Spherical Issues

Center is an objective term. The center of the volume of a sphere is exactly the same no matter where you are inside that sphere. It is equidistant from the SURFACE of that sphere, but it is not equidistant from every point within that sphere.The South Pole is NOT equidistant from every point on the surface of the Earth, the surface of half the Earth, or the surface of any shape cut out of the earth.A point does NOT have a center, if it has a center, it stops being a point and becomes a circle or a disc. The entire reason we have the word point (in mathematics) is to define a something that has no dimensions. So, if you pick a point on the earth, it DOES NOT have a center itself, so there are no centers in NY, NY or Siberia. If there were, and the center changed when you moved, it would alos not be a center because as I said before a center is objective, not subjective. For something to be the center, it MUST by DEFINITION be the center no matter where else you might be on the sphere.

But if you put the hotdog in a bun, the entire hotdog (meat) becomes the center of the hotdog (entire edible conflation). If you then put ketchup on the hotdog, the meat part remains the center, which just proves the point, until you also add mustard and relish, at which point the ketchup becomes the center. If ketchup is the center, then any abstract blob of ketchup could become the actual center, thereby proving that you are always at the center so long as you have ketchup. The fact that others also have ketchup merely serves to prove that the center is a point with a radius of infinity.

First of all, a center is NOT EQUIDISTANT FROM ALL OTHER POINTS!!! It is equidistant from the edge. The surface of a sphere has no edge, there is no center. A center is a special point, a point unlike any other on that surface. By claiming that "every point is a center" is to change the definition of center so drastically as to not even be speaking the same language. It's like saying every point on a sphere is a cereal box. We have a definition of "cereal box" and that definition does not equate to every point on a sphere. You're changing definitions to make your case and by doing so, you're arguing dishonestly.Also, center is an objective term. Hold up a basket ball, the center of the ball (not the surface) is exactly the same point whether you're holding the ball, standing ten feet from the ball or on Jupiter. The center of that ball does not change as you move. The distance from you to the center moves, your reference of the center moves, but the center itself does not move. It is still defined by the exact same equation no matter where you are or where the ball is.ABE:Also, we use the term "center" here without always saying what its the center of. A center, by definition is the center "of something." You can draw a circle on the ball, there is a center to that circle, but it is not the same as the center of the surface of that ball. The center of an arbitrary circle has nothing to do with the center of the surface of the sphere. So, in one sense, you could say every point is the center of an arbitrary circle drawn around that point, but that has no bearing on any other surface, shape or object we are trying to find the center of.Edited by Perdition, : Added argumentEdited by Perdition, : No reason given.

You seem to have it in your mind that the Big Bang started as a thing floating around in space. That's incorrect, there was no space before the Big Bang. That's why the Universe is not 3-d but at least 4-d. There is nothing external to the universe...that's the definition of universe.

This makes no sense. You claim that all actual entities have edges, thus anything that doesn't have an edge is non-actual. I dismiss your first point. The surface of a sphere is an actual without an edge, therefore your premise falls apart. QED You are changing your position, but that has no effect on the center of that ball. It is not subjective...your perception of it is, but the center itself is not. As I said in my other post, center refers to the center "of something" you can't just throw out the word center as if its some Platonic Ideal and that the centers of everything are all part of the same "Center". The center "of the Earth" is the center of the earth whether you're on Earth or Jupiter. The center "of Jupiter" is the center of Jupiter whether you're on Earth or on Jupiter. Earth doesn't magically lose its center just because you are now on Jupiter. The Earth and Jupiter each have their own respective centers simultaneously, regardless of where you are or even if you exist. The only thing that changes is your perception.As I walk away from my house, it appears to get smaller, but any child over the age of 2, who has learned object permanence knows that the house is not really getting smaller. The house is the same size, even if I'm so far away it appears to be the size of a toy.

And that is an active field of study. Some claim that time is post BB as well, therefore the term "before the BB' has no meaning.Others have proposed Membrane Theory whereby our universe is just one of many in a great 4 or 5 or 6 or...dimensional multiverse.But regardless, I se no way this has any bearing on the discussions of centers and your inability to understand that simple concept.

Well, I don't think lyx2no was talking about your spelling. Every word in a sentence can be spelled correctly and still have the sentence make no sense. What he seems to be getting at is the fact that you use words incorrectly...all the while having impeccable spelling. Antithesis is not a verb, so you can't antithesis something. Just like you can't transcendental something.

The surface and the sphere have different measurements. What you're asking is like asking which is bigger a mile or a gallon. Answer that and I'll tell you if the surface of something is bigger than the thing its a surface of.

Actually, I think the problem is that he IS factoring that in...

No one is saying anything about a surface hovering over an object in some abstract way. We're talking about actual surfaces. If you want some actual measurements, I refer you back to the question of the surface of the Earth. You have all the measurements you need elsewhere in this thread. From there, you should be able to give us the location of the center of the surface of the Earth. The fact that you have repeatedly refused to do so only lends support to our position that there is no center.You keep trying to say we're relying on premises that no one but yourself even considers. We think surfaces are actuals, in that they exists for every object and are rigidly defined by the shape and volume of an object. You can't have the surface of something hovering over it. The definition of a surface is such that below this plane is the object and above it is not. If the surface starts hovering, then there is a gap between it and the object, meaning it is no longer the surface of that object.

The surface of a sphere is defined by the volume of the sphere. You need to know the dimensions of the sphere to get the surface area. I could say we have a ball with surface area measuring 50 square centimeters in area...does that help you find the center?

An ACTUAL human being understands the gradeschool concepts of "points", "centers", "surfaces" and "objects." Anyone who has developed normally understands the concept of object permanence from a very young age. Anyone who tries to argue coherently about the Universe understands that using 3-dimensional prejudices is ignorant and wrong. You, sir, seem to understand not a single one of these concepts in an actual or virtual way. You've set up a premise which is demonstrably false, and you cling to it like a baby to his blanky, changin definitions, ignoring counter arguments and string together a bunch of words to make a "sentence" that only slightly resembles the English language.
From this, I can only conclude that you are not an actual person, and since talking to people who aren't actually there is irrational, I'm going to have to stop.

But, see, that's where you're wrong (again). The most fundamental science and "maths" show that not everything has a beginning, an end and a center. That is your own, flawed interpretation of that. I can look around me right now and see a little ball on my desk. I can look at the surface of that ball and I can see that there is no special point on the surface, all points are identitcal, meaning none of them are a center. Get it right.

Um, again you show your inability to understand. The span from the number 0 to the number 1 is finite, correct? How many numbers are there between 0 and 1?

Isn't it obvious, everywhere is the center and everywhere is the edge, and like, man, it all makes so much sense now. Whoa.