# 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:** 15
**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, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/281 "2012-11-16T21:10:06Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Great. Two quick follow up questions designed to remove the smugness so we can speak as equals. > > 1. Now when was the last time YOU maneuvered through _outer space_ which wasn’t absolutely dependent on the movement of the Earth through outer space? > > 2. On that same note, when was the last time that your left eyeball moved through “the air around us” in a way which wasn’t absolutely dependent on the movement of your physical body through “the air around us”? > > Note that if you respond glibly to either of these questions that the exact same logic can be applied to the other answer, and thus you’ll only be contradicting yourself. 1. We’ve always been on Earth. 2. My eye’s always been in my head. What’s your point? > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > No, I’m not. Please, stop assuming things which I am not saying. So, what are you saying? And give a simple answer. You don’t need ten paragraphs to get your point across. > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > No, my argument is we can’t see in 3D and are therefore in no position to make judgments referring to the dimensionality of any object, let alone EVERY OBJECT in existence, as 3D. Why in every post are you attaching concepts I’ve made no claim of? This type of behavior is slowing us down. Address what I’m saying or ask for clarification if I’m not being clear. You can’t keep responding to comments I’m not making. Uh, I “attacked” a direct quote there, buddy. You explicitly said “If we COULD see in three dimensions, we’d see all sides at once without adjusting frame of reference” and “We clearly do not see the world like that, and we need to stop telling ourselves that we do.” This is directly “addressing what you’re saying.” If you mean something else, then be clearer in what you’re trying to say. If anything is slowing us down, it’s your ability to be consistent. Anyways, you don’t seem to understand that living in a 3D environment doesn’t mean we have to “see” in 3D in the way you describe. > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Nearly every person in this thread has made the argument that we SEE in three dimensions just fine. Now that it’s been brought to your attention how ridiculous such a claim is by spelling out exactly what three-dimensional means, you’re pretending no one has made such a preposterous claim. > > If that’s your way of saying you agree with me that you DON’T see the world in three-dimensions, then I’m glad you finally agree with me. But you could have just admitted as much. No, you’re just misinterpreting what it means when people say we see three dimensions. We say that because we can see length, height, and depth – three dimensions. We technically see the 2D projection of these dimensions (the plane of light), but the projection clearly implies the dimensions much like the light from the steak implies the existence of the steak (if you watched the movie I linked). The dimensions are implied by more than just sight, too. You can hear things from different areas (something from below, above, far away, near, etc). You can feel objects, too (I can wrap my hand around a cube and feel all sides at once. I guess I have three-dimensional touching!). > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > No. I’m saying that we typically confuse the 2D projections we see of EVERY object to mean that _EVERY object is 3D_, rather than assuming that the _limits of our perception are 2D projections_, and working forward from there. “You’re saying that we typically confuse 2d projections of 3d objects… with something that is “actually” 2D?” “No. I’m saying that we typically confuse the 2D projections we see of EVERY object to mean that \*EVERY object is 3D” Soooooooooo… are you saying some objects are 3D and others may not be? Are you seriously this incapable of giving a straight answer? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/282 "2012-11-16T21:25:32Z")
> [@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. You don’t see in 2 dimensions. You “see” 1 dimension, a point and you’re brain extrapolates all other dimensions. ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/283 "2012-11-16T21:27:50Z")
[mocking] you people are so fixated on the answer. answer answer answer. you sheep have truly been brainwashed through your various chicken coops that you call schools. let go of the results-oriented test-taking mentality for once in your lives and embrace the pursuit of knowledge as all great minds have in the past. does it even matter what the answer is? you all should be basking in the wonders and asking more questions instead of chasing a dead end answer that you probably don’t fully comprehend the ramifications thereof anyway. i tire of this timeline and will now away to a more worthy setting. sit and think for once in your lives and perhaps i will be back to drop some more knowledge at a later bosonic echoframe-matrix. [/mocking] ---
**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, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/284 "2012-11-16T21:28:04Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Let’s see. If you’ve answered some of these, feel free to skip them. But I think you haven’t responded to these. And no more garbage about what dimension you’re hurrying off to: > [@](#): > > Your claim was that the distance from the Sun to Jupiter was 42 light-minutes - that was wrong. If the distance from the Sun to Jupiter doesn’t matter, why did you make the claim? First of all, that isn’t wrong. 42 is the mean. This is so clearly grasping at straws I’m not even sure how to respond. We’re talking about the surfaces of objects whose sizes are beyond our abilities to fathom…how could you POSSIBLY measuring anything going from point A to point B is not by using the average distance? Also, I very specifically said “from the _surface_ of…”, and as we’ve since discovered, the term “surface” can cover quite a bit. Why on earth is this a question you wanted answered? He’s making a glib statement about the a distance discrepancy of three minutes, the average of which falls exactly where I said it does. wtf > [@](#): > > Venus is not a ball of fire. Venus is a rocky planet similar in size to the Earth, with a thick, hot atmosphere. > > Io is not a ‘frozen ball of fire’, whatever that is. Io is a rocky body which is constantly churned by tidal forces, causing constant volcanism on the surface. It is not ‘frozen’, nor is it ‘a ball of fire’. > > Earth is a rocky planet. The outside of the planet is mostly covered by a thin layer of water, but the planet itself is rock, not water. > > Europa is mostly rock. It has an icy surface which appears to cover a liquid ocean, but again this doesn’t make it a ball of water. (And it isn’t even completely frozen) > > Correct on this one. Earth’s moon is a ball of rock. > > Sort of true. Ganymede has a stone core, covered by ice, possibly containing a liquid ocean between layers of ice. > > No, beyond that are Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, the Kuiper belt, and a lot of other stuff. The surface of Venus is indeed a perpetual fireball, but clearly I didn’t mean the internal composition of the planet…internal composition which, ironically, we’re in position to accurately measure. Now of course I’m not saying it’s literally fire from the core to the surface, but what the hell else do you call a planet that with the temperature and atmosphere of Venus? What kind of question is this to demand an answer of? Sigh… We’re talking about \*visible surfaces \*here and all you’re asking about are _invisible internal compositions_ which science can only speculate wildly on based on strictly on emissions from the surfaces of these moons and what we THINK Earth’s internal composition is. It is of no use to argue about the internal compositions of a moon which we’ve never studied the internal composition of. All we can do is study what we know of the surface. > [@](#): > > The mirroring you are claiming between the moons of Jupiter and the inner solar system seems remarkably cherry-picked and arbitrary. You seem to have no mirror bodies for Mercury or Mars, and seem to be picking bodies as mirrors at will as fits your theory and ignoring anything that doesn’t fit. It only seems arbitrary and cherry picked because I put that first. There’s nothing arbitrary about it. It’s the closest system, thus the most detailed inversion. Furthermore Mercury and Mars are represented just fine by the asteroid belts, but we clearly aren’t quite to that point yet. Patience. > [@](#): > > Well, if we conveniently ignore Pluto and Charon. which just happen to lie in the Kuiper Belt…which I’ve already mentioned the significance of. > [@](#): > > Venus is not tidally locked to the Earth or any other body. Earth, Venus, and Luna do not display a Laplace resonance, and there is no correspondence between the ratios of orbital period, rotation, or any other celestial characteristic of these bodies and the Galilean moons 1. Venus is absolutely tidally lock(ing) to Earth. Why would I address an asinine statement made by a person who didn’t know any better? It isn’t terrbily common knowledge, but people who study these things always have to make exceptions for Venus (and occasionally Uranus) when dealing with properties of celestial orbits because Venus not only barely spins at all, it spins BACKWARDS. And pretty much one side of it is facing us. It’s changing slightly, but the direction it’s changing is actually locking the effect more in place. If he didn’t already know this, he shouldn’t have responded in the way that he did. 2. Obviously the laplace resonance is unique to the Galilean Moons of Jupiter, but the point was that this unique connection transcends the mirror and is displayed in a very clear way, which we _interpret_ at tidal locking. There’s all sorts of fun to be had following these numbers out, if you’re into that sort of thing. > [@](#): > > Now, can you provide an actual testable hypothesis that could be tested by observation or experiment in a way that supports this thesis and falsifies existing theories of gravitation, planetology, orbital mechanics, et cetera? Nothing I’m saying falsifies any of those things. I never said anything remotely indicating as much. Why would I respond to something I never said or even suggested? Honestly, I don’t want this to detract from the direction this was headed because you all are claiming the conclusion is the basis for the premise. It works much better if you start with the premise then work forward. And if someone is still arguing with me that “I can see 3D objects just fine thank you”, then you are nowhere near the point to be able to interpret the mirror for yourself. I’m only posting this repsonse at all, despite how ridiculous these questions are, because I already edited the last post saying I would. This absolutely should have been left until at least a few of you were able to follow what I’m saying. Now there’s just gonna be 20 more people ignoring my last several posts just so they can argue more about Mercury and Venus. jesus christ people ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/285 "2012-11-16T21:30:20Z")
Honestly, everything makes more sense if you assume that you are a brain in a jar somewhere and that the universe and everything in it is a projection of your singular consciousness. I have to admit though, the **Anthem** -like aspects of my consciousness are really annoying. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/286 "2012-11-16T21:38:13Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > [mocking] > you people are so fixated on the answer. answer answer answer. you sheep have truly been brainwashed through your various chicken coops that you call schools. let go of the results-oriented test-taking mentality for once in your lives and embrace the pursuit of knowledge as all great minds have in the past. does it even matter what the answer is? you all should be basking in the wonders and asking more questions instead of chasing a dead end answer that you probably don’t fully comprehend the ramifications thereof anyway. i tire of this timeline and will now away to a more worthy setting. sit and think for once in your lives and perhaps i will be back to drop some more knowledge at a later bosonic echoframe-matrix. > [/mocking] It’s like a synthesis of “Plan 9 From Outer Space” and _Illuminatus!_. ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/287 "2012-11-16T21:39:17Z")
This guy reminds me a lot of the caller in [Inane Philistine Solipsism | Charles - Austin, TX | Atheist Experience #656 - YouTube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCc-5Z_3SKI) Can Anthem just admit he’s a solipsist or something so we can move on? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/288 "2012-11-16T21:55:16Z")
(tokes joint) “Hey man, like- how do we really KNOW anything?” ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/289 "2012-11-16T21:58:16Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Also, I very specifically said “from the _surface_ of…”, and as we’ve since discovered, the term “surface” can cover quite a bit. Oh, OK. You’ve redefined the word “surface” to describe the set of unspecified physical conditions which satisfy your assertions about the distance in space-time between two points. Makes perfect sense. > [@](#): > > The surface of Venus is indeed a perpetual fireball …\… Now of course I’m not saying it’s literally fire from the core to the surface, but what the hell else do you call a planet that with the temperature and atmosphere of Venus Oh, OK. You’ve redefined the word “fire” to describe things that are relatively hot by earth standards rather than, ya know, the real meaning. So Venus’ surface is on fire because it is hot there. Good to know. > [@](#): > > It only seems arbitrary and cherry picked because I put that first. There’s nothing arbitrary about it. It’s the closest system, thus the most detailed inversion. Furthermore Mercury and Mars are represented just fine by the asteroid belts, but we clearly aren’t quite to that point yet. Patience. The time for patience is over. Here’s one you can do w/o math: Make a list of the planets and moons on either side of the asteroid belt. Assign each one a number. Provide a list of paired numbers. I’ll get you started: 1. The Sun 2. Mercury 3. Venus 4. Earth + 5. The Moon 5. Mars + 7. Deimos, 8. Phobos ** ~~Asteroids~~ ** 6. Jupiter + ~60 satellites X. Saturn + ~60 satellites and and various rings Y. Uranus …and so on. And then say “9 matches 2” or whatever. Should be easy for you. It’s the sort of thing you could present to other people later; I’m helping you gather data for your research! > [@](#): > > Nothing I’m saying falsifies any of those things. I never said anything remotely indicating as much. Why would I respond to something I never said or even suggested? If you don’t understand why your theory needs a testable hypothesis, your claim of scientific qualifications is even more ridiculous than you’ve let on. > [@](#): > > I’m only posting this repsonse at all, despite how ridiculous these questions are, because I already edited the last post saying I would. I’d almost swear you were trolling if you didn’t seem so honestly confused by the lack of acceptance for your ideas. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/290 "2012-11-16T22:01:05Z")
> [@MDKSquared](#): > > This guy reminds me a lot of the caller in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCc-5Z\_3SKI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCc-5Z_3SKI) > > Can Anthem just admit he’s a solipsist or something so we can move on? I think you meant to link to this video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPi40lQetew&t=0m19s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPi40lQetew&t=0m19s) ---
**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, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/291 "2012-11-16T22:03:22Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > You don’t see in 2 dimensions. You “see” 1 dimension, a point and you’re brain extrapolates all other dimensions. Success!! Now, consider that a microscope manages to SEE something entirely different than our eyeballs, despite occupying the EXACT SAME xyz corrdinates as our eyeballs AND despite our eyeballs looking “through” those lenses. Also, a telescope will see the “opposite” of what the microscope sees (after all, it’s just an inversion of the lens). These are filtering the images into our brain from two opposing directions, both of which are wildly antithetical to our normal biological evolved perception, but bizarrely similar to each other. This is and of itself doesn’t mean very much. But think about WHY this is happening and what that means as far as maintaining the perpendicularity of dimensions (since telescopes and microscopes work regardless of the direction you’re looking) and voila…you have discovered a _potential_ candidate the “hidden” 4th spatial dimension right here on Earth. Considering the relationship between distance, size, and gravity, this is indeed an intriguing development. The secret is to not simply ignore your own flawed perception and try to work around it, but rather to put your flawed perception into perspective by understanding WHY it’s flawed to begin with. If you apply this concept of dimensionality (which is in no way contradictory to the accepted non-definition of dimension) to the mathematical gaps in the size of scales (which are very evident and remarked upon, even if physicists perpetually throw the matter under the rug in hopes that it will eventually disappear of its own accord), then you _will_ be dazzled. ---
**Author:** ![Oedipus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Oedipus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oedipus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/292 "2012-11-16T22:04:40Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > First of all, that isn’t wrong. 42 is the mean. This is so clearly grasping at straws I’m not even sure how to respond. We’re talking about the surfaces of objects whose sizes are beyond our abilities to fathom…how could you POSSIBLY measuring anything going from point A to point B is not by using the average distance? Also, I very specifically said “from the _surface_ of…”, and as we’ve since discovered, the term “surface” can cover quite a bit. > > Why on earth is this a question you wanted answered? He’s making a glib statement about the a distance discrepancy of three minutes, the average of which falls exactly where I said it does. wtf Wasn’t the whole 42 thing a big tenant of your OP? > [@Smeghead](#): > > I think this is essentially his entire thesis, and what he’s really getting to with all this 2D 3D nonsense. It’s the epistemology question. If everything we know about the universe ultimately comes to us through our senses, then if we can cast doubt on what our senses tell us, then we can decide that any old bullshit we like is actually “true”, and we can happily ignore any and all evidence that contradicts our theories. We don’t KNOW that the earth isn’t a big ball of water because we haven’t gone down and checked, and even if we did, how do we KNOW that we’re seeing what we think we’re seeing anyway? Therefore infinity and reflections and living inside the sun and 42-minute infinities and blah blah blah. He’s just trying to dress it up to look fancy and smart. Is this pretty much what you’re trying to say (in a zillion words)? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/293 "2012-11-16T22:14:13Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Success!! Now, consider that a microscope manages to SEE something entirely different than our eyeballs, despite occupying the EXACT SAME xyz corrdinates as our eyeballs AND despite our eyeballs looking “through” those lenses. Also, a telescope will see the “opposite” of what the microscope sees (after all, it’s just an inversion of the lens). These are filtering the images into our brain from two opposing directions, both of which are wildly antithetical to our normal biological evolved perception, but bizarrely similar to each other. I’m going to allow that a microscope and a telescope “see” stuff only in the sense that if those devices had photosensitive materials they could record a snapshot of the light arriving at the device, and in that sense we could say they “see”. But just because light is traveling through a lense doesn’t mean that the thing holding the lense can “see”. Either way, they alter the course of light causing rays to be spaced further apart or closer together, thus mapping to the photoreceptors in our eyes differently than if the light had been unaltered. I don’t “see” how that creates a new 4th spacial dimension. ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/294 "2012-11-16T22:18:25Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Success!! Now, consider that a microscope manages to SEE something entirely different than our eyeballs, despite occupying the EXACT SAME xyz corrdinates as our eyeballs AND despite our eyeballs looking “through” those lenses. Microscopes don’t see anything at all. And no, the lenses in a microscope do not occupy the same spatial coordinates as our eyes; if they did, they’d be in our eyes. I don’t recall my eye ever occupying the same space as the objective lens of a microscope and I’d suggest that, if anyone has, they’re doing it wrong. What is your point? ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/295 "2012-11-16T22:22:53Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Also, a telescope will see the “opposite” of what the microscope sees (after all, it’s just an inversion of the lens). These are filtering the images into our brain from two opposing directions, both of which are wildly antithetical to our normal biological evolved perception, but bizarrely similar to each other. Also, this statement is simply wrong. Microscopes and telescopes are in no meaningful sense “opposites” of each other. They simply operate at different focal lengths and in different light conditions. ---
**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, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/296 "2012-11-16T22:26:04Z")
_sinks into shadows to lurk_ _puts $ on **trabajábamos** _ seriously, keep the intellectual boot to his throat. literally no one else has gained any ground, but i am enjoying your tenacity. ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/297 "2012-11-16T22:42:24Z")
[quote=“MDKSquared, post:281, topic:640862”] > [@](#): > > Uh, I “attacked” a direct quote there, buddy. You explicitly said “If we COULD see in three dimensions, we’d see all sides at once without adjusting frame of reference” and “We clearly do not see the world like that, and we need to stop telling ourselves that we do.” This is directly “addressing what you’re saying.” If you mean something else, then be clearer in what you’re trying to say. > > If anything is slowing us down, it’s your ability to be consistent. > > Anyways, you don’t seem to understand that living in a 3D environment doesn’t mean we have to “see” in 3D in the way you describe. This is the crux, but you also managed to ignore the point entirely. This is probably my fault as I’m responding to too much and therefore typing too much. I’ll work on that…after this post. If all you can see are 2D projections, then why are you assuming EVERY object is 3D? Doing so makes sense on Earth where there is a limitless variety of complex, three-dimensional shapes permeating every corner of the planet, both on ground and underwater. It makes perfect sense to regard these many varied object as three-dimensionsal, despite our inability to SEE that internal third dimension. However, once you enter space, this is no longer the case. Heat, sound (please don’t argue this point - I know that sound technically exists in space, but it doesn’t have any rebound and is therefore non-existent), even control of movement, _they all disappear_. You’re no longer in an area with identifiable figurines you can pick up and examine. You’re surrounded by dead cold, silence, and darkness punctuated by the occasional fleck of light whose source of origin is several orders of magnitude beyond anything on Earth. And the only things you CAN see are simple spherical shapes, all of which spin and orbit other spheres, unprompted. Calling this effect GRAVITY is just giving it a name - it doesn’t help you _understand_ the concept at all. Gone is the veritable infinitude of SHAPES of three-dimensional objects - all replaced by objects so large as to be completely meaningless to us. Do you have any reason at all to deny any of this? > [@](#): > > Soooooooooo… are you saying some objects are 3D and others may not be? Are you seriously this incapable of giving a straight answer? Yes, of course I’m saying that. But more importantly, I’m asking you why the hell you would POSSIBLY think otherwise? Considering the differences between an object the size of the Earth and the size of a billiard ball, why would anyone just blindly ASSUME that they are both three-dimensional based on nothing more than the fact that they both look like spheres? Seriously? I’ll try to keep my responses shorter from here on out. I’m addressing too many questions at once. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/298 "2012-11-16T22:46:35Z")
**Anthem** You have have talked about the relationships between distance, size and gravity. Please give us one equation that has something to do with the OP and these relationships. One There are very smart and math capable posters on this board, I am not one of them. If what you are saying is provable by math, they will tell us at least, if it is possible. Until then I doubt you will get much traction here. Your OP is nice and interesting but until you can show us some math, eh Personally I expect the revelation that brought this to you was chemically induced **Capt** ---
**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 16, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/299 "2012-11-16T22:47:57Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Let me ask you a simple question. Why do you personally believe that water constitutes less than 1% of the mass of Earth? It is an assumption of the HIGHEST order to claim that you know what the internal composition of Earth is when even geologist admit they are making blind guesses based off the tiny scrapling of the surface they’ve been able to dig through. Earth is several thousands KILOMETERS “deep” and we’ve dug through and examined but a few thousand METERS of the surface. There are all sorts of underground waterways and we haven’t even begun the process of charting or following these flows. We know next nothing about the deep ocean and even less about what lies _underneath_ those “deepest” parts. If you knew anything about the subject, you would know this. > > To clear the air, I of course know the answer to the question I just posed…and it’s **because science says so**. Which is fine and **I agree with it**. HOWEVER, this is why _context_ and \*understanding \*are so vital, rather than blind parroting of “facts”. This is how \*actual \*science works. Actual scientists tend to understand the concepts we base our assumptions on. Rather, we make assumptions based on evidence, then assess the evidence for the counters to those assumptions, and then we either reject or build upon those assumptions. We don’t just look up articles online that give us fancy numbers and say we understand something. Cutting edge research in any field requires a full understanding of the concept at hand much more so than it does being able to memorize contextless “facts” you read on the internet. > > In this particular case, I’ve already done all this work and am therefore extremely confident in my conclusions. Unfortunately, I may not be around to see this thing out to the end, so I need to get the information out there through as many avenues as possible. This is ugly work, but somebody’s gotta do it. > > Also, if you’re gonna be a dick about a claim I’ve made, it helps to at least understand the concept first, which is all I’ve been saying. We’re talking about SURFACES here - and we have never SEEN anything other than a few tiny layers of the SURFACE of Earth which we’ve been fortunate enough to see light reflect off of. So when I say “the Earth is a ball of water”, I’m referring to the only part of it we have any conception of…the SURFACE. To remotely disagree with this, you have to claim that you know what lies under tiny bit of surface we’re even capable of unearthing - and even then you can only do so because of a scientific interpretation originally created by a person who was trying to fill gaps in knowledge. That person at least undertstood what they were doing, which was posing a theory which explained previously unexplained phenomena. Any actual scientist who actually studies the planet UNDERSTANDS that we KNOW very, very little about the internal composition of Earth. How could we know more when we’ve only uncovered a tenth of a fraction of a tiny little part of it? What the buggery fuck are YOUR assumptions based on then? Clearly not evidence. Geologists at least go out and examine the real world. ---
**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, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/300 "2012-11-16T22:48:17Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > Also, this statement is simply wrong. Microscopes and telescopes are in no meaningful sense “opposites” of each other. They simply operate at different focal lengths and in different light conditions. I don’t mean electron microscopes and the bloody Hubble, man. You can fashion a magnifying glass or a spyglass using simple lens refraction, and at the end of the day, that’s all their more powerful cousins are doing. You do know what convex and concave lenses are, right? If so, then you should understand what I’m saying. Adding deliberate complexity will not invalidate anything I’m saying. I’ll keep it short(er) from here on out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=16)