Spherical Issues

quote:

---

The co-ordinated can be 1, and the x, y z be given any quantitites which will apply to the conclusion.

​

(I’m not so generous that I would assume this to be equivalent to my first two paragraphs, but if it was meant to be it is no wonder you’re having trouble with the concept.)

​

The x, y and z are merely the three axes of a 3D rectangular coordinate system. Any point that satisfies the equation x2 + y2 + z2 = R2 will be a point on the surface of an origin centered sphere with radius R. A unit sphere has a radius of 1, which allows us to simplify the equation to x2 + y2 + z2 = 1.

​

As all points on the surface of a sphere are R distance away from our origin ” the center of the sphere proper ” then the specific length of R is irrelevant to which, if any, of the infinite number of values that would satisfy the above equation and also satisfy the conditions of a “center”.

​

It was, therefore, not necessary to give any value for R, nor were any “actuals” requested.

---

Yes, actuals were requested, while abstracts were tended as the given data. Yes, it is necessary to first convert the abstract to actuals, before asking an answer in that mode.

quote:

---

But there is an issue of a surface center when actual measurements are not given, and its answer required in actuals conversion.

​

No, not really, there isn’t. This is one of the things that instantly gives away that you are too unfamiliar with the subject to warrant an authoritarian participation in a discussion of the topic.

---

You have stated three times I am unfamiliar with the subject. But you have not given an answer in actuals. Hint.I remind you, I was responding to the premise that the universe has no center, and I countered that with it does and must have a center. This was followed by an example made of abstracts as proof of no center, and again I countered that the abstract too has a center - an abstract one. An expanding entity also has a center - a variable one, in precise appropriation of its variable expansions. Even non-existing entities have centres - non-existent ones.

quote:

---

Asked to find the center of the line whose end points are Pa (xa, ya) and Pb (xb, yb) one can easily define the center as Pcenter (xa + xb/2, ya + yb/2). No one has asked for an “actual”, and no one has given an “actual”, yet the question was satisfied.

---

No, it was not satisfied. If one asks for the centre of a surface, with no historical/impirical factors concerning that 'surface' - he will not be able to give an historical answer where that centre is: but that surface does have a centre. This also means, an abstract, academically described surface has a centre - no identifiable, impirical centre, but in the academic and abstract mode it was tended in, a surface does have a centre in the abstract.CONCLUSION: ALL THINGS, INCLUDING THE UNIVERSE, DOES HAVE A CENTRE.

quote:

---

One can not define the center of the surface of a sphere, nor define the end of a torus, nor count the number of licks* to the center of a Tootsie Pop® because they don’t exist. Given any set of values in any set of units will not make it possible.

​

*The number of licks is the nonexistent value not the sweet Tootsie Roll®center.

---

Disagree. All those things have centers - in the equivalent mode they are presented. An invisable square has an invisable center; a non-existing sphear has a non-existing center. One can only say an invisable sphear does not have a center if we first preamble there is no such thing as an invisable sphear, but not so as its conclusion - because we have already acknowledged an invisable sphear by the question. The rule is:Hypotheticals exist - in the hypotheticals.Edited by Admin, : Change title.

The 'surface' is an abstract term, is my point. It's center is thus only in the abstract center of an abstract surface.I agree this is basic 101 logic, and its deficiency has nothing to do with my lack of undertsnading.

quote:

---

What is the location of the center of the surface, and what is your reasoning for choosing that specific location?

---

What 'location' - your question is an abstract one, because it is based on an abstract surface?! Here, the ony correct answer is, the location of the 'surface' is in the centre of that 'surface'; no location need be pointed to here.The centre of a string xyz long = xyz divided by half of xyz.

Knock, knock. The issue was not that

quote:

---

No one has asked for an “actual”,

---

I suggest you go back to the thread and check the correct status of the issue. If no actuals were asked for, there is no issue with your 101 brilliance. Hello?Just as your answer does not need an actual, the notion of proving the universe has no center, by providing abstract equations as its proof, does not prove the motion. Your failure is not that your proved yourself right - but that you did not take on the poster who said the universe has no center. I took issue with that poster. That is the sole issue here.

quote:

---

After you define “actuals”, the question put before you, and a question to be put before you anon, was: What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of a sphere? What “actuals” are asked for?

---

My response was at all times with Rrhaim, who provided abstracts, and asked for an actual centre. I at no time debated that an abstract does not have a center, only that its actual location cannot be derived thereby.RrHain stated the universe has no centre, then went on to prove his point by providing abstracts. I said nothing exists w/o a centre - I stand by that.

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.

---

In the above, I pointed out his error, namely that everything is not equivalent: he failed to recognise that everything does not look the same, but the position has changed when moving from one point to another. Every point has its centre - it becomes indistinquishable only when we move on to another point. My position is, in contrast of the majority and scientific premise, the universe does and must have a centre, even if we cannot detect it. If something has a beginning, it is finite, and as such such must have an end, even a variable one, and thus also a centre.I further stated that the universe itself is the centre, from a point which has expanded to its current and further expanding size, since the BB. If one was put inside a marble, and that marble expanded to the size of the universe - the only way to view the centre would be from outside of the marble/universe. But there is no question the marble has a centre in it's expansionism: it is a variable center, in a variable universe.

quote:

---

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.

---

The above is another example given by Rrhain, which I called casino maths. It is like saying:Potatoes = 1.Which is the centre?

quote:

---

What are the coordinates for the center of the surface of the earth?

---

I have a better one for you:What are the coordinates for the center of the surface?

quote:

---

The earth is an actual place. It has an actual surface.

---

Thank you for this brilliant observation.

quote:

---

Thus, where is the actual center of the actual surface of the actual earth?

---

The actuals of the earth does not apply here: the surface is not an actual. You can assist if you don't frame your own questions. Try this for size:How high from the ground to the ceiling is your *ACTUAL* surface: is it 1 cm, 100 m - 1,00,000 m high - any clues? I mean, let's really talk actuals for a change - as opposed slight of hand casino maths?

quote:

---

An inflating sphere has a beginning, it is finite, and yet it doesn't have "an end",

---

This is not correct. It means there was no beginning, if you take the view the expanding/inflating sphear has no end. Yours is a selective premise, one which can render a 12 inch string as infinite - just keep adding to it. Now if you say, the universe is expanding and has no end, you are also saying there was something out there besides the original beginning - thus you have violated the beginning premise.Just as one can keep adding to a piece of string [but he has to be infinite also, and then he cannot also claim the string had a beginning, because he contradicts it by being infinite] - one can see space being added to the expanding uni - which means only that space existed outside the beginning. Here, the space adder is the infinite. There is no BB or beginning anymore.

quote:

---

But may be I'm wrong. May be you do make perfect sense and I'm just stupid. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt. Please explain to me how the hell "every point has its center" make any sense.

---

Of coz you are wrong! One can say, a circle has no end, and many would agree with this, and even pose it as an infinite. But then - whoah! Let's take a better look here. Lets zoom into the pic closer.We see point A on the circumference of the circle. Yes.We see that point does/must have a centre. Yes.Now we move onto the next point along that circumference. That point too has a centre. Yes.Then, from the second point, we can say, there is no centre - because all points can be a center, thus there is no definitive center. WRONG!Here, there's a glitch in thinking. Because we have omitted the fact of moving onto another centre. Otherwise, we can say nothing has a center, 2pir does not give us a center; we can also leave the earth and go to Jupiter and say earth has no center because from Jupiter there is another center, thus there is no definitive center. But we have moved our position - therein is your error. You cannot stay on earth and say earth has no center - you have to move to Jupiter to say that.A cirle's circumference is seen as a never ending cyclical line - but this is an illusion: that circumference is only a set of points pointing in a certain trajectory, which makes it appear that way. You can perform the same feat with a straight line - just point the end of that line back to itself. Its now an infinite line which is 12 inches long! Magic - or casino maths?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Stop equivocating. Either provide the latitude and longitude of the center of the surface of the Earth, or admit that you were wrong. There are no other options.

---

You cannot be a rocket scientist by claiming the earth has a center. Instead, please give us the lats and longs of the surface - therein is the rub. The earth does not impact here whatsover - this is an actual; the surface is a virtual expressionism with no imperical factors. When does the surface if an actual sphear cease being its surface - how far does one have to travel - I mean in actual measurements?Let's take an example - a log of wood which is 1 X 2 X 4. We know the log's cubic mass criteria. Now please tell me the centre, length, breath or height of that log's *SURFACE*?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Tell me, IaJ, since "all things have a center," what is the center of this ray? Feel free to simple insert the word "center" into the ray wherever you think the center is.

---

Do you even realise you have proved my premise here, and made your own the anomoly?A ray is viewable, and it's boundaries can be established, qualified by the measuring modes used of course. But a surface is even more virtual and problematic: none can establish its boundaries. A surface is limited/unlimited in accordance with one's free discretion; the circle/sphear is not so.

quote:

---

The surface area of a board is incredibly simple to compute. In your case, the surface area of a 1x2x4 cube would be 28 square feet (assuming your measurements were in feet, though it doesn't really matter).

---

That's not right at all. You gave only the cubic volume of the earth. The 'surface' hovers it - with indeterminable factors - thus different. One is a known, the other not so - unless specifically qualified. Such perspectives works fine with everyday expressionism - we can go anywhere near or in the midst above the sphear, to denote we are now on the surface of a sphear - it is a discreationary factor. But it cannot be applied mathematically so - unless qualified by empirical measurements where that surface ends.

quote:

---

You can calculate the surface area of a sphere, too, you know. The surface area of the Earth is 510,065,600 square kilometers. Where is teh center of the surface, IaJ?

---

You will find a country on earth has a definite size, but its surrounding water-line, has to be newly given and applied, to determine when we leave that country and get into international waters. Here, that country's water line represents a 'surface' - and an actual measurement - which is not equal to the land size of that country.Thus, to know the measures of a surface, this has to be arbitratively actualised by the subject. Else it remains in the realm of virtuality. And you have not given the sizes of your 'surface', but eronously applied the measurements of the earth - which no one asked you about.

quote:

---

You're the one claiming the surface of the Earth has a center, since all objects apparently have one.

---

My position is clear. I say everything has a centre, else it does not exist. This includes the universe. You applied eronous maths to prove your disposition of mine.I showed you why the circumference is not ACTUALLY infinite when you zoom in and see the reality of it. You are moving from one point to another, without factoring this in. A circle is cyclical - but not so in actuality: after one round, we are passing the same ground again - because of its points trajectory. There is no infinite here, and the center is not negatable by the view on another point.basically, you are applying a virtual expressionism as a math factor, concluding an actual by virtuals.This is the glitch in the widespread anomoly and contradiction of the universe seen as having a beginning and also deemed infinite with no center. Both cannot be correct.It is also an anomoly to claim the universe is expanding, thus it has no boundary. I know this is claimed by widespread scientific proclamations. But it is not correct - its a fuzz, as in casino science - a distortion, mostly intional, and then followed by sheep. The expanding universe, like an inflating balloon, does have a boundary - at each instant of time. If you expand the size of your office - it does not mean there is no boundary - even if you keep expanding your office continuously.

quote:

---

I didn't give the volume at all, moron. I specifically gave the surface area of the Earth. Note the "square km" units, not cubic.

---

No sir. In both examples you gave the size of the earth, and posited this as the same as that of the earth's surface. The latter remains an unknown quantity, the reason it cannot be calculated in actual terms.

quote:

---

The surface of a sphere is unbounded, meaning it has no distinct beginning or end,

---

That is not correct, technically, and it cannot be usilised to show it is boundaryless, technically, or in empirical terms. We can determine the circumference of a sphear - this means it is limited; thereafter it goes cyclical only because of its trajectory. But it is still the same length. I pointed to you, one can make a 12 inch string boundaryless by altering its trajectory - but this won't give you more than 12 inches imperically or actually.Boundaryless is thus an expressionism and a virtual term, although we employ it in everyday speech. It is not mathematically condusive to apply it in actual terms.

quote:

---

and yet it is finite - its surface area is a measurable quantity.

---

No sir. You gave only the measurements of the sphear, wwhich have been known at all times. The peremeters of a 'surface' is virtual and discreationary.

quote:

---

Because it has no beginning or end, it has no center.

---

A circle does have a beginning and an end - this is the measurement of its circumference. After one round, we traverse the same path - in impirical terms. If traversing the same path denotes boundaryless to you - it applies to everything, not just a circle and a sphear. A 12 inch string is boundarless - we simply make a U-turn every time we come to its end or beginning. But you will find, that string cannot stretch 13 inches in impirical terms. It is not boundaryless, and it does have a beginning and an end.

quote:

---

It is an example of an unbounded, finite object just as the universe is, and such objects do not have a center.

---

There is no such object: all are bounded depending on the time and subject factor. Your criteria says a 12 inch string is finite but boundaryless.Not long back, the universe was seen as infinite; longer still, the earth too was seen that way. The universe has a boundary at spacetime A, and when the universe expands, it again has a boundary as spacetime B. At no stage is it boundaryless. the same applies to a sphear.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Have you ever taken geometry? Any middle schooler who has taken geometry can tell you that a point does not have a center. A point is dimensionless. The only people who think a point is a circle and so it must have a circle are people who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

---

Absolutely a point has a centre; we negate it in geometry for reasons to focus on the peripherical factor only. A point is a realm - it contains length, breath and height - and a centre. If you reduce your size smaller than the point, you will see a whole universe therein. If you look at the earth from a far away galaxy - it too will appear as a point.Now that aside, the main feature of saying we have moved to another point [another place], and thus there is no centre because all points can be the centre - makes your own logic void. Because here, one can only say there is no centre when one has changed his position. If we gave reference numbers to each point which makes up a circle, we will find that after the first round we are threading the same point again - this means there is both a beginning and an end - and that is the measurement of that circle: it is NOT boundaryless, except as an expressionism.

quote:

---

You think the surface of a sphere has a center. You think the surface of the Earth is "academic" rather than physical.

---

I qualified this. Imperically and measurably, we cannot have a non-academic surface - unless we give that surface actual measurements - and these are varied from that of the sphear it surfaces/hovers.ANALOGY.Lets say we have a burning log of wood. We know the measurements of that log - which is not an issue anymore. But that burning log can also have a radiant glow hovering over it. Now I ask you - what is the centre of that glow? Here, the correct question from you will be - you can 'see' that glow - it extends a foot around the burning log. IOW - you have now given that glow actual measurements - as opposed giving the measurements of the log of wood. These are two different items.The glow is analogous to the surface of a sphear. It can only be impirically measured when you give that surface actual dimensions. Till then - it is a virtual thing. We use this in everyday language, to denote we are somewhere around the sphear - but we cannot give any actual measurements for it - unless you also give actual measurements what denotes a surface space around a sphear.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.