Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   red-shift & the center of the universe?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 31 of 63 (465209)
05-04-2008 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by IamJoseph
05-04-2008 12:00 AM


Re: You Can't Go Outside
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
And there was no where or everwhere or space.
What does that have to do with anything? The Big Bang didn't happen in space. It created space.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.
quote:
But we cannot fathom such a scenario
Sure we can. Just because you don't understand the math and physics doesn't mean nobody else does. Do not confuse your lack of creativity with a universal trait. When I was in my prime as a mathematician, I could easily visualize four dimensions and on good days, I could hold onto five.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.
quote:
If we locate a key on Jupiter, we cannot conclude this is absolute proof of intelligent life
Non sequitur. Please rephrase. What does this have to do with "if the universe began at many points, it inclines to a behind-the-scene mechanism which would have to trigger it to do so"? Are you about to make Paley's argument?
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.
quote:
IOW, the key and lock have a connective factor
Oh, dear lord, you are. You do realize that the universe cannot be analogized to a key and lock, yes? Paley's argument has long since been discredited.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.
quote:
Now if all points started the universe
Incorrect. You have that backwards. The universe started all points. The Big Bang did not happen in space. It created space.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.
quote:
First you must define the difference between an accident and what is not so.
Incorrect. You're the one making the claim. Therefore you are the one who needs to support your argument. It is not necessary for me to show that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that 2 + 2 <> 5. Oh, it would be nice to do so, but it isn't necessary.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.
quote:
My premise is an intergration is the antithesis of an accident.
What do you mean by "accident"?
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by IamJoseph, posted 05-04-2008 12:00 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 32 of 63 (465210)
05-04-2008 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by IamJoseph
05-04-2008 12:33 AM


Re: You Can't Go Outside
IamJoseph responds to lyxtono:
quote:
quote:
Are raindrops acting in concert when they all fall in the same direction?
Yes. Even if each one is differentially individualistic.
Huh? You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, yes? If they are differentially individualistic, then they are not in concert.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.
quote:
In the event of falling to the earth as raindrops, these are all acting in concert.
So why don't they all fall at the same time? If they were in concert, they'd act all at once. Since they're not, they must not be acting in concert.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.
quote:
What alternative?
Independence.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by IamJoseph, posted 05-04-2008 12:33 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 33 of 63 (465211)
05-04-2008 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by IamJoseph
05-04-2008 12:39 AM


Re: You Can't Go Outside
IamJoseph responds to lyx2no:
quote:
One can say an event which appears complex can be a random accident.
Who said anything about an accident?
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.
quote:
I gave an analogy of a lock and key. It is not just my opinion or my invention.
Indeed. You stole it from Paley and it has long since been discredited. The universe is not comparable to a key and lock.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by IamJoseph, posted 05-04-2008 12:39 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by IamJoseph, posted 05-04-2008 2:20 AM Rrhain has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 34 of 63 (465213)
05-04-2008 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by IamJoseph
05-04-2008 12:39 AM


Re: You Can't Go Outside
Um . what he said.
And He's right about that sphere thing.

Kindly
Ta-da ≠ QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by IamJoseph, posted 05-04-2008 12:39 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 35 of 63 (465215)
05-04-2008 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Rrhain
05-04-2008 12:31 AM


quote:
Incorrect. As you have no doubt heard, imagine the universe a balloon. If you blow air into the balloon, the surface expands, all points receding away from all others.
And even though the surface of the balloon is finite, it has no center.
This is casino science, a syndrome which has plagued modern science, but is slowly being dislodged, in spite of the career blackmails. In fact, the surface of the balloon has a centre at all times, even when expanding. Here, the centre is subjective, and changes if the subject position changes -a variable, subjective centre - but it does not mean there is no centre. I can give you another example which will verify this casino science syndrome: does a circle have a centre if your not there to say so?
What the balloon example says is, not just that there is no centre - but also that there is no balloon surface - because it is variable - based its own criteria. Why would one adept in maths and logics stick to such manipulative, agenda based manouverings?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This says there was a beginning, that all of the universe began from that point, and there was nothing else outside of that point. It defines Finite.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. You are again confusing "infinite" with "unbounded." The two are not connected. You can have:
Bounded, infinite sets (the set of all numbers between 0 and 1, inclusive)
Unbounded, infinite sets (the set of all numbers between 0 and 1, exclusive)
Bounded, finite sets (the surface of a square)
Unbounded, finite sets (the surface of a sphere)
[referring to considering the universe to be a marble]
No, you cannot. The adademic rendering of boundless/infinite does not apply in reality. Academics only work when it is applied to another academic base. One can academically prove the sun did not rise yesterday - even as the sun rises.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of science does that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it doesn't. The universe is not a sphere.
The shape does not matter. Mass can apply.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a finite universe, everything must have a centre.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center. You have had this pointed out to you at least half a dozen times. Are you doing to actually acknowledge it or do we need to have another turn on the merry-go-round?
The surface does have a centre at all times. At spacetime point A it has one centre; at point B [when the surface is changed] - there will be another centre therein. The centre never becomes negated. What you are saying is not that a sphear's surface does not have a centre; in fact you are saying two different circles do not have the same centre - and using this to negate a centre altogether.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your definition of a boundaryless universe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A universe without a boundary, of course. You do know what a boundary is, yes? To have a boundary, you must have an exterior point. But there are no exterior points. Thus, the universe has no boundary.
There is a boundary. If you condone the BB you condone a boundary. A finite realm means all within it is finite. Else it was not finite. Thus I said, first place your preamble, which universe are you talking about?
quote:
The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.
It does. And is mathematically alligns itself when you alter the sphear.
quote:
Adam was the first man. The first humans were created on the sixth day. The days in Genesis 1 are literal days. Therefore, the universe was created five days before the creation of Adam.
Without the sun's luminosity: how do you arrive at that? Read again, what you disregarded. Here, the verses are not talking about the sun, but if the sun's light [luminosity]; this is the 4th cosmic day, so the previous 3 days could not be counted by 24-hour days:
quote:
1/14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so.
And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.
That is the reason these days are not included in the OT Calendar. A very advanced and deeply scientific factor, and one far reaching into advanced sciences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2008 12:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2008 2:56 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 40 by lyx2no, posted 05-04-2008 9:39 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 36 of 63 (465216)
05-04-2008 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Rrhain
05-04-2008 12:51 AM


Re: You Can't Go Outside
quote:
You stole it from Paley and it has long since been discredited. The universe is not comparable to a key and lock.
Never heard of the guy. I made it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2008 12:51 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2008 3:12 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 37 of 63 (465218)
05-04-2008 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by IamJoseph
05-04-2008 1:11 AM


IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
This is casino science
Incorrect. It is pure mathematics. The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center. While the universe is not the surface of a sphere, it also does not have a center and yet is finite. There is only so much space in the entire universe, but you can never reach the end. It is finite and unbounded.
Because all points within the universe are receding from each other, there is no center.
quote:
In fact, the surface of the balloon has a centre at all times, even when expanding.
Incorrect. Note, we are not talking about the sphere of the balloon. We are talking about the SURFACE of the balloon. There is no way to distinguish any one point from another. If you define "center" in terms of distance, then every point has a similar equidistant point from whatever other point you establish as "center." Since this then means that every point is a "center," then the term "center" has no meaning. Thus, we say there is no center.
quote:
Here, the centre is subjective, and changes if the subject position changes
Incorrect. There is no center. That's why everything looks the same no matter where you are. Since everything is equivalent, then there is no way to distinguish one point from another. And since there is no way to distinguish a "center" from a "non-center," then there is no such thing as a center.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
quote:
does a circle have a centre if your not there to say so?
A circle? Yes.
The permieter of a circle? No.
And it does not require a human to observe it. A circle is a physical construct and exists independent of people.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
quote:
What the balloon example says is, not just that there is no centre - but also that there is no balloon surface - because it is variable - based its own criteria.
Non sequitur. Please rephrase. Are you saying balloons don't exist?
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
quote:
Why would one adept in maths and logics stick to such manipulative, agenda based manouverings?
Huh? You're saying that math is "agenda based maneuverings?
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
quote:
The adademic rendering of boundless/infinite does not apply in reality.
And why not, pray tell?
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
quote:
Academics only work when it is applied to another academic base.
Huh? So there's no such thing as physics? Chemistry? Biology? Geology?
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
quote:
One can academically prove the sun did not rise yesterday
No, you can't.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
quote:
The shape does not matter. Mass can apply.
Non sequitur, please rephrase. We are talking about geometry. Mass has no bearing.
The surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
quote:
The surface does have a centre at all times.
Then where is it? And why does every other point on the sphere have the exact same qualities? They can't all be the center. Since they all are identical, then there is no such thing as a "center."
quote:
At spacetime point A it has one centre; at point B [when the surface is changed]
Huh? Who said anything about changing? If there is a center, then it exists at any given point. How do you define what the "center" is at any given point? How do you distinguish it from all the other points that aren't the center?
quote:
What you are saying is not that a sphear's surface does not have a centre; in fact you are saying two different circles do not have the same centre
Incorrect. And I think I see the problem. You are thinking of the center of the SPHERE. But as it has been repeatedly pointed out to you, we're talking about the SURFACE OF THE SPHERE. The center of a sphere is a point that is not on the surface. But we're only talking about points that are on the surface. With regard to the surface of the sphere, the center of the sphere does not exist.
The question to you is: Where is the center of the SURFACE of the sphere?
Suppose we are talking about the unit sphere. We are discussing the locus:
x2 + y2 + z2 = 1.
You will notice that the point (0,0,0) does not exist in this locus.
The question to you is: Which point in the locus x2 + y2 + z2 = 1 is the center of the locus? The point you choose needs to satisfy the locus.
Please explain why that point is any different from (1,0,0) or, if you are saying (1,0,0) is it, why it is different from (0,1,0).
quote:
There is a boundary.
Incorrect. A boundary necessarily requires an external point. But there is no external point. Thus, there is no boundary.
quote:
If you condone the BB you condone a boundary.
Incorrect. The Big Bang does not claim there is a boundary. The Big Bang did not happen in space. It created space.
quote:
A finite realm means all within it is finite. Else it was not finite.
Indeed. And the universe is finite. But, it has no center.
The surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
quote:
It does. And is mathematically alligns itself when you alter the sphear.
You're talking about the sphere. We're talking about the SURFACE of the sphere.
The surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
quote:
Without the sun's luminosity: how do you arrive at that?
Because that's what the phrase "evening and morning of the first day" means.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
quote:
A very advanced and deeply scientific factor, and one far reaching into advanced sciences.
You mean like how there was the earth before there was the sun? You mean like how there were plants before there was the sun? You mean like how there were flowering plants before there were insects? You mean like how it all took six literal, 24-hour days?
Strange how science contradicts every single one of those biblical pronouncements.
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by IamJoseph, posted 05-04-2008 1:11 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by IamJoseph, posted 05-04-2008 8:05 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 38 of 63 (465220)
05-04-2008 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by IamJoseph
05-04-2008 2:20 AM


Re: You Can't Go Outside
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
quote:
You stole it from Paley and it has long since been discredited. The universe is not comparable to a key and lock.
Never heard of the guy. I made it up.
Let's not imply prevarication, shall we? You have no doubt heard of the "watchmaker" claim. It's a very common one in creationism. We've even had a thread discussing it:
The Blind Watchmaker
The first post in it was from January of this year.
Ah, "But I didn't read that thread!" I hear you cry. Well, it's even been brought up in your presence on another board you frequent, Frostcloud, and that was back in 2005. You were participating in the thread.
And then there was Most convincing evidence for creation theory on this board where you were participating and Paley's argument was brought up.
So let's not play the innocent, shall we?
Oh, by the way: You just contradicted yourself. Your original claim from Message 30:
IamJoseph writes:
It is not just my opinion or my invention.
And yet now you say:
IamJoseph writes:
I made it up.
So which is it? Was it not your invention or did you make it up?
Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by IamJoseph, posted 05-04-2008 2:20 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 39 of 63 (465232)
05-04-2008 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Rrhain
05-04-2008 2:56 AM


quote:
If you define "center" in terms of distance, then every point has a similar equidistant point from whatever other point you establish as "center." Since this then means that every point is a "center," then the term "center" has no meaning. Thus, we say there is no center.
I'm not a mathetician by prefession, but I really do see a glitch here. The different points having different readouts is not related or impacting here. The miniscule difference in space-time is relative, and two different sub-atomic particles are akin to earth and pluto. Why should there be any requirement to present how it will look from another point? The point is, there is a centre when your at point A and there is a centre when you go to point B. Its like looking at earth from jupiter or from pluto.
quote:
Incorrect. There is no center. That's why everything looks the same no matter where you are. Since everything is equivalent, then there is no way to distinguish one point from another. And since there is no way to distinguish a "center" from a "non-center," then there is no such thing as a center.
Nothing looks the same. It depends what your measuring ability is. In any case, that's an acedemic premise. I would say, even if they look the same and are replicas, the centre factor is valid. Now if you see a circumference as not corporeal and call is 'the surface', not the outer layer of a piece of matter, then you should allocate both factors into the meta-physical and academic: the centre of a surface exists, but we cannot see either of them - the centre nor the surface. I mean, the differential of a 'surface', as opposed to an outer layer of earth, cannot be contaned in a vase - so why look there for a centre?
quote:
Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
Thus, the surface is finite, and it's centre is within the surface. Its a glitch - or worse - quite a casino science.
BRB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2008 2:56 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2008 2:23 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 40 of 63 (465239)
05-04-2008 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by IamJoseph
05-04-2008 1:11 AM


Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet has no center.
lyx2no, in message 17, writes:
I’m not sure what this means, but if I am mistaking your position and I should have read your position to be that all points in the Universe are the center of the Universe I retract this post. But that would be an abuse of the intuitive meaning of the word center and in need of a more thorough explanation.
You could have cleared this up then and gotten this silly bit of philosophy out of the way, But noooo! You had to drag it to way over here.
It is equally valid to consider any point on the surface of a sphere a center. Mathematically it doesn’t matter, which is exactly why one can start mapping the surface of a sphere from anywhere one wants to. It is also exactly why one doesn’t consider any point on the surface of a sphere the center as descriptive. Besides, we’re not mapping the surface of a sphere. We’re using it as a model for a higher order manifold. (Sorry, BFF, I couldn’t find a way to avoid the grown-up words and still say stuff.)
For emphasis, I edited the same post adding:
lyx2no writes:
AbE: You are on the surface of a non-rotating, expanding sphere; where is the center? If you point down you are making the same mistake you make with your view of the Universe as a whole.
That wasn’t on a lark.
P.S. to your post #30: The far end of your string of rationalizations was based on an opinion, which makes the exposed end of your string, that “if the universe began at many points, it inclines to a behind-the-scene mechanism which would have to trigger it to do so, even more than if it began with just one point, as an anomoly, by itself or by a freak accident” also an opinion.
It is my opinion that the Empire state building is 448.7 meters tall. If I had developed this opinion as a hunch, though a good one, it would still be an opinion. But I develop this opinion out of the fact that the Empire State Building is measured out at 448.7 meters tall. So it’s not really an opinion any more. You were basing your “reason” on your opinion ”stead of the other way ”round.

Rrhain: I can’t thank you enough for carrying so much of this. I am recovering from a second surgery in as many weeks, and am not at all well.
Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

Kindly
Ta-da ≠ QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by IamJoseph, posted 05-04-2008 1:11 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 41 of 63 (465257)
05-04-2008 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by IamJoseph
05-04-2008 8:05 AM


IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
The different points having different readouts is not related or impacting here.
See, now you're just flailing here, trying to throw in important words you don't understand in an attempt to sound impressive.
Centers are defined by distance. The reason we call the center of a circle (not the perimeter, but the circle) the "center" is because it is EQUIDISTANT from all the points on the boundary.
For three-dimensional objects, only the sphere has a singular point as a "center." For an object like a cone or a cylinder, the "center" is actually a line. For other objects, the "center" is actually a surface.
But in our example, we're not talking about a sphere. We're talking about the SURFACE of a sphere. A sphere is a three-dimensional object: You talk about its "volume" which is a three-dimensional quality. The SURFACE of a sphere, however, is a two-dimensional object: You talk about its "area" which is a two-dimensional quality. That's why the formula for the "volume" of a sphere is (4/3)*pi*r3 while the formula for the "SURFACE AREA" is 4*pi*r2.
For a sphere, the longest distance possible in a "straight line" (given the spherical geometric definition of "straight line") across its surface is the "great circle." But every point has an infinite number of great circles running through it. So since all points have the same longest distance possible, how do you distinguish any one of them as the "center"? With no way to differentiate one point from another, they all become "centers" and since something that explains everything actually explains nothing, we say that there is no "center."
Too, the SURFACE of a sphere is unbounded. A boundary is defined by drawing a circle within the dimensional space being examined around a point within the set. If there is at least one non-empty circle that can be drawn around a point such that all of the points within that circle are still inside the set, then that point is said to be in the "interior."
For example, if I am examining all the numbers between 0 and 1, I can draw a "circle" around the number 1/2 with a radius of 1/4 and all the numbers in that circle (1/4, 3/4) are still within the set, so 1/2 is in the "interior."
Conversely, if I can draw a circle such that all the points within that circle are not inside the set, then that point is said to be in the "exterior."
To go back to the above example, the number 1.000000001 is on the exterior because I can draw a circle around it of radius .00000000005 and all the points contained will be outside the set.
And thirdly, if I cannot do either of the above, if every circle I draw necessarily requires there be points that are both in and not in the set, then that point is said to be on the "boundary."
For the set of numbers between 0 and 1, I cannot draw any circle around 0 that doesn't contain at least one negative number and one positive number less than 1. Thus, I get numbers both in and not in the set, so 0 is a point on the boundary.
So if you have a set that does not have a boundary, then you have an "unbounded" set. The surface of a sphere is unbounded. If you draw a circle on the surface of the sphere, no matter how small, it will only contain points on the surface. There is no way to get anything not on the surface because the surface is everything. Thus, it is unbounded.
And so, the SURFACE of a sphere is finite (we can calcuate its area and it is finite), unbounded, and has no center.
quote:
The miniscule difference in space-time is relative, and two different sub-atomic particles are akin to earth and pluto.
Non sequitur. Please rephrase. Who said anything about "space-time"? We're talking about geometry and that's all about distance. You define a "center" by defining a metric and showing that a certain set of points has a specific distance characteristic as defined by the metric.
The SURFACE of a sphere has no center and yet is finite.
quote:
Why should there be any requirement to present how it will look from another point?
Because that's how you define what "center" is. A center point is distinct from other points. It is uniquely equidistant from other points. But for the SURFACE of a sphere, all points share that characteristic. Since they all do, none of them do and we say that the SURFACE of a sphere has no center.
quote:
The point is, there is a centre when your at point A and there is a centre when you go to point B. Its like looking at earth from jupiter or from pluto.
You're still talking about a sphere. You need to drop that vision as it is not what we're discussing. We're talking about the SURFACE of a sphere...a two-dimensional construct. It is defined as the locus that satisfies:
x2 + y2 + z2 = r2
For a given r.
Suppose we have the unit sphere:
x2 + y2 + z2 = 1
The point (0,0,0) is not part of the locus and thus doesn't exist as a point on the SURFACE of a sphere. On the other hand (1,0,0) does as does (1/sqrt(3), 1/sqrt(3), 1/sqrt(3)).
Help us out here, IamJoseph: What is the center of the SURFACE of the unit sphere? Give me coordinates. Remember, whatever coordinate you give must satisfy the locus:
x2 + y2 + z2 = 1
quote:
Nothing looks the same.
Incorrect. All points are identical on the SURFACE of a unit sphere. That's why if we define an orientation on a sphere, we have an infinite number of meridians running through every point. On the surface of the earth, for example, there's that point just in the crook of Africa that is listed as 0, 0 since both the equator and the prime meridian run through it. But the orientation we have imposed upon the earth is arbitrary. There's no reason to prefer it over any other. Before the prime meridian was set to run through Greenwich, it used to run through Paris.
That's because every point on the SURFACE of a sphere is just like every other. Since there is no way to distinguish one from another, there is no such thing as a "center" for the SURFACE of a sphere.
Ergo, the SURFACE of a sphere is finite, unbounded, and has no center.
quote:
it's centre is within the surface.
Where? Give me coordinates. Why is that point the "center" and not its antipodeal point? Why is that point the "center" and not any of the others?
The SURFACE of a sphere is finite, unbounded, and has no center.
quote:
quite a casino science.
Ahem. You do realize that the "Monte Carlo method" is actually a very respected method of proof, yes?
The joke is how the various other disciplines do integrals since only mathematicians are actually capable of doing the math:
A chemist plots the curve onto graph paper, cuts it out, and weighs it. Comparing it to the standard square of graph paper, you can determine how much area is under the curve.
A physicist plots the curve onto graph paper, hangs it on the wall, and throws darts at it (the Monte Carlo method). By examining the ratio of darts that land above the curve to those that land beneath, you can determine how much area is under the curve.
For all your talk of "casino science," we actually use the methods of randomness to get things done.
So give the coordinates of the center of a unit sphere. Why is that point the "center" and not its antipodeal point? Why is that point the "center" and not any of the others?
The SURFACE of a sphere is finite, unbounded, and has no center.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by IamJoseph, posted 05-04-2008 8:05 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by IamJoseph, posted 05-04-2008 8:55 PM Rrhain has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 42 of 63 (465285)
05-04-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Rrhain
05-04-2008 2:23 PM


quote:
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The different points having different readouts is not related or impacting here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See, now you're just flailing here, trying to throw in important words you don't understand in an attempt to sound impressive.
Centers are defined by distance. The reason we call the center of a circle (not the perimeter, but the circle) the "center" is because it is EQUIDISTANT from all the points on the boundary.
I don't see any flailing - I tried to locate your fulcrum point factor and address it directly; if anything I think you may have done the flailing, thus I called it casino science. Examine your statement, 'centers are defined by distances': where exactly is the centered distance in a surface - when you also apply it refers not to the outer layer of a sphear [I assumed you were talking about a corporeal real sphear made of matter]? I countered by requesting you to also apply a non-coporeal centre in your equally non-corporeal surface. No flailing, but a respective response.
quote:
For three-dimensional objects, only the sphere has a singular point as a "center." For an object like a cone or a cylinder, the "center" is actually a line. For other objects, the "center" is actually a surface.
But in our example, we're not talking about a sphere. We're talking about the SURFACE of a sphere. A sphere is a three-dimensional object: You talk about its "volume" which is a three-dimensional quality. The SURFACE of a sphere, however, is a two-dimensional object: You talk about its "area" which is a two-dimensional quality. That's why the formula for the "volume" of a sphere is (4/3)*pi*r3 while the formula for the "SURFACE AREA" is 4*pi*r2.
Let's cut to the chase scene. Put an item on the table - or put ten items of different shapes, materials and realities [non-corporeal] - and then ask where is the centre of each particular one. And to prempt, we must allocate each item's center proportionate to the matrix they have been set in. This can avoid flailing charges.
quote:
For a sphere, the longest distance possible in a "straight line" (given the spherical geometric definition of "straight line") across its surface is the "great circle."
Ok.
quote:
But every point has an infinite number of great circles running through it.
Here, you flailed. Every point = other, unrelated points - akin to Jupiter and pluto. Now if you have a need to look for a center from every other point - then you have to see all those points also have a center respective to their own positions. This is basic rocket science, but I call it casino science.
We can see from this perspective, the notion of the universe not having a center is a bogus one, or to be kind - a glitch. The notion of no boundaries, must thus be qualified by not being able to go near any potential boundary, but one which MUST exist by its theoretical, academic considerations.
Let me put it very bluntly: if one condones a beginning [BB] - this MUST also condone a boundary: this logic is at no times set aside by a bogus example of a circle's surface not having a center - it does too. The counter, a circle's surface has no boundary because they keep going round in circles, is again a glitch in logic. When we zoom into the situation, we will have to conclude that at each point of a circle, the direction of that point determines where it will conclude and travel - with no effect that circle peremeter is infinite. By going to another point, you have left the first circle; you have altered the direction of a point to face in another direction, from another point. This is what happens on the surface of a circle: at each point, its direction is curved, not straight, thus it has to go where it is pointed. The notion it is not a stright line here becomes moot and irrelevent.
Based on such faulty logic - we can make a *1 meter* straight lined string as infinite:
when you near the end of that string, just point it backwards again; repeat when you come to the other end again; continue this process for infinity. Do we now have an infinite 1-meter string or not?
This is exactly what happens with a circle: after each point, the direction is curved [not straight], leaving it no other place to go - unless changed again. But if the curcumference of that circle was say, 100 meters, then we can also say the circumference is an infinite quantity of meters - it never ends. Fact is, it does ened - at each point it moves it ends - and then its on another point. Same as the 1 meter string which was physically changed. In both cases, the conclusion is either a change of positions, or a traveling over the same ground again.
Now there is no need to have a circle to show such a casino science infinity: one can do this in the room they are in right now - simply go to the end of the room, then turn back, repeat. You are now traveling infinitely. Its the same thing with the surface points of a circle.
The rule is:
ANYTHING FINITE - MEANS ALL ITS CONTENTS ARE FINITE.
If you add or subtract $5 from an infinite number of $'s - it means the original amount was not infinite. This does not change is you keep repeating your count - does it?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2008 2:23 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 05-07-2008 12:31 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 43 of 63 (465441)
05-07-2008 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by IamJoseph
05-04-2008 8:55 PM


IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
I don't see any flailing - I tried to locate your fulcrum point factor and address it directly
See, that's a sure sign that you're flailing. "Fulcrum"? I never said anything about a fulcrum. Where did you get this idea from? You're simply trying to add fancy, mathematical words in the hopes that it will sound impressive. But you seem to forget that as a mathematician, I was required to have a sound backing in physics and I know precisely what a fulcrum is.
quote:
Examine your statement, 'centers are defined by distances': where exactly is the centered distance in a surface
You finally got it! There isn't one! That's why the surface of a sphere has no center. There is no point that can stand out as unique to the rest that is equidistant from the boundary because the surface of a sphere doesn't have a boundary.
Now, a disc, which is also a two-dimensional object, has a center because a disc has a boundary. Compare this to the perimeter of a circle, which is a one-dimensional object. It has no boundary and thus, it doesn't have a center. Compare that to a line segment, which is also a one-dimensional object. It has a boundary and thus, it has a center.
The universe, given the observations that we've made, indicate that it has no boundary and thus, no center.
quote:
I countered by requesting you to also apply a non-coporeal centre in your equally non-corporeal surface. No flailing, but a respective response.
But your response is nonsensical. That's why I kept on saying, "Non sequitur. Please rephrase." The problem you are having is that you are failing to generalize the concept. The surface of a sphere is a two-dimensional object that is finite, unbounded, and has no center even though there are other two-dimensional objects that do have centers. It is not the nature of being two-dimensional that necessitates having a center: It's the geometry.
Similarly, there are three-dimensional objects that don't have centers. It is not a requirement that existence in three dimensions requires the existence of a center. It is the geometry that does it.
And the geometry of the universe is such that it doesn't have a center.
quote:
Put an item on the table - or put ten items of different shapes, materials and realities [non-corporeal] - and then ask where is the centre of each particular one.
What makes you think the universe is anything like that? Have you learned nothing from relativity? Your scenario requires a universal reference frame and relativity has shown us that there ain't no such thing. Without a universal frame of reference, the entire concept of a "center" is meaningless.
quote:
Every point = other, unrelated points - akin to Jupiter and pluto.
Non sequitur. Please rephrase. We're talking about the surface of a sphere, not the planets.
quote:
We can see from this perspective
What perspective? You've just declared there to be a frame of reference but relativity has shown us that there is no such thing as a universal frame of reference. Since there is no frame of reference, there can be no center.
quote:
Let me put it very bluntly: if one condones a beginning [BB] - this MUST also condone a boundary
Yes, I'm sure you believe that, but you are wrong. The Big Bang did not occur in space. It created space. And the space it created has no frame of reference. Thus, it has no center.
quote:
this logic is at no times set aside by a bogus example of a circle's surface not having a center - it does too.
Then answer the direct question I put to you [I][B]TWICE[/i][/b]:
What are its coordinates? Suppose you have a unit sphere:
x2 + y2 + z2 = 1
What (x,y,z) coordinate is the "center" that satisfies that equation? (0,0,0) can't be it because 02 + 02 + 02 <> 1 and thus is not in the locus. You keep on saying there is a center, but you keep on refusing to say where it is.
Where is the center of the surface of a sphere? What are its coordinates?
quote:
Now there is no need to have a circle to show such a casino science infinity: one can do this in the room they are in right now - simply go to the end of the room, then turn back, repeat. You are now traveling infinitely. Its the same thing with the surface points of a circle.
And the flailing continues. You seem to forget: I am a mathematician and I know exactly what those words mean and they have no connection to each other. When you reach the end of the room, you've hit the boundary and thus, you have traveled a finite length. The surface of a sphere, however, has no boundary and thus, you can traverse it infinitely even though there is only a finite surface area.
quote:
ANYTHING FINITE - MEANS ALL ITS CONTENTS ARE FINITE.
Incorrect. The surface of a sphere is finite, but you can have infinite paths within it. It is clear you don't understand the math involved.
Hint: Spiral.
quote:
If you add or subtract $5 from an infinite number of $'s - it means the original amount was not infinite.
Incorrect. It is clear you don't understand the math involved. The point behind an infinite cardinality is that you can add or subtract any finite number from it (and even some infinite cardinalities) and still have an infinite number.
There's a classical thought experiment to show this:
Suppose you have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all numbered: 1, 2, 3, ....
Your hotel is booked solid; no empty rooms. A guest shows up. Can you accommodate the new customer?
Of course: Simply have everyone in the hotel move down one room: The guest in Room #1 moves to Room #2; the guest in Room #2 moves to Room #3; etc. This opens up Room #1 and the new guest can move in.
You can do this with any finite number: Just have them move that number of rooms down. Five new guests show up? Everybody moves five rooms down, the first five rooms open up, and the new guests can move in.
But what if an infinite number of people show up? Can you accommodate them?
Of course: Simply have everyone in the hotel move to the room number twice as large as the one currently being occupied: The guest in Room #1 moves to Room #2; the guest in Room #2 moves to Room #4, the guest in Room #3 moves to Room #6, etc. This opens up all the odd-numbered rooms and the new guests can move in.
And, of course, these processes can be done in reverse.
Now, you have to be careful with infinity because it often depends upon how you manipulate it. For this thought experiment, you must make a few assumptions:
  1. Superman and Captain Marvel both exist and are capable of moving any distance in any amount of time.
  2. There are an infinite number of coconuts, all numbered, in a pile.
  3. There is a pit next to the pile large enough to hold all of them.
Now, one day Superman and Captain Marvel decide to play a game. At noon, Superman throws in coconuts numbered 1 and 2, Captain Marvel flies in, grabs coconut #1, and tosses it out.
They then sit around for half an hour, discussing their heroic deeds, and then at 12:30, Superman throws in coconuts numbered 3 and 4. Captain Marvel flies in, grabs coconut #2, and tosses it out.
Again, they discuss the villains for fifteen minutes and at 12:45, Superman throws in coconuts numbered 5 and 6. Captain Marvel flies in, grabs coconut #3, and tosses it out.
They continue this process of waiting half as long as they did before, Superman tossing in the next two coconuts in sequence, and Captain Marvel tossing out the next coconut in his sequence.
When 1:00 pm comes around, and 1:00 pm always comes around, how many coconuts are in the pit?
Answer: None of them. For every coconut you might care to name, I can give a time when it was tossed out. Coconut #1 was tossed out at 12:00, #2 at 12:30, #3 at 12:45, etc.
Next day, they decide to play a similar game. This time, at noon, Captain Marvel throws in coconuts numbered 1 and 2 and Superman flies in, grabs coconut #1, and tosses it out.
They wait half an hour and in go coconuts numbered 3 and 4. This time, however, Superman goes in and tosses out coconut #3.
They wait fifteen minutes and in go #5 and #6 while out comes #5.
When 1:00 pm comes around, and 1:00 pm always comes around, how many coconuts are in the pit?
Answer: An infinite number. Specifically, all the even numbered ones. Even though the bare process is the same (two go in, one comes out), the fact that we never touched any of the even ones means that they never leave the pit.
That's the funky thing about infinity: It doesn't behave like finite numbers. To try and apply your common sense attitude toward it will only leave you scratching your head wondering why you're wrong. Infinity minus infinity is undefined.
quote:
This does not change is you keep repeating your count - does it?
Yes, it does.
That's how infinity works.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by IamJoseph, posted 05-04-2008 8:55 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by IamJoseph, posted 05-07-2008 1:17 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 46 by IamJoseph, posted 05-07-2008 5:18 AM Rrhain has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 44 of 63 (465448)
05-07-2008 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rrhain
05-07-2008 12:31 AM


quote:
See, that's a sure sign that you're flailing. "Fulcrum"? I never said anything about a fulcrum. Where did you get this idea from? You're simply trying to add fancy, mathematical words in the hopes that it will sound impressive. But you seem to forget that as a mathematician, I was required to have a sound backing in physics and I know precisely what a fulcrum is.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examine your statement, 'centers are defined by distances': where exactly is the centered distance in a surface
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You finally got it! There isn't one!
So you can see, by addressing that statement, I was responding to a fulcrum factor of your position. No flailing - its your fancy word.
quote:
That's why the surface of a sphere has no center.
Incorrect deduction. The surface has no 'distances', as opposed no center - that is why you cannot ask of a centre, which is distance oriented. Get it? Its like saying one's thoughts have no firm pieces of wood. Academic terms like surface, must be equated with other academic components, and both surface and imperical distances are not in the same realm. Now you cannot in any wise tell me the outerlayer of sphear has no center: guess why!
quote:
There is no point that can stand out as unique to the rest that is equidistant from the boundary because the surface of a sphere doesn't have a boundary.
Incorrect - again. how do you evidence the surface has no boundary: can you locate and house your 'surface' in a vase to we can check it? if not, than why mix measurable mass with the immeasurable abstract realm of a surface - what is your problem with any outer layered [mass]?
quote:
Now, a disc, which is also a two-dimensional object, has a center because a disc has a boundary. Compare this to the perimeter of a circle, which is a one-dimensional object. It has no boundary and thus, it doesn't have a center. Compare that to a line segment, which is also a one-dimensional object. It has a boundary and thus, it has a center.
Incorrect, and you keep returning to this casino maths, w/o addressing the response given you previously. The circle circumference has both a centre and a boundary - respective to the point of the circle circumference one is dscussing. If you move from the point on the circle's circumference to another point on the same circle circumference [which you do and want to disregard]- then the situation must be examined from the new point. Jupiter and pluto have centres - but these are respective and relative to each sphear's position. A circle's circumference is made of points, when you zoom into it closer. Otherwise, you say nothing has a center - everything is inter-connected. Thus a centre is relative to the position one is asking from.
quote:
The universe, given the observations that we've made, indicate that it has no boundary and thus, no center.
The 'thus' is not applicable here. The universe dimensions are unknown. I have already posited that geometry is based on a critical number of known factors in the data before an unknown can be determined.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I countered by requesting you to also apply a non-coporeal centre in your equally non-corporeal surface. No flailing, but a respective response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But your response is nonsensical. That's why I kept on saying, "Non sequitur. Please rephrase." The problem you are having is that you are failing to generalize the concept. The surface of a sphere is a two-dimensional object that is finite, unbounded, and has no center even though there are other two-dimensional objects that do have centers. It is not the nature of being two-dimensional that necessitates having a center: It's the geometry.
No sir. The 'surface' is not a two-dimensional object - there is no object here. You have differentiated surface from an imprical outer layer, thus you cannot use this term selectively. The best way to answer you is with a question relating to your selective dispensations:
'IS THERE A CENTRE IN AN OUTER LAYER OF A SPHEAR - AS OPPOSED THE NON-PHYSICAL 'SURFACE' YOU KEEP RESORTING TO?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 05-07-2008 12:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Rrhain, posted 05-07-2008 4:25 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 45 of 63 (465457)
05-07-2008 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by IamJoseph
05-07-2008 1:17 AM


IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
So you can see, by addressing that statement, I was responding to a fulcrum factor of your position.
"Fulcrum factor"? You're flailing again.
quote:
The surface has no 'distances', as opposed no center - that is why you cannot ask of a centre, which is distance oriented. Get it?
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously claiming that there is no way to calculate distance upon the surface of a sphere? Then how on earth (and I mean that literally) do you determine how far it is from your house to the grocery store?
There's a rule about the geometry of the surface of a sphere: The shortest distance between any two points follows the great circle route. That is the definition of a straight line in spherical geometry. To calculate the distance between two points on a sphere, (fi, li) and (ff, lf) is given by:
arctan((sqrt((cosffDl)2 + (cosfisinff - sinficosffcosDl)2)/(sinfisinff + cosficosffcosDl))
Why is it we can calculate the distance between two points on the surface of a sphere when you claim it cannot be done? I have a formula. What do you have?
Where is the center of the surface of a sphere of radius 1? What point in the locus satisfying:
x2 + y2 + z2 = 1
That can be defined as the "center"? What are the coordinates?
quote:
how do you evidence the surface has no boundary
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Have you not read any of the posts to which you have responded? Have you already forgotten the definition of a boundary? A boundary is a point in a set such that if you were to draw a circle around the point, there is no way to draw it such that you don't have points both within and without the set.
There is no way to draw a cricle on the surface of a sphere such that you have points outside the surface of the sphere. Since it is impossible to draw such a circle, that means there are no boundary points for the surface of a sphere. Since there are no boundary points, that means the surface of a sphere has no boundary.
quote:
can you locate and house your 'surface' in a vase to we can check it?
Of course. The earth will suffice. It has a surface. You can reach any point on the surface from any other point on the surface by following a great circle route. There are no discontinuities and at no point are you required to ever leave the surface. There is no boundary and thus, there is no center.
Do you contradict this? If so, what is the center of the surface of the earth? What are the coordinates? What is the latitude and longitude of the center of the surface of the earth?
quote:
what is your problem with any outer layered [mass]?
There is no problem. Instead, you are seemingly incapable of comprehending the point: The surface of a sphere is a two-dimensional object that is finite (there is only so much surface area) but is unbounded.
This is where you need to expand the example: The universe has more than two dimensions and it is also unbounded.
I have given you the math. It would help if you could provide the mathematical descriptions you have been asked to provide:
What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of a sphere satisfying:
x2 + y2 + z2 = 1
quote:
The circle circumference has both a centre
Incorrect. The circumference of a circle has no center.
What are the coordinates of the circumference of a circle satisfying:
x2 + y2 = 1
Remember: Your coordinates must satisfy that equation. (0,0) is not the center because 02 + 02 <> 1.
quote:
If you move from the point on the circle's circumference to another point on the same circle circumference [which you do and want to disregard]
Incorrect. That is exactly the point I am trying to make: If you move along the surface of a circle, you can keep on going and going and going and you will never reach an end. There is no end to the circumference of a circle. There are no boundary points to the circumference of a circle and with no boundary, there is no center.
quote:
Jupiter and pluto have centres
Jupiter and Pluto are, for all intents and purposes, spheres.
We are not talking about a sphere. We are talking about the SURFACE of a sphere. What is the center of the SURFACE of Jupiter? Coordinates, please.
quote:
Otherwise, you say nothing has a center - everything is inter-connected.
Incorrect. A sphere has a center. The center of a sphere satisfying:
x2 + y2 + z2 <= 1
Is (0,0,0).
The center of a circle satisfying:
x2 + y2 <= 1
Is (0,0).
But those aren't the objects we're talking about. We're talking about the SURFACE of a sphere. We're talking about the PERIMETER of a circle. What are the coordinates that define the center of the SURFACE of a sphere? The PERIMETER of a circle?
quote:
The 'thus' is not applicable here.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? One cannot conclude from an observation that universe has no boundary that it is therefore unbounded?
quote:
I have already posited that geometry is based on a critical number of known factors in the data before an unknown can be determined.
But that is incorrect. The geometry of the universe is based upon the observations we have made.
quote:
The 'surface' is not a two-dimensional object - there is no object here.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
The surface of the earth doesn't exist? Then what are you standing on right now? Nothing? You're floating in vacuum? You're buried within it? What?
quote:
You have differentiated surface from an imprical outer layer
But they're the same thing. Are you seriously claiming you are not right now standing on the surface of the earth but are embedded within it?
quote:
'IS THERE A CENTRE IN AN OUTER LAYER OF A SPHEAR - AS OPPOSED THE NON-PHYSICAL 'SURFACE' YOU KEEP RESORTING TO?
No. The "outer layer" of a sphere is the surface and there is no center to the surface of a sphere.
If you think there is, please tell us what its coordinates are.
Here's some more "bake your mind" things about the nature of infinity:
Have you ever heard of the "Koch triangle"? It is a two-dimensional shape with a finite area but an infinite perimeter. That's right, it contains a finite area (2*sqrt(3)/5) and yet the edge is infinitely long. Then there's the "Menger sponge." It is a three-dimensional shape that has a 0 volume but an infinite surface area.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by IamJoseph, posted 05-07-2008 1:17 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by IamJoseph, posted 05-07-2008 5:38 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024