Spherical Issues

I appreciate your post. Those are among the responses I made, and it is proof I have answered directly and not evaded.Where is the logic of cushioning one's question as no centre because all are centres? Firstly, he must re-define the question to MANY CENTRES - and this premise has nothing to do with no centre. I gave an example: if a bag contains 1000s of red marbles - does it mean the bag does not contain a red marble? Or that one can see many red marbles in many different points?The other issue, no borders yet the uni is finite - is also a casino maths. We know for certain the universe has expamnded in the last 10 seconds. This says there was a border 10 secs ago - a fact, if there was expansion! So here, the correcr premise must be - yes, the universe is bordered, but it is an ever expanding/changing one. But this is not said that way - it is, beside being a fake and hoaxy maths - also one of omissions. And an omission of a vital factor = a lie-by-omission = a LIE.Ultimately, we are talking grammar and comprehension here, and the un-ravelling of doublespeak. Why not drop the dead donkey and admit some truth here - if the pursuit is truth. The non-science and non-maths, you will find in the conclusion - is an agenda based one. What changes are seen with the 'fact' that all real things have a centre and a border? I say, if this is not represented in your maths and science - than your maths and science is wrong - because the maths must represent the manifest reality!Why is our neo-science and neo-maths trying to inculcate a backdoor against a definitive, non-negotiable finite universe? I'm not diverting here - but getting closer to the real issue. IMHO, the premise of a centre and a border are not up for discussion - these are facts, and these facts must rule any extended paradigms. Maybe when we look at it truthfully, we can find some new true paradigms as opposed the brickwall we confront now?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But if you put the hotdog in a bun, the entire hotdog (meat) becomes the center of the hotdog (entire edible conflation).

---

No sir! It means the position/point has been changed. Putting the hotdo in a bun, is a totally new scenario, and it must represent a new centre. The glitch!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Rats! Foiled again!Also, as Straggler pointed out, I hadn't accounted for the possibility of a spherical hot dog, and what might occur at the edge of a spherical-hotdog-shaped universe. But, this worries me not: he couldn't possibly comprehend the sophisticated stuffs that are requisite for commentating on IamBluejay's sophisticated model, so I will retain my belief that he is wrong in spite of the obvious evidence that he and you have provided against it.I'm just glad none of you caught on to the fact that I calculated the center of June on the premise that June has 31 days (which, I now realize, it does not). It would have been totally fatal to my model if you had found that out.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

No on has said a surface doesn't have a center. The surface of a cube has six centers. One for each face. And each face has edges (boundaries).It has been said over and over again that the surface of a sphere has no center, and you've been given every opportunity to tell us where it is.Maybe you're right and we're all stupid.Let me try my hand at something you've been unwilling to do:A SQUARE PLAINI am given the task of planting a flag on the unmarked center of a 10 km square plain. I take up my transit and walk till I find an edge, then follow the edge to a corner. There, I set up my transit and site the edge to fix my zero. I then swing 45 onto the field and set a line of pegs to the opposite corner. From there I walk to an adjacent corner and repeat what I did at the first corner setting my pegs till I cross my first line. The point at which they cross is the center. No measurments save the angle measure, and I didn't really need to know the size of the plain.A CIRCULAR PLAINI am given the task of planting a flag on the unmarked center of a 10 km radius plain. I take up my transit and walk till I find an edge. There, I set up my transit marking station #1, strike an angle near enough to 45 to the tangent as an arbitrary zero, and set a line of pegs till I reach another edge, St #2. I turn 90 onto the disk from my zero and set a line of pegs till I reach a third edge, St #3. I turn 90 onto the disk and set a line of pegs till I return to St #1. Travaling to each station I set up my transit and site either peg line to fix my zero. I then swing 45 onto the field and set a line of pegs till I develope a small square reducing this problem to the first.THE SURFACE OF A SPHEREI am given the task of planting a flag on the unmarked center of the surface of a sphere of 10 km radius. I take up my transit and walk till I find an edge .

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

quote:

---

No on has said a surface doesn't have a center. The surface of a cube has six centers. One for each face. And each face has edges (boundaries).
It has been said over and over again that the surface of a sphere has no center, and you've been given every opportunity to tell us where it is.

---

I fully understand your arguement - that is why I can refute it.The cube only has a centre alligned with a point of the subject; alter the subject's point of vista, and the centre location alters. Likewise, a sphere has a centre and this is its most prominant factor also; nothing but centres here - and likewise it is alligned with the subject's position. The difference between a cube and a sphere is not that one has a centre and the other does not; this is only a matter of perception, based on the spherical trajectories, which is self-curved unto itself in a sphere. You can change a cube's trajectories to that mode and face the same situation.A sphere has more centre's than a cube - because the cube's trajectery points are not uniform, as with a spherical design; a cube's trajecteries are not curcular curved unto itself, but are inclined in corner structures. Both the sphere and the cube have borders - despite this perception is different with the sphere: the border in a sphere ceases being a border when it starts to traverse the same ground again; a sphere with a 10 inch circumfere is not an infinite circumference. At no time can you say a sphere has no centre - you can prove this by taking a cube, melting it and shaping it as a sphere, and visa versa. Or you can physically alter the centre of any object by other means of adding and subtractions.

quote:

---

THE SURFACE OF A SPHERE

​

I am given the task of planting a flag on the unmarked center of the surface of a sphere of 10 km radius. I take up my transit and walk till I find an edge .

---

Why is your position NOT a centre? - is that point NOT equidistant from all others - or do I need you to re-define a centre?To prempt, the notion of other points also being centres does not favor your motion - in fact it antithises you and only inclines with my premise. The correct conclusion to your example is, where you are standing is a centre; if you change your position - that becomes a centre relative to your new position. Further, the surface is not borderless - not in the actual or abstract. Aside from the casino maths, I ask you to make your borderless surface of a 12 inch circumference to measure just 12.o1 inches - without traversing the same ground? No can do - and there goes your borderless surface!We say a sphere has no centre only as an expressionism of its perception - it cannot be applied mathematically and then re-applied to alter actuality. A centre also has other meanings than the technical, as in fulcrum, distinct, central - and this form of expressionism cannot be equally applied where there are many centres. Here, science and maths have done one of two things - made an error, or, far worse, intentionally falsified a perception and popular expressionism by exploiting it. And everyone said - yes, that sits well with what I percieve.It is very clear, when great scientists like Einstein affirmed the universe was finite, affirmed by the light spectrum premise, it caused a re-definition in numerous faulty sciences; these faulty sciences have resurrected themselves by a semantical ubsurdity of agreeing the uni is finite [there was no choice factor here], but came up with a borderless finite universe. It is fringe stuff.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

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.

Wherever you like is right. Even when you change your position, and even when you refer to a virtual or actual surface. Clearly, you have a problem dropping the dead donkey.Oh! And nor is the expanding, finite universe, nor the surface of anything in the universe, as borderless. It was'nt so 10 secs ago.These facts cause some difficulties with the premise of random, and has produced such other casino sciences as a complexity comes from a random X unlimited light years and accidents. But -ahem! - the premise of light years, light, years and accidents are post-universe phenomenons; else we'd have trillions of universes by now, and our own universe would have crumpled back into themselves.Neo-science is vested in the negation of an independent, external impact as the most plausable cause for the universe. And a universe emerging with no tools or products [space, matter, energy, particles, time - these are all post uni] - is a direct hit on the random factor. Both cannot prevail. That's what this is all about.When one thinks about it, we have a starting BB point. But if the universe came from within that point - then that point is NOT the first point: there is something lurking beyond that point. But if the universe was triggered by an external force - then too that is not a beginning: it means there is something lurking out there, no? So neo-science is inventing all sorts of stuff to get around this enigma. But those inventions are faulty, and not an answer. If we condone a borderless universe, one which keeps extending those borders, it means someone or something is independent or outside the universe - because a border cannot project itself where there is nowhere to go. Yet it does. I say, there is an external, independent factor here - and I say this not because I know for a surety, but because there is absolutely no alternative on the horizon.

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.

Man! There ain't nothin' pisses me off more than bein' antithisized.Oh yeah, you said some other stuff too, but it was all really stupid.(I fully understand that the Earth's radius is 25k miles - that's why I can refute it.)

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

quote:

---

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.

---

The qualification of 'no edge' does not negate the centre; this only negates the surface - as being non-actual. All actual entities have edges and borders. Make up your mind if you refer to actuals or virtuals. The surface of a sphere has an edge - but this is vested in the abstract; how from the sphere do we travel to be outside the surface - do you see the point - its not an actual?

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes and no. I am not changing the centre - you are changing the position. A centre is subjective, and reliant on the subject's position and vista. Which is the centre, that of the earth or that of Jupiter? The latter depends on who's asking and where from!

quote:

---

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.

---

Check again. My post clearly said that space, matter, energy, particles cannot apply - because these are post-universe products. Else you violate the finite factor of the universe. Everything universe contained did not exist at one time, including space. Yet the universe emerged - from no tool or products - the enigma we face and which is all contained in a paradox unexplainable by neo-science and maths. Its called ex-nehilo.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Really, I can spell. And i have a spellcheck. If this thread was ab spelling, I'd really piss u off.

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.