensional point of reference. Observer and observed. Are we planning a trip to Trihyptocline-Z143 anytime soon? We still need to figure out how to get off the planet efficiently and cost effectively.
SamBridge Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Guys, does it matter how many points are needed to determine a particles position in space? If you ask me, all you need is one, "There!". In other words, a one dimensional point of reference. Observer and observed. Are we planning a trip to Trihyptocline-Z143 anytime soon? We still need to figure out how to get off the planet efficiently and cost effectively. It matters because 3-dimensional coordinates are the foundation for 3-D mathematics in every continent in the world.
SplitInfinity Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 It matters because 3-dimensional coordinates are the foundation for 3-D mathematics in every continent in the world. So then you should be able very easily to find the location of the invisible object in the Box now shouldn't you? I have asked a question of you. Now can you do it or not? And using such statements to hide your inability to find the invisible objects location inside the box as...and I quote..."Your description is vague and irrelevant,"...is just not going to cut it. The thing is to find the LOCATION of an object in any 3-D space...you need to have 6 points of position known and relative to the object you wish to find. YOU CANNOT LOCATE SUCH AN OBJECT USING YOUR METHOD. Triangulation is specific to an already known state as if HAM operators did not know where the Moon was...say the Moon was invisible....they would not know where the Astronauts were as to how close to the Moon they might be or upon it as they Triangulated their signal coming from their craft. I have always known EXACTLY what you were talking about from the very beginning...but since you added...being able to know the position...to your statements...and I knew that the method you have described would not allow one to locate an objects position...unless that object were sending out a Radio Signal...I let you swim out with a lot of line before setting the hook. I would not have done this at all if it were not for your rude comments. So how about it? Find the invisible object. Split Infinity
Popcorn Sutton Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 It matters because 3-dimensional coordinates are the foundation for 3-D mathematics in every continent in the world. To me Sam, 3 dimensional is meaningless. To even suggest anything more than 2 dimensions.... I won't project my thoughts. Basically, slice here, slice there, (slice here), maybe make another slice or two. In any case, they are all 2 dimensional. The point of interest just happens to intersect all slices specifically at it's location.
SamBridge Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) So then you should be able very easily to find the location of the invisible object in the Box now shouldn't you? 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. To me Sam, 3 dimensional is meaningless. To even suggest anything more than 2 dimensions.... I won't project my thoughts. Basically, slice here, slice there, (slice here), maybe make another slice or two. In any case, they are all 2 dimensional. 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. Edited May 31, 2013 by SamBridge
Popcorn Sutton Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 No I don't live, I am both alive and dead simultaneously. Imo, I exist at all moments simultaneously, and as split once said to me, movement is an expression of one dimensionality, I accept his statement.
SplitInfinity Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 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. I rest my case. Split Infinity
Popcorn Sutton Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Or it could be an expression of zero dimensionality, which I think is even more plausible. But science seems to be making a consensus on two dimensionality (hawking and the plumber)
SamBridge Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) I rest my case. Split Infinity 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. No I don't live, I am both alive and dead simultaneously. Imo, I exist at all moments simultaneously, and as split once said to me, movement is an expression of one dimensionality, I accept his statement. Or it could be an expression of zero dimensionality, which I think is even more plausible. But science seems to be making a consensus on two dimensionality (hawking and the plumber) 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. Edited May 31, 2013 by SamBridge
Popcorn Sutton Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I doubt it, plus you used the word infinity, which is a fallacy in my book. It appeals to something that is unobservable.
SamBridge Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I doubt it, plus you used the word infinity, which is a fallacy in my book. It appeals to something that is unobservable. Take calculus and you'll find out.
Popcorn Sutton Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Sam, I believe that if it is not progress, then it is not worth money. Appealing to eternity will never prove the existence of anything. Take .9r, and keep subtracting 1 9 from the end of it, that number is equal to 1 in the moment now.
Recommended Posts