Spherical Issues

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

In relation to me the center of the surface of the earth is whereever I am at on the surface of the earth at the moment.

​

Please correct me if I am wrong.

---

Why in relation to you? Why not in relation to anybody else?The center of an object is usually defined in terms of itself. F'rinstance, the center of a sphere is defined in terms of the sphere, not a person outside the sphere. The locus that we call the "center" of a cone is defined in terms of the cone.Too, we have to orient you. It would seem that you are referring to your own place because all the rest of the sphere spreads out equally around you, but that assumes you are normal to the surface. Why should we assume that?And if we have to attach all of these arbitrary orientations onto it, then that's a pretty good sign that we're not at the center. After all, why is your location the center and not mine?This is part of the reason that we say the universe has no center: It looks to me like everything is expanding away from me just as it looks to you like everything is expanding away from you. Well, it can't be both, therefore it must be neither.

---

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.

Good grief. Are we still debating this? Apparently so. The surface of a sphere has no centre. Obviously.
Forget the Earth for a moment. Forget co-ordinates for a second.Pick up a basketball. Point to where you think the centre of the surface of this sphererical object is supposed to be.
Not the centre of the sphere. The centre of the surface of the sphere.Where is the centre of the surface of a ball? There isn't one. Obviously.You used the example of a circle earlier on. Obviously a circle does have a centre (in the same sort of way that a sphere has a centre). But does the outline of a circle (i.e. the line that defines the boundary of a circle) have a centre? If so where is it?Imagine yourself running around a single lane running track suspended in space. At which point in your run do you cross the 'centre' of the track?
Now imagine a giant ball suspended in space. A ball large enough for you to stand on and run around on in all directions. If asked to run to the centre of this surface where would you go?The line that defines a circle has no centre. The surface that defines a sphere has no centre.Why is this so hard for you?

Just about the entirety of your posts on this thread and certainly the whole of message 71. The reason appears to be that you have no understanding of basic geometry and are unwilling to listen to anyone who might put you right. The reason why your "all objects must have a centre" argument is nonsense have been shown to you ad nauseam. The problem is, you're just not listening. By all means do. If nothing else, it might teach you the correct spelling of the word "formula". Whilst we're on the subject, it's "sphere" and not "sphear".For God's sake IaJ, get yourself an inline spell-checker. There's one on Google Toolbar for IE or there is a wide choice of dictionary/spell-check plugins for Firefox. I understand that English is not your first language, but it is the one we use on this forum. Given that your posts are hard enough to comprehend at the best of times, mostly due to their content, your failure to spell correctly only makes the problem worse. Your lack of concern for the comprehensibility of your posts is a discourtesy to others. This amounts to no more than "I'm not talking gibberish, you're talking gibberish!", which is the argument of a petulant child. Either tell us all where the centre of the surface of a 1m radius sphere is or just quit. Before using the word "sic" in quotes from other members, it might be nice if you were to actually learn the language yourself. Sic-ing people over trivial perceived errors is childish and arrogant. But then, arrogance is no surprise coming from someone who will cheerfully attempt to correct a mathematician on his maths.Edited by Granny Magda, : Fixed a typo; I want people to actually understand what I'm saying.Edited by Granny Magda, : Typo.

---

Mutate and Survive

Just a reminder to participants who might not have noticed or who may have forgotten: this thread is in [forum=-15]. That means that other than keeping discussion on-topic and protecting non-combatants, there's no moderation here.This thread was reopened because IamJoseph earnestly wants to discuss it, and it is in the [forum=-15] forum because he has demonstrated himself incapable of rational thought on this extremely simple topic, just as he has done on a number of other topics in the past. Those who think the light bulb is going to go on at some point should proceed at their own risk.Please, no replies.Edited by Admin, : Add last line.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Good morning Granny Magda: I think it’s even better than that. I can’t find an error or who he’s quoting. I think he just wrongly sic -ed himself.At best it’s a semiquote* mine.* Made it up all by myself.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

quote:

---

ICANT writes:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In relation to me the center of the surface of the earth is whereever I am at on the surface of the earth at the moment.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Why in relation to you? Why not in relation to anybody else?

---

I'm uncertain if Icant is beginning to see my point, but the issue he raised here is a pivotal one, and which does impact on my premise, and should expose some big time distortions in your position.Of coz, a center is only subject to one's position, namely that position must be constant while addressing the center. Otherwise, one can stand on earth and point to its center co-ordinates, then fly to Jupiter and say, hey - the centre is not on earth but here on Jupiter. Why not?! But this cannot be said while one remains on earth.Now the plot gets thicker. If one says there is no centre in a circle, or that it has no beginning or end, he is wrong by the same factor. What is happening here is, one is changing their position from one point on the curcle to another - but not factoring that in. Its exactly like the earth/jupiter analogy: the circle is made of points [factors or glumps of matter entitites which make the circle a circle, and they are pointing in a set, circular trajectory]. When we stand on one of those points, we can nominate one centre; when we jump to the next point on that circle - we obviously nominate another circle: because we have moved our position [like from earth to jupiter]. This does not mean that all points are eqially the centre, but that there are different centres for different points only.The issue of the commonplace retort you have made throughout this debate, is that we express a circle as having no end or centre based on common perception - not on its technical reality. And when one uses this non-real expression to prove an actual reality - they are descending away from real science and maths - into the green bag of casino distortions.The plot gets thicker still. The same reasoning exposes why the universe MUST have a centre - even when we traverse the uni and can nominate other centers. Here, we have moved our position - the has to be another centre from that new position. Nor can we say the universe has no boundaries. guess why, brainiacs!

Wherein is the 'left' on your basketball? Now if you say this is subjective, I will respond you are correct.Now just get un-subjective with regard the centre of your basket ball. Imagine you are on one point on the surface of your sphearical ball. Let's say there are 1.5 million points on that surface, and these make up that surace. Let's say you are standing on point 'X' - one of those 1.5 m. I say, in this scenario, you will say there IS a centre on point X - of the same sphearical ball. But if you move to point Z of that surface - you will say the same on that point too.Similarly, if you say you have a centre in a sphear but not on the surface, you will be wrong when looking at that scenario from another, far away point, be it far outwrads or inwords - because your centre will incorpirate many more points or many less. You may end up saying the centre is 5 degrees left of the milky way - not hardly on the surface of your basketball.Yet there is nothing wrong in saying the ball in your hand has no centre. But this is a perception only, one which is handy in everyday language. Equally, its not real.

None of that is an answer, IamJoseph. Let's try it again, shall we?What are the coordinates for the center of the surface of the earth?The earth is an actual place. It has an actual surface.Thus, where is the actual center of the actual surface of the actual earth?

---

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.

quote:

---

Either tell us all where the centre of the surface of a 1m radius sphere is or just quit.

---

I say, if you set up a tin can on the centre of a sphere, and shoot it off with a gun, you've hit the centre of the sphere - but not the centre of the surface - because these are different. Try it sometime.Now if you derive the area of the surface, you will be able to determine that surface's centre, w/o it having any impact of the sphere's centre. Because in actuals, these are different measurements.The radius gives the volume of a sphere upto its borders [circumference], and the borders represent its covering only, and as such an entity on its own. But these are not the same size mass. So a surface has to be actualised, same as you did with providing dimensions of the sphere [radius]. The correct answer then is, the surface does have a centre, and this is seen when the surface is converted to assume either a sum in area, or if your surface is also thick to be vision friendly [calculatable] - it will have a centre in its volume also. But at no time, other than as an expression, can we say there is no centre therin.Thanks for the spellcheck. Try and do w/o it if your want to check your own spelling status, and try to still maintain the same output.

I know exactly where my arguement stands, and fully expected this result. I had the same debate with a cosmologist, who said the universe has no centre. And he was backed by a host of other scientists and links, and presented his almost globally agreed position.And I say its wrong. So I know where I'm at - but not because my science and maths are so bad I cannot understand their reasonings. I do, but disagree. We should call it quits. This has gone talibanic.

Hi Rrhain, I did not mention anything about the universe.The surface of the earth is not expanding like the universe.I did qualify my statement.In relation to me.Where I am at on the surface. (My body touching the physical surface.)The same applies in relation to you or anyone else.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."

Yep, and so do we

So where exactly is the centre of the surface of a basketball?
Can you hold a basketball in your hand and actually point to this centre of the surface?I am willing to bet my life on the fact that you cannot.Other than insist that there must be a centre you have said nothing that makes any sense regarding where this supposed centre actually is.
The centre of a sphere can be shown visually and mathematically.
If the centre of a surface of a sphere actually exists (as you repeatedly insist) why can you not show us this centre (visually or mathematically)?

However, you are thinking of the universe as a 3d object. Yet, it isn't. It is at least 4D.The universe, like the surface of the basketball, is finite but has nobounds. The basketball analogy is a 3D representation of what is happening to the 4D universe.

I've been reading this thread from the get go, and I'm trying very hard to understand your point of view. I'm not sure where the miscommunication and confusion is coming from, but I really want to try to understand.I know that people have been harping on you for this answer, but I'm really hoping you can try to help me understand your point of view.If you have a ball (perfectly smooth if that matters), where is the center of the surface of the ball?Is your stance that it is the point the lies in the exact center of the space enclosed by the surface?Is it a point on the surface of the ball? If so, which one? Is it every one?Just to reiterate, I have no interest in playing the I'm right, your wrong game - I just want to understand where you are coming from and right now I don't understand your point of view at all. I'm hoping you will help me with this.