That’s not what he means, Latro. I mean this with entire respectfulness, but you must not have read everything he said about the seeing part.
No, of course not. Do I really have to?
No, I wouldn’t either if I had anything better to do. Please, don’t be offended. I’m not at all trying to be insulting. I wish there was a “polite” font so people wouldn’t take what I say wrong.
Ok, you bastard, you made me re-read the first bit of the first post. Thanks very much.
As I read it I still think he has his dimensions ‘wrong’. Or rather redefines them.
So far so good.
So OUT is the 2D, IN is the 3D and 4D is IN + OUT.
Now, the definition of this concept of IN is essential in all of this and he does a poor job of defining it. Threre’s an awful lot of wool and quite a bit of yarn spun from that wool but it remains just that, wooly.
He gives it a shot in post #51
Again 2D is redifined as the surface area, his true 3D is not just depth but the surface plus that which we cannot see, inside, rear and sides. IOW the entirity of the object.
Also introducing a new ‘four-dimensional object’ plus a some more wool and condescending.
Anyway, his use of the microscope as something as looking IN, kind of proves my assumption of my post #179 correct. That he has redifined the ‘inside’ as dimension #3. The microscope is looking inside the object, into the invisible 3rd dimension.
My only beef is with your use of the word logic. It’s absurd conclusions that do not follow from absurd premises.
Also, I just wanted to point out that our dear alternate-reality traveling OP continues to completely ignore this very simple request to back up something - ANYTHING - that he’s saying.
Fine, you don’t have math. But you have understanding, right? Explain to me, in your own words, why planets are “reflected” across the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. And forgive my incredulity, but you don’t find anything controversial about any of his assertions? Apart from the weird extraneous stuff about existing in alternate timelines?
??? It’s unclear what you’re asking.
The standard answer is that sunlight streams from the sun (well, what else?) hits Mars or Jupiter (or Ceres, or Ganymede, or…) and is reflected in many directions; a small portion of that light is reflected back toward us, and we see it.
The OP seems to make much of the fact (?) that light only reflects from the surfaces of material objects. This fails to take into account translucent (semi-transparent) objects. Where, exactly, is the “surface” of the thick fog or cloud of smoke that someone might happen to be walking through?
Even that isn’t quite right.
We see in 1D - a point of light stimulating a single cell.
The extrapolation to 2D, 3D and 4D is just that - an extrapolation by the cells in our eye and in the brain.
Apologies for my lack of clarity. Mostly, I’m referring to this portion of the OP:
I acknowledge- and have never denied!- that light reflects off of things. That said, I’m pretty sure that Anthem means to go beyond this simple, observable truth when he starts going on about “inversions across infinity” or whatever fanciful phrasing happens to be in use at the moment.
Does that clear things up?
The “SEEING manifolds” part isn’t entirely accurate (the manifolds are indeed present, and they do form the shape of the surface area, but we certainly don’t SEE the manifolds), but that’s no big deal because I get the point.
Now, taking what you JUST said, if n=4, then what do you think that object would look like TO YOU? Think about it, seriously. If an object were n=4 dimensions and you can only see the SURFACE AREA of any object which you’re assuming to be n=3 dimensional (and that IS an assumption you’re making - granted it’s one that I and pretty much everyone else agrees with…but it’s best if we don’t lie to ourselves about such things…it IS an assumption), then in what ways could that entire extra dimension be translated TO YOU? I understand this is asking you to THINK instead of being told “it’s like this,” and I understand that it’s slightly more difficult to casually dismiss what I’m saying because of that…but it’s worth it, I promise you.
My last post (the one with 3 questions addressed to Ludovic) was the perfect starting place for serious discussion. You all want the foundation of the theory, so let’s at it, everyone. This theory isn’t based on coincidence and optical illusions - all that cool stuff naturally derives from the premise. All that fancy stuff is the PROOF of what I’m saying. But we’ve gone back a few squares to the origin, so let’s stick there for now.
It’s been a rougher day than usual, so pardon if my naturally sunny disposition is in absence.
I speak in metaphor, and my private life is just that. There are countless ways to interpret “I’m off to surf alternate realities” - you all just assumed I was blithering. I may have given you reason to believe as much, but that doesn’t make it so.
Start with my response to Ludovic, and answer those questions please. If you can understand his post, and you can understand my response, then just start there. That’s the new ground zero. We’ll work our way back to the crazy shit if I’m still available.
As far the ongoing requests for math, this really isn’t a concept where adding numbers and variables is going to help at this point. This is a theory based on UNDERSTANDING the working parts of the equation, not memorization of their respective order. E=MC^2 is awesome, yes, but you wouldn’t have a clue what it meant if you don’t UNDERSTAND the variables. I’ve already given you the relevant numbers as they pertain to our native dimensionality and we cannot move forward until you understand the questions that I’m asking you to answer. Then you can come to your own conclusions and ignore my crazy ass. But at least put forth a little thought into the questions I’m asking.
Anthem (0), either post clearly and explain what you’re saying, or go write sci-fi fan fiction. And I think it’s about time you responded to the posters who pointed out the factual errors you’ve made in this thread.
Tough day at CERN?
Yeah… this whole “Astrophysicist Socrates on DMT” bit is getting a little tiresome. I’m thinking I’ll just check back in a couple days to see if you ever get around to making your point.
I’m sorry, but I no longer accept the suggestion that you could produce any such math. My ability (or not) to comprehend what you’re refusing to offer has no relevance to the offering. If you had it, you could post it and I could gaze in uncomprehending awe like a caveman. That’d be fun, right?
Meh, Einstein could write it on a chalkboard in front of an empty room. You could offer math here if you chose to do so. And were able. Do you think Einstein kept the equations secret until he was sure Planck was ready for them?
Forgive me for saying that I think a lot of people have put more effort/thought into this than it deserves.
What question are you asking exactly?
Well, not without precedent.
I was going with blathering, not blithering so I guess I did learn something in this timestream.
Oh, that’s easy; he’s completely full of prunes! Where are the rest of the entries in the Jovian zoo? Where is the comparable earth-moon pair? Which Jovian moon has life? (Arthur C. Clarke’s “2010” notwithstanding.) Where are the giant planets that orbit Jupiter, as Jupiter orbits the sun? Where are the giant planets orbiting those giant planets?
This so-called reflection fails any test of practical interest.
Long and long ago, someone noted that there were seven planets, seven metals, seven sensory apertures in the human skull, etc. (I believe there were some additional septads referenced.) This led the philosopher in question to insist that no eighth planet could ever be discovered. Voila, Uranus.