# Calling all Great Minds: The Theory of Everything **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2012, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862 "2012-11-13T06:09:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/181 "2012-11-15T19:00:51Z")
That’s not what he means, Latro. I mean this with entire respectfulness, but you must not have read everything he said about the seeing part. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/182 "2012-11-15T19:08:28Z")
> [@James52637](#): > > , but you must not have read everything he said No, of course not. Do I really have to? ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/183 "2012-11-15T19:12:44Z")
No, I wouldn’t either if I had anything better to do. Please, don’t be offended. I’m not at all trying to be insulting. I wish there was a “polite” font so people wouldn’t take what I say wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/184 "2012-11-15T20:24:26Z")
Ok, you bastard, you made me re-read the first bit of the first post. Thanks very much. As I read it I still think he has his dimensions ‘wrong’. Or rather redefines them. > [@](#): > > Nutshell: > Let’s assume Spacetime is 4-dimensional. Most people translate this is as we live in three dimensions (up down, left right, forward back) and we move through the fourth, time. So far so good. > [@](#): > > It’s better translated as the 4th dimension is IN and OUT, which is the direction microscopes look and the direction telescopes look, respectively. OUT is the composite of surface area which light is able to touch on objects, and IN is the invisible volume known as dark matter. So OUT is the 2D, IN is the 3D and 4D is IN + OUT. Now, the definition of this concept of IN is essential in all of this and he does a poor job of defining it. Threre’s an awful lot of wool and quite a bit of yarn spun from that wool but it remains just that, wooly. He gives it a shot in post #51 > [@](#): > > The world we see is a product of light bouncing off the OUT sides of objects. That is the only visible thing we can see. To call this three-dimensional is perpetuating a dangerous misconception. This is basic math: Surface area is never three-dimensional, and all you’ve ever seen is surface area (even four-dimensional objects have two-dimensional surface areas). This is the 2+1 dimensional aspect which constitutes our physical reality. Again 2D is redifined as the surface area, his true 3D is not just depth but the surface plus that which we cannot see, inside, rear and sides. IOW the entirity of the object. Also introducing a new ‘four-dimensional _object_’ plus a some more wool and condescending. Anyway, his use of the microscope as something as looking IN, kind of proves my assumption of my post #179 correct. That he has redifined the ‘inside’ as dimension #3. The microscope is looking inside the object, into the invisible 3rd dimension. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/185 "2012-11-15T20:37:10Z")
> [@chinchalinchin](#): > > Your first premise is flawed and anything that follows, even if it follows logically, is negated. It’s logic from an absurd premise. My only beef is with your use of the word logic. It’s absurd conclusions that do not follow from absurd premises. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/186 "2012-11-15T20:49:32Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > No you cannot. This is pure unadulterated obfuscatory bullshit, and I’m calling you out on it. You CANNOT show the mathematical reasoning behind your theories, because your theories are crap. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Also, I just wanted to point out that our dear alternate-reality traveling OP continues to completely ignore this very simple request to back up something - ANYTHING - that he’s saying. ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/187 "2012-11-15T21:00:19Z")
> [@James52637](#): > > I’ve no math to offer you. > I’m not going to pretend I have more knowledge on the subject than I really do, but what he said doesn’t negate anything I’ve ever learned or read about before. I researched the topic yesterday, and found nothing that is directly controversial. Fine, you don’t have math. But you have understanding, right? Explain to me, in your own words, why planets are “reflected” across the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. And forgive my incredulity, but you don’t find _anything_ controversial about any of his assertions? Apart from the weird extraneous stuff about existing in alternate timelines? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/188 "2012-11-15T21:28:02Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > . . . Explain to me, in your own words, why planets are “reflected” across the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. . . . ??? It’s unclear what you’re asking. The standard answer is that sunlight streams from the sun (well, what else?) hits Mars or Jupiter (or Ceres, or Ganymede, or…) and is reflected in many directions; a small portion of that light is reflected back toward us, and we see it. The OP seems to make much of the fact (?) that light only reflects from the surfaces of material objects. This fails to take into account translucent (semi-transparent) objects. Where, exactly, is the “surface” of the thick fog or cloud of smoke that someone might happen to be walking through? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/189 "2012-11-15T21:40:40Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > I guess you could say that we don’t see 3d. That it just our brain combining a 2 x 2D picture into a 3D one. Even that isn’t quite right. We see in 1D - a point of light stimulating a single cell. The extrapolation to 2D, 3D and 4D is just that - an extrapolation by the cells in our eye and in the brain. ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/190 "2012-11-15T21:45:14Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > ??? It’s unclear what you’re asking. Apologies for my lack of clarity. Mostly, I’m referring to this portion of the OP: > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > **Airtight Visual Empirical Evidence** > **Outer Space is a hall of mirrors.** Outer Space inverts itself at the asteroid belt. This is the point at which all the rocky planets become gas giants with multiple rocky moons. What actually is happening is the asteroid belt represents an infinity, beyond which point the inner solar system inverts and a mirrored inversion of itself is shown. > > Specifically, examine the Jupiter System. The four Galilean Moons lie on the OUT side of Jupiter’s ring system, each of which are exact inversions of celestial bodies in the inner solar system INside of the asteroid belt. Venus is a ball of fire – Io is a frozen ball of fire. Earth is a ball of water – Europa is a frozen ball of water. Earth’s Moon is a ball of rock – Ganymede is a frozen ball of rock. Beyond that is outer space, dark and flecked with stars – Callisto is a frozen ball of outer space. Even the ratio of the sizes of the planets/moons are inverted (the Ganymede is the largest: the Moon is the smallest, etc.) I acknowledge- and have never denied!- that light reflects off of things. That said, I’m pretty sure that **Anthem** means to go beyond this simple, observable truth when he starts going on about “inversions across infinity” or whatever fanciful phrasing happens to be in use at the moment. Does that clear things up? ---
**Author:** ![Anthem\_0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Anthem\_0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anthem_0)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/191 "2012-11-15T22:16:39Z")
> [@chinchalinchin](#): > > Hey. Been a lurker for long time, but I found this thread rather amusing so I’d thought I’d break my silence to bring up one point and then disappear into the ether again. > > Anthem(0) began his ‘theory’ with several premises, of which there is one I’d like to bring to light. > > I guess technically you’re right. We DO only see surface areas. However, a surface area of n-1 dimensions is a manifold of n dimensions, i.e. it’s an object whose existence is predicated on higher dimensions while requiring one less degree of freedom than the number of dimensions it exists in to describe. Therefore, though we only see the surface area, this does not mean we don’t see in three dimensions. We do, we just only see manifolds of the third dimension. > > Your first premise is flawed and anything that follows, even if it follows logically, is negated. It’s logic from an absurd premise. The “SEEING manifolds” part isn’t entirely accurate (the manifolds are indeed present, and they do form the shape of the surface area, but we certainly don’t SEE the manifolds), but that’s no big deal because I get the point. Now, _taking what you JUST said_, if n=4, then what do you think that object would look like _TO YOU_? Think about it, seriously. If an object were n=4 dimensions and you can only see the SURFACE AREA of any object which you’re _assuming_ to be n=3 dimensional (and that IS an assumption you’re making - granted it’s one that I and pretty much everyone else agrees with…but it’s best if we don’t lie to ourselves about such things…it IS an assumption), then in what ways could that entire extra dimension be translated _TO YOU_? I understand this is asking you to THINK instead of being told “it’s like this,” and I understand that it’s slightly more difficult to casually dismiss what I’m saying because of that…but it’s worth it, I promise you. My last post (the one with 3 questions addressed to Ludovic) was the perfect starting place for serious discussion. You all want the foundation of the theory, so let’s at it, everyone. This theory isn’t based on coincidence and optical illusions - all that cool stuff _naturally derives_ from the premise. All that fancy stuff is the PROOF of what I’m saying. But we’ve gone back a few squares to the origin, so let’s stick there for now. It’s been a rougher day than usual, so pardon if my naturally sunny disposition is in absence. ---
**Author:** ![Anthem\_0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Anthem\_0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anthem_0)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/192 "2012-11-15T22:25:04Z")
> [@James52637](#): > > He did mention he can travel through Alternate Realities, although. He used that as a claim. That’s completely ridiculous and Anthem (0) must know it. He was looking for a “Shock factor” argument to shut people up. I speak in metaphor, and my private life is just that. There are countless ways to interpret “I’m off to surf alternate realities” - you all just assumed I was blithering. I _may_ have given you reason to believe as much, but that doesn’t make it so. ---
**Author:** ![Anthem\_0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Anthem\_0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anthem_0)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/193 "2012-11-15T22:31:50Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > Please explain why. If you find his propositions logical or sound, you’re the only person in this thread apart from **Anthem** that does. Maybe you can explain it better than he can? > > Edited to add: > Please offer math if you are able. Start with my response to Ludovic, and answer those questions please. If you can understand his post, and you can understand my response, then just start there. That’s the new ground zero. We’ll work our way back to the crazy shit if I’m still available. As far the ongoing requests for math, this really isn’t a concept where adding numbers and variables is going to help _at this point_. This is a theory based on UNDERSTANDING the working parts of the equation, not memorization of their respective order. E=MC^2 is awesome, yes, but you wouldn’t have a clue what it meant if you don’t UNDERSTAND the variables. I’ve already given you the relevant numbers as they pertain to our native dimensionality and we cannot move forward until you understand the questions that I’m asking you to answer. Then you can come to your own conclusions and ignore my crazy ass. But at least put forth a little thought into the questions I’m asking. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/194 "2012-11-15T22:32:36Z")
**Anthem (0)**, either post clearly and explain what you’re saying, or go write sci-fi fan fiction. And I think it’s about time you responded to the posters who pointed out the factual errors you’ve made in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/195 "2012-11-15T22:44:39Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > It’s been a rougher day than usual, so pardon if my naturally sunny disposition is in absence. Tough day at CERN? ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/196 "2012-11-15T23:25:20Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Start with my response to Ludovic, and answer those questions please. If you can understand his post, and you can understand my response, then just start there. That’s the new ground zero. We’ll work our way back to the crazy shit if I’m still available. Yeah… this whole “Astrophysicist Socrates on DMT” bit is getting a little tiresome. I’m thinking I’ll just check back in a couple days to see if you ever get around to making your point. > [@](#): > > As far the ongoing requests for math, this really isn’t a concept where adding numbers and variables is going to help _at this point_. I’m sorry, but I no longer accept the suggestion that you could produce any such math. My ability (or not) to comprehend what you’re refusing to offer has no relevance to the offering. If you had it, you could post it and I could gaze in uncomprehending awe like a caveman. That’d be fun, right? > [@](#): > > E=MC^2 is awesome, yes, but you wouldn’t have a clue what it meant if you don’t UNDERSTAND the variables. Meh, Einstein could write it on a chalkboard in front of an empty room. You could offer math here if you chose to do so. And were able. Do you think Einstein kept the equations secret until he was sure Planck was ready for them? > [@](#): > > But at least put forth a little thought into the questions I’m asking Forgive me for saying that I think a lot of people have put more effort/thought into this than it deserves. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/197 "2012-11-15T23:43:52Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > But at least put forth a little thought into the questions I’m asking. What question are you asking exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/198 "2012-11-15T23:48:40Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > you all just assumed I was blithering. Well, not without precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/199 "2012-11-16T00:06:28Z")
I was going with blathering, not blithering so I guess I did learn something in this timestream. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/200 "2012-11-16T02:02:51Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > Apologies for my lack of clarity. Mostly, I’m referring to this portion of the OP: > > “Specifically, examine the Jupiter System. The four Galilean Moons lie on the OUT side of Jupiter’s ring system, each of which are exact inversions of celestial bodies in the inner solar system INside of the asteroid belt. Venus is a ball of fire – Io is a frozen ball of fire. Earth is a ball of water – Europa is a frozen ball of water. Earth’s Moon is a ball of rock – Ganymede is a frozen ball of rock. Beyond that is outer space, dark and flecked with stars – Callisto is a frozen ball of outer space. Even the ratio of the sizes of the planets/moons are inverted (the Ganymede is the largest: the Moon is the smallest, etc.)” Oh, that’s easy; he’s completely full of prunes! Where are the rest of the entries in the Jovian zoo? Where is the comparable earth-moon pair? Which Jovian moon has life? (Arthur C. Clarke’s “2010” notwithstanding.) Where are the giant planets that orbit Jupiter, as Jupiter orbits the sun? Where are the giant planets orbiting those giant planets? This so-called reflection fails any test of practical interest. Long and long ago, someone noted that there were seven planets, seven metals, seven sensory apertures in the human skull, etc. (I believe there were some additional septads referenced.) This led the philosopher in question to insist that no eighth planet could ever be discovered. Voila, Uranus. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=11)