# 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:** 13
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/241 "2012-11-16T16:39:11Z")
Well it is encouraging that the debate has trimmed down from the insane to simply the misguided. > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Of course I mean to go beyond that “simple, observable truth.” That simple, observable truth was the first thing I wrote in the OP. But be honest: how simple and obvious was it before I brought it to your attention? It’s easy to claim simplicity in hindsight, but the truth is EVERYTHING I’ve said is simple if you first _understand_ this single simple, observable truth. Very simple and very observable. The “science” of taking our 3-d world and putting it down onto a 2-D surface is called drawing and Brunelleschi back in the 1400’s published extensive MATH regarding the subject. > [@](#): > > 1. What is “seemingly 3 dimensional” if you’re admittedly only capable of measuring the information of 2 of those dimensions? This is of course assuming that you believe yourself to be 3-D, a fact which I myself would agree with. I’m not asking this to be funny, I’m genuinely curious how you specifically would determine that another object “seems” three-dimensional. Of course we’re not limited to measuring information in 2 of those dimensions. The simple proof is that we can move about in all 3 dimensions. We can describe the position of things in 3 dimensions (x,y,z). We can hold things. More salient to your “perspective” argument: we can see THROUGH things. All of this is just as “obvious” as the fact that we can only see surfaces. I’m not even sure why this is even a point of contention. Why don’t you address any of this? > [@](#): > > 1. Using whatever qualifications you used in answer to question 1, if another given object were to be greater than three-dimensions, how would that entire extra dimension be translated to the 2-dimensional surface area “atop” the 3-dimensional volume of information you are capable of inputting? Once again, there is no incorrect answer, but please at least think about what I’m asking before responding. I’m assuming you’re talking about time and not a 4th spatial dimension. Have you seen a flip book? A movie? That’s how we account for the 4th dimension. There are also physical representations of spatial 4-d figures like a tesseract. > [@](#): > > 1. If spacetime is “4-dimensional”, and the other three-dimensions have spatial directions of up down, left right, forward back, how could this 4th dimension be interpreted in a way which is at all consistent with the rest of our “three-dimensional reality”? All I’m asking is if you can accept the premise that spacetime is 4-dimensional, or 3+1, or whatever variance pleases you so long as it’s more than JUST three-dimensions - so long as you can accept that premise, is there ANY way in which that 4th dimension could possibly be translated into your everyday life in a manner which makes sense or is at all detectable by observation? > > In other words, if spacetime is 4-dimensional, and you can perceive six-directions simply by looking around you, is there any other possibly-not-so-intuitive-but-still-pretty-goddamn-obvious directional pair that you are capable of looking which runs perpendicular to length, width, and height at every point in space? Remember, that’s an important aspect of dimensionality… All dimensions are perpendicular to all other dimensions at every point in space - refer to xyz coordinate system, etc (I’m begging you not to argue this point with me). All this means is that if you look in any singular direction, are there two “other” directions which you’re also capable of looking without actually turning your focus away from the exact xyz coordinate where you are looking? If the dimension you’re referring to is time? It does not follow the rules of spatial dimensions. It only flows one way and we can only observe in one (and opposite) direction. The “observation” does not work the same as visual sight for, ahem, OBVIOUS REASONS. But if you would PLEASE answer these questions (and take time to really think about these): 1. What questions are you posing to us that is supposed to be esoteric or mindblowing? 2. What exactly is your theory? 3. How does this theory apply to everything? 4. Why do you think those who post on this board are such sheep? ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/242 "2012-11-16T16:40:58Z")
> [@Oedipus](#): > > And again: > > 1. Degree in what > 2. From what establishment > 3. WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSES YOU TALK ABOUT? 1. I guarantee he doesn’t have a degree in any form of college. 2. From any establishment, there is naught. 3. He was trying to act like he’s better than everyone else and realized it was a foolish attempt. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/243 "2012-11-16T16:43:01Z")
> [@James52637](#): > > I think he realizes a lot of his claims are incorrect. After re-reading and researching his mirror theory I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s incorrect. > > HE IS CORRECT ON THE 2 DIMENSIONAL SIGHT. > > He is trying to make us think, apparently. I never sat down and realized I only see in two dimensions, that 3D sight is just an illusion from my brain and the development of binocular vision. It was rather enlightening. i would like to have a discussion with you about sock puppets… you have \*weird \*timing registering for this very-and-only conversation. :dubious glare: ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/244 "2012-11-16T16:46:29Z")
> [@James52637](#): > > 1. I guarantee he doesn’t have a degree in any form of college. > 2. From any establishment, there is naught. > 3. He was trying to act like he’s better than everyone else and realized it was a foolish attempt. Enough. > [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > i would like to have a discussion with you about sock puppets… > > you have \*weird \*timing registering for this very-and-only conversation. > > :dubious glare: This isn’t appropriate. If you think someone is socking, tell the mods. ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/245 "2012-11-16T16:48:26Z")
I got on this site when I googled “In what order did the senses evolve” and saw there was a lot of intelligent discussion going on, then started looking around. I registered to post my opinions on this topic, but I also did on a few others. I’m assuming socking is having multiple accounts? But I’m sure if the mods checked, his IP and mine would be drastically different. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/246 "2012-11-16T16:57:40Z")
> [@James52637](#): > > I think he realizes a lot of his claims are incorrect. After re-reading and researching his mirror theory I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s incorrect. > > HE IS CORRECT ON THE 2 DIMENSIONAL SIGHT. > > He is trying to make us think, apparently. I never sat down and realized I only see in two dimensions, that 3D sight is just an illusion from my brain and the development of binocular vision. It was rather enlightening. He’s definitely backpeddling. There’s no more talk about dark matter or asteroid belt inversion, or the number 42. He’s… partially right on the 2-dimensional sight. We do only surfaces but we can also see through things. More importantly (and I’m slightly embarrassed for not bringing this up earlier) we can see REFLECTIONS. With a system of mirrors I can most definitely view an object from any number of spatial axes. edit: I don’t think James is a double account. He posts in other threads whereas the OP only lends his expertise to this particular thread. ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/247 "2012-11-16T16:59:46Z")
I suppose that’s true… But it’s still light reflecting from a surface, so it’s 2D. That’s my understanding, at least. ---
**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 16, 2012, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/248 "2012-11-16T17:27:09Z")
> [@Oedipus](#): > > Because there is shading and light hits things is different ways to make clues that they, in fact, have a height, width, and depth. We can extrapolate that the object will be the same on the other side because we have a reasonable expectation of what exists based on previous interactions. For example, I currently cannot see the back of this moniter, but I know it has a VGA port and a power outlet on the other side. > Surface area has always been found by using the measure of the object’s three dimensions so are you saying surface area is a dimension? Area is mathematically a function of TWO dimensions. Area itself doesn’t “require” other dimension(s) to calculate, and therefore surface area itself doesn’t in the absolute strictest sense, but for all practical purposes, you’re dealing with more than 2 dimensions if you’re calculating surface area. So yes, it “requires” _at least_ three dimensions - AT LEAST being the key part, not THREE DIMENSIONS But the questions are asking you to examine what you consider to be three-dimensional. Don’t just take it for granted that reality is 3D, think about what that means. Yes it means height, width, and depth, but think deeper than that layer. How does the object behave, how is it shaped, how does light interact with its surface, does the internal composition change, etc? 3D is not ONLY a shape of an object, it’s the objects identity. And if you can only SEE two of those dimensions, then you have pay very close to attention to any patterns which are emergent on the surface _specifically because you CAN’T see anything else_. example: the surface of a third billiard ball is consistently red. Ignoring paint wearing off, abuse, tampering, etc, that ball will remain red on the surface. It doesn’t spin or move unless prompted to do so. However, if that billiard ball were to turn from red, to blue, to yellow, then back following a predictable pattern, while also then clearly there is some element at play which is being overlooked and your inherent deficiency at ONLY being able to intuit the two-dimensional surface is preventing that element from being obvious. There are two solutions to this quandary: You can confound the issue by adding additional layers of complexity, OR you can consider the possibility that one of YOUR original premises is incorrect…for example, what if, just WHAT IF the infinitely huge, spinning, surface-morphing billiard ball ISN’T actually three-dimensional. Just what if? What would that change about your perception of the billiard ball, what patterns would emerge, and how could you check to see if that was in fact that case? Example aside, reexamine your previous response. You have no idea what the back of shadowed half (or more) of ANY object looks like without precedent. You have no idea what the back of your monitor looks like just by examining the front of it. However, if you actually saw in three-dimensions, you could see the entire monitor, INSIDE AND OUT, without needing to adjust your frame of reference at all. We clearly do not see the world like that, and we need to stop telling ourselves that we do. That creates a false base of knowledge which eventually becomes accepted and expanded on, despite that initial gross misperception. It’s a subtle change, but changing this ONE variable to adjust for our perception paints an entirely new picture of reality which is consistent with OUR everyday reality in every way, AND it renders outer space sensible. We only SEE light, and light behaves in very specific and predictable ways. > [@](#): > > I’m trying hard to understand you, Anthem. > > EDIT: I’m also wondering where you have gained your scientific knowledge, why we should give you credence over dedicated scientists, and what the deal is with the alternate timeline thing. Are you Billy Pilgrim’s scientific twin (or a Tralfamadore)? I’ve studied these fields my entire life. I am more than qualified to discuss modern physics in most any facet. At some point I grew weary of answering every new question which arose with “we don’t really know what’s going on, but…”, so I started from the ground up, erased every assumption we take for granted, found a few GLARINGLY obvious oversights which our math has been based on (three-dimensionality being the biggest culprit), made the _slightest_ adjustment, and shit myself as I realized that although nothing had changed mathematically, suddenly it at least made perfect sense WHY we don’t see these things. The thing most people don’t understand about math as it relates to physics is that it isn’t INTUITIVELY consistent. Very much of it is based off of assumptions which we all take for granted, such as dimensionality and soforth. You would be shocked if you realized how much of higher order math in physics is forced into fitting yet presented as though it’s clear as day. This isn’t to say Math should be ignored, but rather the exact opposite: people should pay MORE attention to concepts they take for granted. And not just to disprove them, but to validate their own assumptions. This is HOW we learn…not just by attacking new concepts, but by validating our own assumptions. I’ve been teaching for a long time and I’ve learned a trick or two. Truth is almost always as evident as it APPEARS to be, and rarely even what we’ve declared it as being. But there’s a limit to that concept; and identifying exactly where that limit is, exactly what that limit looks like, and exactly what happens when it is exceeded is paramount. Apply the scientific method directly to the concept I’m trying to outline, and see where it takes you. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/249 "2012-11-16T17:34:34Z")
Hmmm…I’m gonna go get **Angua** and see if she wants to play. Adding an astrophysicist to this thread can only make it better, right? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/250 "2012-11-16T17:38:26Z")
> [@James52637](#): > > HE IS CORRECT ON THE 2 DIMENSIONAL SIGHT. > > He is trying to make us think, apparently. I never sat down and realized I only see in two dimensions, that 3D sight is just an illusion from my brain and the development of binocular vision. It was rather enlightening. Yes, but don’t get too carried away. The fact that it is our brain that combines two 2d images into a 3d one doesn’t mean 3d is an illusion. It just means we have develloped the means to perceive depth. Depth is real. Some creatures, without binocular vision, can’t perceive it. Just like we can see the colour red and lot of other animals can’t. It doesn’t mean red is totally illusional. Just as that we can’t see ultra violet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist for real. ---
**Author:** ![Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/251 "2012-11-16T17:41:22Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > 1. How do you determine an object to be three-dimensional if you’re only seeing the surface area of it? This isn’t a trick question, I promise. This is asking you specifically. Don’t refer to outside sources for answers; this isn’t that kind of question. Walk around it. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/252 "2012-11-16T17:41:53Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > I’ve studied these fields my entire life. I am more than qualified to discuss modern physics in most any facet. You are making arguments from authority, but you have failed to establish yourself as a legitimate authority. You have stated some things that are simply and demonstrably false and have failed to address any questions about them. The simplest example is your statement that “Earth is a ball of water”. Why won’t you mention your credentials or tell us how a planet where the water constitutes way less than 1% of its mass can accurately be called a ball of water? ---
**Author:** ![Docta\_G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Docta\_G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Docta_G)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/253 "2012-11-16T17:43:56Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Calling all Great Minds: The Theory of Everything > > **The Theory of Everything** > Premises: > > 1. We don’t see in three-dimensions, we see in two-dimensional surface area. We can only see the OUT sides of objects. > 2. What we call dimensions are determined by the inversion of INside and OUTside. Odds and Evens, binary. > 3. We call this effect relativity, and it is the motion which manufactures reality. > > 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. 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. > > **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 assure you, this isn’t a coincidence_. Outer Space works off the principle of inversion. Follow the Laplace Resonance shared between Io, Europa, and Ganymede – an exact 1:2:4 ratio, all bodies tidally locked to Jupiter and thus also necessarily to each other (this is Europa/Earth’s solar and lunar cycle). Earth’s moon is tidally locked to it, and Venus inexplicably is tidally locked (or locking itself) to Earth, despite orbiting the “other side” of the Sun. All planetary and lunar resonances can be decoded into patterns of IN and OUT in every solar system in existence. The patterns are consistent and predictable once you learn them. > > When we enter Outer Space, we can see the same exact locations (Sun, Venus, Earth, Moon, Space) represented as **INside OUT inversions** of each other, and all that separates them is a mysterious asteroid belt which itself spans an area as large as the distance from the Sun to Mars. It just so happens that all the gas giant planets have this same “asteroid belt” orbiting them. This is complicated to explain unless you better understand OUT and IN, but each gas giant planet is a representation of moving OUT one infinity from the previous view. Saturn is the maximum value of OUT, Neptune is where OUT recycles back to the beginning…kind of (it’s slightly more complex than that, but only just). > > Outer Space is what three-dimensions _really_ looks like – multiple layers laid out nice and neatly across infinite distances and stretched to infinite size. The concept of TRUE three-dimensionality is so foreign to us that we never even noticed it sitting right next to us in our own solar system. > > In summary, we exist: > > - on the OUTside of the 6-Dimensional galaxy, > - on the INside of the 5-Dimensional Sun, > - on the OUTside of a 4-Dimensional layer known as the planet Earth , > - on the INside of Earth’s 3-Dimensional antivolume known as the atmosphere, > - on the OUTside of Earth’s 2-Dimensional surface area. > > Earth itself is a seamless blend of two completely separate worlds – one of air and light, and one of water and sound. > > **Why this is mirror image happening?** > Infinity can be defined as the POINT (note: this “point” known as the **quantum** is actually an “infinite range” which is equal to itself from both relative ends) at which reality flips itself INside OUT through a process known as **inversion**. Inversion is the process of: > > - Collapsing the infinitely thin, visible outer surface areas of objects into infinitely small and dense but still visible (definable) inner surface areas known as **antivolumes**. > - Expanding the infinitely thick, invisible inner volumes of objects into infinitely large but still invisible (undefinable) outer volumes known as **antisurfaces**. > > Examples of antivolumes are the nuclei of atoms and the Sun. Examples of antisurfaces are electron clouds and the vast emptiness of space between the orbits of the planets. > > **Dimensional Relativity** > There is only one motion acting on all dimensions. This is called **Spin** , and it moves both IN (-1) and OUT (+1) on all other dimensions. Therefore, our familiar 3-D spatial environment is created by the combination of 2+1 dimensionality (TIME) and 4-1 Dimensionality (GRAVITY). We perpetually exist in a state of dimensionality which is relative to 2-and-4 dimensionality. > > 4-D Outer Space and 2-D Atomic Space are dimensionally relative zones; as are 3-D Inner Space (the zone we inhabit between the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere) and 1-D Subatomic Space. 5-D and 6-D are Interstellar Space and Intergalactic Space, respectively (you aren’t quite advanced enough to entertain discussion of these zones in detail just yet). Evens and Odds are relative to themselves. > > Quite simply, SIZE is what determines the dimensionality of any given object. We are two-dimensional atoms with +1 relativity inflating us into three-dimensional beings. Earth however is a 4-D object which we experience as a 3-D antivolume known as the atmosphere and as a 3-D antisurface known as the oceans. Their point of intersection forms the 2-D surface area of Earth, but we experience the higher dimensions through multiple simultaneous temporal infinities: day cycle, month cycle, year cycle, age cycle (ice age, green age), etc. TIME, however, is too confusing a subject for most transcendent species to comprehend from the onset, because most species think they can define _how_ it works, despite admittedly knowing nothing about it…so we’ll leave this here for now. > > The Shortcut (Theory of 42): > Once you understand the concept of infinity, there is a quick proof you can perform known as the Theory of 42. > > - **Outer space = atomic space** due to 4/2 dimensional relativity (Evens). > - **Inner space = Subatomic space** due to 3/1 dimensional relativity (Odds). > - Particles of Light move the same speed as Gravity Waves. > > Prediction: With no air resistance or friction, it should take the same amount of time for: > > 1. A _chunk_ of matter to fall from the surface on one side of Earth, pass through the center of Earth, and to cross through the surface of the opposite side strictly through the force of gravity. > 2. A massless particle to travel from the surface of the Sun, pass through the asteroid belt, and to cross through the surface of Jupiter. > > - because the exact same RELATIVE distance is being traveled in both scenarios. > > Results: 42 Minutes in both scenarios. > > Conclusion: This is not a coincidence. It takes 42 minutes to cross infinity at the “default” speed. This is the power of perspective. We (matter) are subatomic particles. Once you understand why this is the case, you will be well on your way to understanding the fabric of reality. > > Notes: You may be thinking this can’t happen because gravity would ‘stop’ the matter in the center of Earth - but that’s assuming Earth is indeed a solid 3-dimensional sphere…which of course it isn’t. Earth is a 4-dimensional hypersphere (technically: it’s a 4-dimensional, dual-sided hyperspherical layer of the 5-dimensional Sun it’s nestled INside of), and we live INside the antivolume of it (the atmosphere) and OUTside (on top of) the 2-dimensional surface area of it. > > Phenomena explained in this framework: > > - This explains _why_ all celestial bodies spin – we can see two dimensions of surface area and the volume is invisible. Celestial bodies must not only spin but also must ORBIT in order for their entire surface to be exposed to light. We call this seasons. > > -This explains _why_ there are poles and an equator on all the planets and moons – because they are 4-dimensional hyperspheres being translated into 3-dimensional cross sections which intersect at the poles and twist at the equator. This is what 4-d objects do when downconverted into three-dimensions. > > - Dark matter is the invisible INside (the volume) of all matter. This is the “expansion OUTward” 2+1 aspect of our “three-dimensionality”. This is literally the invisible stuff that inflates us. We call it charge or electrons, because we don’t understand the connection between IN and OUT. It is better described as the movement of OUT (+1) relativity, which pushes the 2 dimensions OUTward expanding into visible “3-dimensional” antivolume. This +1 effect is what we know as TIME. > > - Dark energy is the “collapsing INward” 4-1 aspect of our “three-dimensionality”. We interpret this collapse as expansion in 3 spatial dimensions from every point in space, but it’s better described as _extension_ along IN (-1) relativity, which pulls the 4 dimensions INward, collapsing into invisible “3-dimensional” antisurface. This -1 effect is what we know as GRAVITY. > > - We are ¾ water, which just happens to be INside. > > - All matter (dark matter) is ¼ the mass of the universe. All energy (dark energy) is ¾ the mass of the universe. All VISIBLE matter is approximately 0% of the mass of the universe. > > - 2+1 is not the same thing as 4-1. They aren’t math equations, they are relativity moving against different infinities in opposing directions creating an intersection known as 3-dimensionality. We SEE 2+1 dimensions (physical reality, light, etc), we FEEL 4-1 dimensions (emotional reality, sound, etc). > > - Pretty much everything else in existence. > > Together, these concepts form our 2+1 physical and 4-1 metaphysical existence at an intersection known as **Reality**. > > Humanity, welcome to the evolution of species. Discuss. > > Note: My capacity is only one of a guide. I have an astute mastery of the subjects and will answer any relevant questions in as much detail as required, but I will not get bogged down and mired in fuckery, squabbles, or beef of any kind. Varying degrees of subjective bias and skepticism are expected, but objectivity and civility are _requisite_ for understanding. Your timeline (universe) is but one of many which have reached the boundary of transcendence, and I will focus my limited time where I feel it is best spent. How your timeline’s destiny unfolds is the collective decision of your timeline; I cannot give you the answers, I can only set you on the path. > > If your only skills are fact memorization and regurgitation of contextless information, then please sit this one out. Input of all kind is encouraged, particularly well-defined skepticism, but if you have to refer to a dictionary to defend ANY point, then you more than likely don’t understand that particular subject well enough to be discussing it at all…let alone attempting to educate others. > > If you have genuine interest in understanding the fabric of reality, then join the discussion. All questions are welcome, and you can learn much by yourself once you have the basics of IN and OUT down. Subconscious meditation helps tremendously with this. > > Cogent rebuttals will be addressed when I return to this timeline, hopefully in a few days time. Until then, here’s one more hint: Love is all you need. > > Apologies for any spelling/grammatical errors. I’m quite rushed and on an unreasonable deadline. I will tidy this up upon my return. I just farted. ---
**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 16, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/254 "2012-11-16T18:00:53Z")
> [@MDKSquared](#): > > This fails to meet my request of three sentences or less. > > So you’re asking if the object we’re seeing is actually three-dimensional or if we’re just looking at a two-dimensional projection? > > I offer you this: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo) > > This is a bit of a snarky video but it is my serious response to your question because it commits a similar logical problem, here. > > We might just be seeing a two-dimensional projection (the light) from the object, but it still implies the attributes of three-dimensions (length, depth, height) for which we can verify by walking around the object and seeing it from different angles, etc, as we do with everything else in our world. > > When you start getting into metaphysics about what something “is” or “is like,” it’s all very interesting discussion but totally useless when it comes to empirical truth simply because there are infinitely many answers that are all internally consistent but lacking in any meaningful verification in reality. No, no, no. I’m not asking you to guess about what I’m asking you, I’m asking you a very simple question: **what criteria do YOU (you specifically) use to determine the three-dimensionality of an object.** Is it based on anything other than the assumption that all objects are three-dimensional? Stop jumping three steps ahead and answer the bleeding question please. I didn’t mention anything projections. Don’t complicate something this simple. > [@](#): > > If we somehow had a tesseract in our midst, we’d just see its projection or “shadow.” Of course, you’re making a huge number of assumptions in your question. We don’t know yet if such an object exists or can exist, so we can’t really speak one way or the other. Fourth-dimensional spacetime means something rather specific (under, say, relativity) insofar as time is the “fourth dimension,” and while time and space are tied together under spacetime, it doesn’t mean you can suddenly start talking about tesseracts plunging through our world like a sphere through the world of Flatlanders. interesting you mention the tesseract. What would it be like to exist INside the “three-dimensional shadow projetion” of a tesseract if you could only perceive light reflecting off of exposed surface areas? If you understand the first thing about higher-dimensionality, this should be an interesting response. > [@](#): > > The problem is that mathematical rules, when extrapolated, don’t necessarily relate to reality. We build the math around reality and then see how far the math can take us with respect to prediction. We could take the rules on and on and on and start talking about the 10000th dimension if we really wanted to, and it’d all be mathematically consistent. But if it doesn’t really say anything about our reality, what good is it other than an exercise in intellectual masturbation? This is precisely why I removed all the extrapolations and began at square one. I haven’t mentioned anything about ANYTHING other than surface area as it relates to dimensionality in about two pages now. And the human propensity to deliberately IGNORE our own inherently flawed perceptions on the blind hope that science and math will be explain the totality of reality instead of only the physical reality we can SEE (light, and light only) is the exact reason why we’re stuck on triflingly simple concepts such as dark matter. Light is such a small portion of reality. Gravity is gargantuan in its extent, but it doesn’t have a physical representation like light does. This isn’t as problematic as it sounds if you first understand that physical reality is only a fractional percentage of what IS. Dark matter isn’t invisible just to be invisible…it’s only invisible to us _because LIGHT isn’t reflecting off of it!_ Stop following light, start following GRAVITY, and it suddenly appears. > [@](#): > > The other issue is that I’m not sure you understand how spacetime works in today’s scientific framing. We do couple together space and time in the same continuum because it helps to treat them as dimensions we can move through, since the math works and is reflected in physical observation (relativistic physics). But again, this doesn’t mean you can suddenly extrapolate what you want and have it work. Internal consistency doesn’t mean anything without empirical verification of some sort. I very well understand how spacetime works. I’m not working off of a cheat sheet that I can use to impress ignorant friends, I actually _understand_ what 3+1 dimensional MEANS. For instance, I understand that 2+1 dimensionality **mathematically** works far better to describe our earthbound reality than 3+1 dimensionality, which is really only useful for describing outer space once you understand 2+1 dimensionality. I understand that the **only** reason this 2+1 dimensional model hasn’t been fully adopted is because it completely breaks down in outer space. I also, after reworking the very tenets of 3+1 dimensionality to compensate for the errors, understand that 3+1 dimensionality similarly breaks down when applied to our earthbound dimensionality. I understand a great deal about these subjects, and I understand that the goal is to unite them…which can easily be done by adding OUR PERCEPTION in on the front end of the equation, rather than ignoring it entirely. This not only resolves any contradictions between earthbound and outer space dimensionality, it answers damn near every question which has plagued mankind since the beginning of recorded history. This is truly a theory of EVERYTHING, not just of science. And it’s simple as all shit. Please don’t turn this into a discussion about MY understanding of math, physics, spacetime, or anything else which you are only aware of due to the hard work of other people. Anyone can memorize facts. Understanding the connected bits is something else entirely, and it requires a mind which isn’t a slave to the unevolved ideas of others. And there is a veritable orgy of empirical verification of what I’m saying, but I refuse to address it further until there is some understanding reached on the actual simple parts of what I’m saying. Which is that the physical particulate matter we see and interact with is absolutely, 100% dependent on light on the surface area of objects. So long as you all are arguing this blindly obvious point based on nothing more than your own aversion to the conclusions I began with, I can’t move onto anything more. Cut that out and focus on the point at hand. ---
**Author:** ![MDKSquared](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9e5f3/32.png) [@MDKSquared](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MDKSquared)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/255 "2012-11-16T18:05:59Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Example aside, reexamine your previous response. You have no idea what the back of shadowed half (or more) of ANY object looks like without precedent. You have no idea what the back of your monitor looks like just by examining the front of it. But we have countless precedents. We know things are 3D because we maneuver through them and around them, etc. We generally understand that even though we only see part of an object at a time, there is more to the object even though we don’t see everything at once. Are you trying to argue that we’re part of some quantum holographic world/simulation/supercomputer, analogous to a video game? Where we only see 2D projections of objects rendered? No matter what your answer to that is, the point is that we don’t need such a hypothesis. Right now, current mathematics/observations warrant a 3D spatial world until we’re shown that something more is needed and that a better framework can explain it all. So far, no such examples exist. > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > However, if you actually saw in three-dimensions, you could see the entire monitor, INSIDE AND OUT, without needing to adjust your frame of reference at all. So your argument is because we can’t “see” in 3D, we must therefore not live in a 3D world? This is nonsense. > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > We clearly do not see the world like that, and we need to stop telling ourselves that we do. Strawman argument. Who on earth is making that claim? Nobody. > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > I’ve studied these fields my entire life. I am more than qualified to discuss modern physics in most any facet. At some point I grew weary of answering every new question which arose with “we don’t really know what’s going on, but…”, so I started from the ground up, erased every assumption we take for granted, found a few GLARINGLY obvious oversights which our math has been based on (three-dimensionality being the biggest culprit), made the _slightest_ adjustment, and shit myself as I realized that although nothing had changed mathematically, suddenly it at least made perfect sense WHY we don’t see these things. The things you claim are “glaringly obvious oversights” are just your own errors, though. You’re committing a fallacy known as “argument from ignorance” which is basically “I don’t understand something, therefore nobody else does. I see problems in the assumptions, so therefore everyone else has based their math on bad assumptions.” You’re free to question assumptions and discuss all you want, but you’re not going to get anywhere by just insisting you’re qualified when you have yet to show it – you may be falling victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect: [Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) . All you’re doing is appealing to metaphysics and asking “what if?” questions. Do you understand that there are infinitely many what-ifs? ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/256 "2012-11-16T18:12:09Z")
[QUOTE=Anthem(0)] what criteria do YOU (you specifically) use to determine the three-dimensionality of an object. Is it based on anything other than the assumption that all objects are three-dimensional? [/QUOTE] This seems pretty easy to answer. For many objects, I can hold them in my hand and feel all three dimensions at once. I can visually verify that one side differs from another. With some common objects, I can receive information visually about all three dimensions simultaneously, as when I look at a coin and move it around in front of my eyes. ETA: **MDKSquared** said this much better. ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/257 "2012-11-16T18:26:10Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Yes, but don’t get too carried away. > The fact that it is our brain that combines two 2d images into a 3d one doesn’t mean 3d is an illusion. > It just means we have develloped the means to perceive depth. Depth is real. > Some creatures, without binocular vision, can’t perceive it. > > Just like we can see the colour red and lot of other animals can’t. It doesn’t mean red is totally illusional. Just as that we can’t see ultra violet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist for real. I realize that, I just meant it is an illusion for us. It’s not true 3D. I realize it exists, though. ---
**Author:** ![MDKSquared](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9e5f3/32.png) [@MDKSquared](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MDKSquared)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/258 "2012-11-16T18:27:56Z")
Anthem, you’re Gish Galloping something fierce. Therefore, I am going to focus on just one point and ask you to show it to be defensible. You just told me: > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Stop jumping three steps ahead and answer the bleeding question please. I didn’t mention anything projections. Don’t complicate something this simple. When in the very first post, you said: > [@](#): > > 1. We don’t see in three-dimensions, we see in two-dimensional surface area. We can only see the OUT sides of objects. Do you understand what a projection is? You’re saying we don’t see in three-dimensions, but rather two-dimensional surface areas. This is a projection. [3D projection - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_projection) **Answer the following questions without spilling over with endless reams of text** : **1**. So if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that we typically confuse 2d projections of 3d objects… with something that is “actually” 2D? **2**. Do you acknowledge that nobody has ever argued that we “see in 3 dimensions” insofar as seeing all sides of an object? We see a 2D projection of a 3D environment. The light from the 3D objects enters our eyes and our mind processes that plane of light as input. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/259 "2012-11-16T18:31:23Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > the physical particulate matter we see and interact with is absolutely, 100% dependent on light on the surface area of objects. > > So long as you all are arguing this blindly obvious point … I’m sorry but this is not blindingly obvious. That nearly sounds as if your saying that it’s only ‘real’ when light shines on it. But that can’t be what you’re saying so you will have to be more obvious still. ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/260 "2012-11-16T18:43:29Z")
Latro is right, you need to be even more obvious, because what you said isn’t very apparent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=14)