# 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:** 16
**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, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/301 "2012-11-16T22:50:37Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > 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? Discuss, briefly, a 2D object you’ve encountered. ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/302 "2012-11-16T22:56:02Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > Discuss, briefly, a 2D object you’ve encountered. This post? ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/303 "2012-11-16T22:56:24Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > You do know what convex and concave lenses are, right? I do. I also recognize that “convex” and “concave” are opposites. Perhaps you mean to suggest that microscopes use only one sort of lens, that telescopes use the other, and they are, in this way, “opposites.” If that’s what you’re saying, you remain irritatingly wrong. If that’s not what you’re saying, you’ve done a piss-poor job of explaining yourself. Again. ---
**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, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/304 "2012-11-16T22:57:33Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > This post? Well… we’re going to have to define “object” now and I think that will kill me. ---
**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, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/305 "2012-11-16T23:02:01Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > 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”. Of course the telescope/microscope can’t actually see, but they do interpret information to our brain that our eyes are incapable of doing, despite [ostensibly] having access to the same information. You can look through a telescope facing any direction (so long as light is present) and see IN. It’s not dependent on xyz coordinates, it’s an entire extra variable. > [@](#): > > 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. Dimensions are pairs of directional opposites which are perpendicular to all other dimensions at every point. Mathematically, spacetime is “4D”, and telescope and microscopes reveal that last mathematical dimension which is not immediately intuitive. The concept of up/down, left/right, forward/back is immediately intuitive. The concept of in/out is not directly perceivable, they are a pair of directional opposites which are perpendicular to the other three dimensions at every point. If you have an alternate definition of “dimension”, or any reason as to why in/out DOESN’T qualify as at least a candidate for our visual interpretation of the fourth dimension, then have at it. Mind you, using this simple concept, one can actually EXPLAIN time, gravity, dark matter, the expansion of the universe, the visual confusion of the quantum world as well as galactic spin, and countless other anomalies. ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/306 "2012-11-16T23:05:15Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Mind you, using this simple concept, one can actually EXPLAIN time, gravity, dark matter, the expansion of the universe, the visual confusion of the quantum world as well as galactic spin, and countless other anomalies. …so #@&%ing do it already. Explain how gravity works, right now, in terms of your theory. I want to be able to tell my grand kids about this moment. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/307 "2012-11-16T23:05:26Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > Discuss, briefly, a 2D object you’ve encountered. Characters in Tyler Perry movies? ---
**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, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/308 "2012-11-16T23:06:32Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > 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? … You can look at a sample slide laying on a microscope with your bare eye and see one thing, or you can look at it through a powerful microscope and see something else entirely. And that has nothing to do with cutting open the slide and looking at deeper LAYERS of that object. This really isn’t that complex guys. Surface area deals with layers. INSIDE has nothing to do with layers. ---
**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, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/309 "2012-11-16T23:17:52Z")
Anthem…Briefly describe a 2d object you’ve encountered. ---
**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, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/310 "2012-11-16T23:22:10Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Of course the telescope/microscope can’t actually see, but they do interpret information to our brain that our eyes are incapable of doing, despite [ostensibly] having access to the same information. 1 - They don’t really interpret anything “to our brain”, they alter the course of light. 2 - Are you familiar with how our eyes and light interact? > [@](#): > > Dimensions are pairs of directional opposites which are perpendicular to all other dimensions at every point. Mathematically, spacetime is “4D”, and telescope and microscopes reveal that last mathematical dimension which is not immediately intuitive. The concept of up/down, left/right, forward/back is immediately intuitive. The concept of in/out is not directly perceivable, they are a pair of directional opposites which are perpendicular to the other three dimensions at every point. > > If you have an alternate definition of “dimension”, or any reason as to why in/out DOESN’T qualify as at least a candidate for our visual interpretation of the fourth dimension, then have at it. What you consider “in” “out” is just movement along a line in 3D space that can be described by vectors with X, Y and Z components. No fourth dimension required. ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/311 "2012-11-16T23:26:19Z")
1 - sound does not exist in space even technically. 2 - electron microscopes don’t use lenses the same way “regular” microscopes do. 3 - surfaces, by definition as being 2 dimensional, does not have “layers”. Things with volume is nothing but an infinite stacking of layers. This is basic calculus. 4 - magnification does not prove the existence of the 4th spatial dimension. It’s simply a trick of taking an image and making it proportionally larger/smaller based on the reflection of light off that object being redirected by a lens. This is basic optics. OP, you are the posterchild for Alexander Pope’s famous saying that a little learning is a dangerous thing. ---
**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, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/312 "2012-11-16T23:27:44Z")
Also, \*\*Oedipus \*\* has probably the most elegant rebuttal for this entire discourse on absurdities. If the OP would please answer him, that would be great. ---
**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, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/313 "2012-11-16T23:30:09Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > …so #@&%ing do it already. Explain how gravity works, right now, in terms of your theory. I want to be able to tell my grand kids about this moment. I’ve posted multiple times now on the only relevant math I have to add and, unsurprisingly, it’s gone completely unmentioned. You guys don’t want math so you can understand, you want math so you can attempt to invalidate. And as I’ve already said, this isn’t a new theory, it’s a rearranging of the pieces already present into a system which doesn’t _completely ignore_ the inherent limitations of human perception…but rather it contextualizes them. And just because I brought that math blurb to your attention doesn’t mean that I’m going to launch into an explanation now - it simply underlines how little any of you know about the “dimensionality and definition of spacetime” argument which has been raging in physics circles for years and years. Those arguments tend not to bleed over onto Yahoo News, nor science journals or their variants - at least not very often. And when they do, they largely go unnoticed. ---
**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, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/314 "2012-11-16T23:32:16Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > 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. What makes you think things outside of Earth are different than conditions on Earth? > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > 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? Pumbaa: Hey, Timon, ever wonder what those sparkly dots are up there? Timon: Pumbaa, I don’t wonder; I know. Pumbaa: Oh. What are they? Timon: They’re fireflies. Fireflies that, uh… got stuck up on that big bluish-black thing. Pumbaa: Oh, gee. I always thought they were balls of gas burning billions of miles away. Timon: Pumbaa, with you, everything’s gas. More seriously though: I want you to watch this. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/wMFPe-DwULM/hqdefault.jpg "Feynman: Magnets FUN TO IMAGINE 4 But see NEW UPDATED file at https://tinyurl.com/ycphc432") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM) To understand why your line of reasoning is ultimately a dead end. Do you understand the problem with your argument based on this video? > [@Anthem\_0](#): > > 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? So you say outer space is different from Earth, and the Earth is different from a billiard ball, but earlier you said all things on Earth are 3D? Dude, your own argument isn’t even internally consistent. Give me an example of a 2D object, or something we think is 3D that isn’t actually 3D – and what evidence you have to suggest that this is the case. ---
**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, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/315 "2012-11-16T23:36:49Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > I’ve posted multiple times now on the only relevant math I have to add and, unsurprisingly, it’s gone completely unmentioned. You guys don’t want math so you can understand, you want math so you can attempt to invalidate. And as I’ve already said, this isn’t a new theory, it’s a rearranging of the pieces already present into a system which doesn’t _completely ignore_ the inherent limitations of human perception…but rather it contextualizes them. > > And just because I brought that math blurb to your attention doesn’t mean that I’m going to launch into an explanation now - it simply underlines how little any of you know about the “dimensionality and definition of spacetime” argument which has been raging in physics circles for years and years. Those arguments tend not to bleed over onto Yahoo News, nor science journals or their variants - at least not very often. And when they do, they largely go unnoticed. You done barked up the wrong tree if you think you can get away with the accusations you just implied in that second paragraph on this message board. ---
**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, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/316 "2012-11-16T23:42:04Z")
I’m very, very sorry, and I’m going to apologize to Marley in advance…but… **TELL ME A SINGLE FUCKING 2 DIMENSIONAL OBJECT YOU HAVE ENCOUNTERED, ANTHEM** ---
**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, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/317 "2012-11-16T23:52:39Z")
> [@Oedipus](#): > > Anthem…Briefly describe a 2d object you’ve encountered. Is this somehow supposed to be analagous to the question I asked pages ago which no one attempted to answer? Clever, but you didn’t word the question correctly because, apparently, you missed the point of the question. It was never to provide an example of a 4D object, it was to get you to understand the limits of your own perception as they relate to the concept of dimensionality and all the things we take for granted. At any rate, in answer to your question, I exist in a three-dimensional environment - so I’d have to say I’ve never personally “encountered” a two-dimensional object. I suppose if the surfaces of three-dimensional objects count for anything, then perhaps I have, but I’d be being deliberately dishonest if I attempted to argue that the a computer monitor is 2 dimensional just because the surface is. I am therefore forced to admit that I personally have never, to my knowledge, encountered an actual object which was two-dimensional. The thing that I understand, however, is that **I** have never left the surface of the planet. But from observation of three-dimensional objects in my everyday life, there is a clear scale at which everything goes from being rather random and full of movement, unpredictability, and variety in shape to methodical, orderly, clones which only vary in composition, never in shape or ability to display unpredictability. Ironically, the same phenomenon occurs if I either larger or smaller than the size of the objects my evolutionary perception have evolved to take intuitive notice of. This dead zone of order only ends once I scale down OR UP yet _another_ unfathomable degree, where suddenly contradictory motions reappear. You can even use MATH to easily find these ranges, which are all very distinctly separated from each other by extraordinarily large relative gaps where visible exists at all. But it works best if you understand that, for instance, 10^-16 is absolutely NOWHERE NEAR 10^-6. These numbers are so disparate that they may as well be referring to different concepts of existence entirely. There is no example that can be given which would adequately describe to you the difference between an object the size of a photon, and an object the size of an atom. It doesn’t even matter the atom you pick…ANY ATOM is ungodly closer in size to any other atom than any atom is from a photon. There is absolutely NO overlap in these sizes, and nothing which even comes remotely close to approaching an overlap. They are separated by degrees which pretty much span the sum of the distance range that these objects can span themselves… Answering questions is fun. You should try it some time. ---
**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, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/318 "2012-11-16T23:57:24Z")
I very much doubt you know what the “size” of a photon is. ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/319 "2012-11-16T23:58:41Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > Answering questions is fun. You should try it some time. WTF is that even supposed to mean? I don’t think I ever remember you asking me a question TO answer, bro. EDIT: You asked MDKSquared. Anyways, I’m still trying to pinpoint you. Does this accurately represent your viewpoint? > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![MDKSquared](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9e5f3/32.png) [@MDKSquared](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MDKSquared)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/320 "2012-11-17T00:03:37Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > The thing that I understand, however, is that **I** have never left the surface of the planet. But from observation of three-dimensional objects in my everyday life, there is a clear scale at which everything goes from being rather random and full of movement, unpredictability, and variety in shape to methodical, orderly, clones which only vary in composition, never in shape or ability to display unpredictability. Ironically, the same phenomenon occurs if I either larger or smaller than the size of the objects my evolutionary perception have evolved to take intuitive notice of. This dead zone of order only ends once I scale down OR UP yet _another_ unfathomable degree, where suddenly contradictory motions reappear. > > You can even use MATH to easily find these ranges, which are all very distinctly separated from each other by extraordinarily large relative gaps where visible exists at all. But it works best if you understand that, for instance, 10^-16 is absolutely NOWHERE NEAR 10^-6. These numbers are so disparate that they may as well be referring to different concepts of existence entirely. There is no example that can be given which would adequately describe to you the difference between an object the size of a photon, and an object the size of an atom. It doesn’t even matter the atom you pick…ANY ATOM is ungodly closer in size to any other atom than any atom is from a photon. There is absolutely NO overlap in these sizes, and nothing which even comes remotely close to approaching an overlap. They are separated by degrees which pretty much span the sum of the distance range that these objects can span themselves… Okay so you clearly don’t quite understand QM. You’re also committing this fallacy [Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition) among many others. Anyways, you aren’t really saying anything, just rambling. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=17)