Spherical Issues

Believe it or not, I thought about this for quite sometime before I went to bed last night. I think I finally figured it out. I think IamJoseph is trying to use the composition method. In this case, he is using it fallaciously.He is presupposing that every "point" on any given object or thing has a center. By point, he is actually referring to a small imaginary circle that we see on the thing. Obvously, this small circle has a center. We can imagine the small circle anywhere/everywhere on the object and it always has a center. Therefore, he concludes, that since parts of the object or thing have centers the whole freakin' object or thing must also have a center.This is what we refer to as the composition fallacy. Other than what I said, I don't think there's really any other rational way to understand his view (if there is any). And don't worry, you're not the only having trouble understanding his view. I think you have to sniff some glue or something to get it.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Double postEdited by ICANT, : double post

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hold on tiger I did not say the center of the surface of the universe was where I was standing on the surface of the universe.I think that would be impossible as I can't get outside of the universe to stand on the surface of the universe.In my avatar there are the three proposed shapes of the universe if I was standing on the surface of any of them and I looked up I would see nothing.While on the subject I have a question maybe someone could answer.If the universe was contained in something the size of a pea and that universe began to expand, would it not expand in all directions the same?Would not the universe still be inside of this inflated pea?Would the surface of the pea be the outer limits of the universe?I know that is not the picture that is presented. But unless the universe was on the outside of the pea it has to be.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

What is this? Some sort of competition between IaJ, Buz and ICANT to see who can portray the greatest level of ignorance of cosmology???

That is my title and I got to make sure I keep it.Now you want to explain what I would see if I was standing on the surface of the universe and looked up what I would see.Remember I am on the surface not inside the universe.If I am on the surface I am on the outside.Thanks,God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No, really, I don't. Inside?? Outside??? Sounds highly dangerous...Take a long look around yourself... what you see IS the surface we are talking about. You are used to 2d surfaces. Welcome to the 3d surface that is the Universe. NOT "the surface of the Universe" - there is no such thing - the Universe IS a surface. And you are an intrinsic element of that surface. You really really need to read Flatland.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

If you existed in dimensions seperate to, and different from those of the universe itself and were (somehow) standing outside of the universe on the surface of the universe (whatever that is) looking "up" then I can confidently state with the full authority of absolute knowledge that......You would be looking directly up Odin's sweaty arsehole.Cheers (or skulls up as they say in Valhalla)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

you would see the universe that you see around you. You are in a 3D space right now. This 3D space that you are standing in, is the surface of a 4D space (the universe). Think of it like this, the surface of a 3D space is a 2D space. We all know this from geometry class. Likewise, the surface of a 4D space is a 3D space. Got it? So, if you are standing on the surface of our universe, which as cavediver said is at least 4D, you'd be in at least a 3D space (the world you reside in).Got it now?At no point can you, a 3D being, exist outside the universe. You're not thinking in the proper dimensions, that's the problem.

---

And the Ignorant shall fall to the Squirrels - Chip 2:54

I did look around.I am sitting in my house.
My house has eight exterior walls, a floor and a ceiling.
As I sit in my house I can look up and I see the ceiling.
If I want to stand on the surface of my house not in my house I have to go outside my house. Since gravity will not let me stand on any of the eight exterior walls or the floor, to stand on the surface of my house I have to go on the roof to stand on the surface of my house.When I stand on the roof of my house which is located on the planet earth in the Milky Way galaxy and look up I see some light clouds and a couple of dark ones. I also see the sun. If I had thought to have brought my telescope up on the roof I could look off into the universe that spreads out over a vast distance in any direction I choose as long as I am not looking towards the sun. Would be much easier at night. But you did not give me that option. I think standing on the surface of the universe would be very dangerous. There would be an absence of anything there but me. I think God and the angels are the only ones who can look at the surface of the universe.But that is just my old demented mind doing that dangerous thing of thinking which Catholic Scientist told me to quit doing several months ago.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

In Message 93 I stated the following:In my avatar there are the three proposed shapes of the universe if I was standing on the surface of any of them and I looked up I would see, nothing.While on the subject I have a question maybe someone could answer.If the universe was contained in something the size of a pea and that universe began to expand, would it not expand in all directions the same?Would not the universe still be inside of this inflated pea?Would the surface of the pea be the outer limits of the universe?Would anyone like to seriously discuss any of these three questions?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I concede that if the majority here sees absolutely no sense or logic in my position, I should not 'WASTE THEIR TIME'. Also, I concede I do not agree with this majority finding, and remain confident with my position, and that there is nothing which was put as their reasonings evidencing my position wrong, or that I was unable to comprehend their reasonings correctly.

quote:

---

So where exactly is the centre of the surface of a basketball?

---

Does the ball have a 'LEFT' section? - or a N & S hemisphere? Your position now has to be negative. Yet the earth does.If you stand on your basket ball [imagine your size reduced], and you are now perched on a point within the surface of the ball - call it a point 'X'. And because you are a reduced size, point X is easily able to contain you in a comfortable way, and you are stretched out on a lawn with a beer can in your hand.If you were now asked which is the centre of X, how would you answer? In fact, you would easily be able to nominate the centre, as somewhere half way under you, or you could measure it with some device and pop out the exact location of the centre of that point.But what if you are now moved to point Z of the same ball? I say, in this scenario, there is not two centrers, but two positions, and each position has a centre. The reason this is disputed in this debate is, they have failed to factor in that you have changed positions - and thus there is not equally a centre all places of the ball, but rather, that there are different positions on the ball. We are here accepting a perception rather than the reality. We cannot see the surface as many positions and all posiions appear as a centre, but that itself is an illogical premise, even if it appears so; it really does not mean there are many centres, only many different positions. The difference between a sphere, a squaric cube and a triangle is that the points are positioned in different trajectories, and that there surely are different points, else there would be no differentials between a sphere and a cube.To take this issue further, one must ask the question, why do we even see a surface or a border any place? This answer lies far from what one imagines. It has to do not with what we see, but what we do not see. When we look at a ball, we know where it ends and where its outer borders lie [the surface]. This is because we are seeing two things - the ball, and the surrounding atmosphere which is varied from the ball. IOW, we distinquish by the contrast of the two mediums. But for this contrast, we would not be able to see the borders or the surface of the ball. Now ask the question, why can we not see outside the universe [assuming, hypothetically, the distance and size was not relevent here]. This is because we cannot see or imagine 'NOTHINGNESS'; there is no contrast anymore. This is also why we cannot fathom before the BB - not even in our imaginations - because nothingness is not wired into our brains - it is alien, predates all things and outside our realm.This is the reason we conclude the premise of 'borderless' - not because there are no borders or end to the universe, but because we cannot fathom/see/sense/percieve NOTHINGNESS. If we want to prove a borderless entity, we have to do so in reality, not academically only - and this is not possible or logical. The percievement of a ball not having a centre is technically incorrect, illogical and against all maths; it is proved as an anomoly when we factor in that even a sphere is made of sections, sides, facets and points - but we cannot percieve this due to a lack of contrast between its points. We cannot point to a centre of a ball or the universe - because we cannot see the borders against a treshold of nothingness. It is a lack of contrast - the nothingness is non-corporeal, and does not allign with anything within the universe, such as matter, which is required for humans to connect with and to.The issue is not that a ball has no centre, but that there is a centre, and no two centres are equal or the same; the issue only concerns why we cannot percieve that centre. The notion of no centre and no borders for a realm with a percieved beginning is not vested in any science or maths.

The actual reason is that you appear to have missed factoring in 2d vs. 3d. They have repeatedly asked for the center of the surface not the center of the sphere iteself. Its two different things!The surface of a box is not somewhere inside the box. The surface of the road is not somewhere inside the road. The surface of a sphere is not somewhere inside the sphere IaJ. Do you see what your mistake is? you are talking about a ball or a sphere ... while everyone else is talking about the 2d surface of the object. A ball has a center, as does a sphere, it also has a surface, the surface has no center.

Honestly, I dont see that and don't agree with it. While a 2- or 3-D is irrelevent here, the notion you are presenting is that of a virtual premise which is not related to actuality.I presented examples even a 2-D premise has a centre, while the 2-D itself is a perception only. The surface becomes a 2-d actuality only when it is given an area, namely when that 2-d surface is given an area by an equation, derived from the space it is containing; different sized sphere's will result in different 2-d areas; with the caveat there is an actuality. Here we come to a situation whereby the area must have a centre, but it becomes negated only on the basis that all points in that area are equally the centre - a false conclusion. Now we have a situation of many centres - as opposed no centre.I have shown examples these are not many centres but only many positions on the surface area, and that the circular/spherical shape is only a trajection of the points, and the same criteria applies as with a square, cube or any other space. If we take all the points of a square, and alter the trajectories of its particles, we can derive a sphere; this can be done with a piece of clay. But that clay had a centre - this shows that shapes are dependent on trajectories only.Now the surface cannot have a centre nor a facet or hemisphere, but this is only a perception based position - it stops being a perception when we actualise the surface - by giving dimensions to that surface, such as thickness, height, area, volume, etc. In the absence of this, we are talking about an abstract. A circle can be drawn on a paper - yet it is an abstract: we cannot transform that into an actuality by lifting that drawing from the page and place it on the table - minus the paper. Thus it is not an actual entity. And an abstract too has a centre - in the same abstract mode: we can alter the shape of the circle on the paper to a line, which will be equal to the circumference of the circle only. if we derive a never ending or 13 inch line from a 12 inch circumference, we know we have traversed the same points more than once - which cannot be done in reality.The same criteria also applies to borders and boundaries. Not seeing them is only a perception, dependent upon our ability of detection. To prove that a surface is not an actuality, one must take that surface in his hand, re-sculpt it into a sphere - and this will show a centre; if he cannot perform that feat, it is proof he is dealing with an abstract. Here, the question becomes, what is he centre of an imaginary circle. That is not a difficult question - unless! - one also asks to give the answer in actuals, like inches and miles, and its actual location, by siting the surface is not the sphere it contains - another proof it is thus not a reality. Otherwise, in the equal imaginary mode, we can say the centre of a surface, if circular, is half way from the point of the circle you are in, the length of that circumference being upto the point when one will traverse the same point in the circle. The notion of no centre and no boundaries thus becomes nullified and vested only in the mixing up of actuals and abstracts - selectively.The more important issue here is not to get bogged down in semantics, and how this impacts on real issues, such as incorrect premises the universe has a beginning, but no centre and borders. These are based on false sciences and maths, and I believe are agenda based.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Mathematically we can describe many things that we can not actually picture or fully conceive. A 10 dimensional universe for example. We can describe things that do not,as afar as we know, physically exist (e.g. a universe without gravity)
We can mathematically define the centre of a sphere, a triangle, a square, a cube etc. etc.
An unbounded suface however has no centre. Neither mathematically nor one that can be derived from 'common sense'This is not a lack of imagination on our part IAJ. Mathemantics can perfectly well describe many shapes and surfaces that we are utterly incapable of imagining.The centre of a surface of a sphere does not exist mathematically and it does not exist in actuality.No matter how firmly you wish to beleieve otherwise this is a fact. It is because this is a fact that you are utterly incapable of defining the centre of a surface of a sphere. Either in practical or abstract terms.

quote:

---

This is not a lack of imagination on our part IAJ. Mathemantics can perfectly well describe many shapes and surfaces that we are utterly incapable of imagining.

---

I grant you it is not imagination lackings, else it would not be admitted into a science premise. The scientific premise is accepted at large, but its evidencing requires deliberations, and the operable - and higher - question is, WHY do we percieve the anomoly of a finite but borderless entity, and also a centreless entity? Is it accepted because it has become a widespread premise solely by its percievement factor, and is it vindicated when examined with the purpose of determining why it is incorrect? Numerous scientific theories, held for a long period, have been discarded. It appears the maths in this case is responding to the percievement criteria, in an effort to explain what is percieved.You refer to maths as the answer here, and you site the power of man's imagination to fathom what cannot be seen. This can also produce a maths which negates the premise, and the imagination to see how it is incorrect. The notion of it being incorrect is very real, it is more plausable than the held edition: the norm is that all mass must have a centre and a beginning and end. The variance of this is, under the norm provision, either an error, or one based on peripheral perceptions.Now the only evidence of a sphere not having a centre is we cannot alot one point as that candidate; and against this is the premise that the sphere is not just centreless, but also facetless [no left or north], and in fact totally made of centres [every point is a centre]. So the notion of centreless is incorrect in its definition. Here, the applicable question is, why is there no facets, and why are all centres equal? I invite your answer to those impacting issues.