Spherical Issues

This spherical arguement has surely gone cycical. The reasons for the deliberations is it is forbidden for our neo religious science believers to admit defeat - because it dents numerous other premised based on this faulty one.But instead of embracing such denial - they can elevate themselves to a higher treshold of science and maths. But try telling someone Moses was not a muslim and Jesus was not a christian - its all gone talibanic.

IAJ we all look forward to the empirically testable conclusions and discoveries that you whole new branch of matheomatics and marvellous insights into the relationships between mathematics and reality will bring us.I for one am awaiting the "IAJ Theory of Quantum Gravity and Spherical Centres in an Actaulistic Universe" with baited breath.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I'm starting to think that would be a topic for a new thread. Why do some people keep on working on untying Gideon's Knot while others chop it off?

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

I believe you may be thinking of the Gordion Knot.TTFN,WK

You are correct. It wouldn't come to mind but vaguely and I tried to google about a dozen variations and Gideon's was the only one that came up with anything at all. It didn't seem right but I attributed that to having scrambled my memory with a dozen erroneous variations. Thanks.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

I believe you may be thinking of the Gordian Knot. Reading that article, apparently the Gordian Knot was in the palace in Gordion, also known as Gordium. Interesting, didn't know that!--Percy

*ptttttthhhp*TTFN,WK

Yes.
But I keep being drawn in by the pure insanity of it all.Surely you must admit that IAJ's statements do sometime border on the side of idiotic genius.....?Or is it just me? (That would be worrying......)

I'm off topic here, but may be relevant. See if this article that I happened to be reading the other day helps you to understand what's going on. Language DisorderNo need for you to worry.

Let me tell you a little about my father. Bare with me. I'll explain why this is relevant.My father absolutely refuses to sign his credit cards because he believes that people can steal his signature by looking at it. I have tried to explain to him many times that by signing the credit card he is reducing the chances of someone just picking it up and using it. After all, they have to sign and the cashier is suppose to compare the signatures. If he doesn't sign the cards, someone who finds one of his cards could just sign on it and voila they could use it without anyone questioning them. Yet, my father refuses to understand this very simple logic and continues to believe that not signing his cards is safer.It gets weirder. My father doesn't wash his hands after he goes to the bathroom. He washes them BEFORE. Don't ask me. I still haven't figured out the logic behind that.On the economic side, he is what we would normally call a penny pinching cheap beyond cheap person. Normal everyday things that cost under $5 are too expensive so he doesn't buy them. It kinda gets annoying everytime we visit them. For example, one time we visited their place and one of the sinks was stuffed up. I offered my help and was about to go out to buy a $4 snake coil to snake it when my father stopped me and said it wasn't worth it. Knowing my father's temper, I knew better than to argue. We spent the next 4 hours putting together wires we found around the house to create our own little snake coil.And yet, he's racked up quite a credit card debt by going out and buy ridiculously expensive things that he never ever uses. For example, he went out and bought a lawn mower that was $900. But the thing is he is getting quite old so he doesn't have the strength to use it. So, he just hires someone to mow the lawn for him. That thousand dollar mower still sits there unused. He and my mother went out and bought a dishwasher that cost about $900. But my father refuses to use it often because he believes it would rack up the water bill. In fact, everytime that we visit them we always see them hand wash everything first and then put in the dishwasher for a lite rinse. Why buy a super expensive dishwasher if they don't want to use it? Your guess is as good as mine. He recently bought a super duper power car washer for $500. He hasn't used it once and as far as I know he has no intention of ever using it. Why? Because he doesn't want to rack up a big electric bill. It actually gets weirder, but I'll stop here.The point is my father is a smart man. He is... was a professional pianist before he retired. He's a very handy person when it comes to mechanical stuff. But sometimes I have to question his sanity when it comes to logic.Linking this to our current issue, I think IamJoe is somewhat like my father. What the rest of us would see as totally off the wall logic they see as perfect logic. They think on totally different level than us. It's futile to even try to understand why so and so makes perfect sense to them even though everything sounds like jibberish to us. It's not that they are ignorant. It's that they simply think differently than we do.You gotta admit though. IamJoe has to be pretty intelligent in order for him to come up with all the crap we've seen from him in this thread. I wouldn't have been able to come up with so much bullshit.

---

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

Gravity is really not a force, but an effect of balls pounding on a mattrass of space. Its like jumping on a bed and causing waves. We have been able to decipher the impact measurements, because this occurs in continuing cyclical orbits for many millions of years, uneffected by other factors such as winds. Now think about it before defending.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Linking this to our current issue, I think IamJoe is somewhat like my father.

---

But sir, with regard your dear dad, I agree with you and not with his logic, concerning the credit cards, and the washing of hands: 95% of all germs vanish when hands are washed before eating or touching others.It is also enigmatic, that all here have rested their positions on the basis of *ONE* - not very actualised example of a surface - regardless of the fact that in all other areas I prevail. I must be doing something wrong - or brilliant. But I am surely not taking my position just to be different - we can be assured that new findings will emerge, and new sciences will come forth, and most of today's premises be over-turned. The surface analogy is but an example of neo atheist scientists hell bent on preserving a back door to an infinite universe. Or does no one even see how a finite universe can disrupt many sacred premises?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

WTF are you talking about?The "surface analogy" as you call it is specifically demonstrating a *** FINITE UNIVERSE *** No, not at all. WE DO NOT YET KNOW whether the Universe is infinite or finite in extent. Opinion is split - I personally think finite - but this is based upon SCIENCE, not some "sacred premises"Now, where does that leave your bizarre and moronic claim that everything must have a centre?

The issue is transmission of disease, and the hands are a common communicator of disease. You wash before for yourself. You wash after for others.--Percy

quote:

---

The "surface analogy" as you call it is specifically demonstrating a *** FINITE UNIVERSE ***

---

...'IN ACADEMIC [MATHS ONLY]' terms. Thus its centre in also a virtual one, depending which position on the surface one stances on. In all actual cases [eg. w/actual demonsions] - a centre is a fact.

quote:

---

No, not at all. WE DO NOT YET KNOW whether the Universe is infinite or finite in extent. Opinion is split - I personally think finite - but this is based upon SCIENCE, not some "sacred premises"

​

Now, where does that leave your bizarre and moronic claim that everything must have a centre?

---

There is no credence in saying the universe is infinite, even if according to some fringe sources. We cannot traverse every nook and corner of the universe, if that is your only point for your dispute. But nothing with a beginning is centreless or borderless, and not being able to physically verify this with the universe is a moot factor.In any case, this issue is hardly one which has equal counter opinions - it is accepted in mainstream and foremost science the uni is finite. BHT showed that even time is finite. And this finite factor impacts on many held premises. Most primarilly:We have to deal with the emergence of a universe - without factoring anything which is universe contained. This means, no matter, heat, energy, space, forces or particles - these are all post-uni, and emerged later from the beginning/BB point, over many millions of years; there were no stars for the first billion years. This is based on the scientific and logical factor, an infinite entity cannot contain infinite parts. for a brief moment, consider what that says or signifies?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.