But the thing is, we don’t see the interior of what you mean, just the surface of what words you post.
Actually, the speed of light does vary with the density of air. This is what causes that “water on the road” mirage and what makes stars twinkle. The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum.
Good grief, this this is still going?
Going elsewhere for something more coherent.
Give me a list of “factual errors” you want responded to, and I will gladly oblige. Most of the people pointing out “factual errors” are attacking concepts I’m NOT putting forward, but rather just what they THINK I’m saying.
In the meantime:
-
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.
-
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.
After you are satisfied with your own answers to the above questions:
3. 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?
I don’t know how I can be more clear in what I’m asking. This isn’t an unreasonable request.
Come on guys, take a crack at it. You don’t want everything spelled out for you. It’s better to come to your own conclusions via the path of understanding than to have me tell you the implications of this, just so you can rage the absurdity again.
Who is admitting that only two dimensions can be measured on a solid object? That is a nonsensical statement. Picture a ball sitting on a ruler, with a tape measure wrapped around its circumference. Are you suggesting that because we can’t see it, the part of the tape behind the ball is not measuring the solid object? If not, what are you saying?
Indeed. The repeated requests for mathematical underpinnings to your arguments are NOT based on a wish for further enlightenment. It is my assertion - and I believe many here would agree with me - that no such mathematical work exists. To be blunt, you’re talking out of your ass, Anthem, and your claims to have worked out the math are laughable. Now, if I am incorrect, it would be absolutely trivial for you to prove it. You would have the math, after all, and all you would need to do is copy and paste it. Whether we understood it or not is completely irrelevant, though I suspect that you’d be amazed at the level of expertise this board can bring to bear when needed.
In short, we are challenging you to prove that there’s anything to this “theory” beyond the imaginings of a mind who doesn’t really understand anything about the subject. The more that you and your suspiciously-similar-in-posting-style compatriot continue to obfuscate and bluster and come up with ridiculous excuses for not posting something - ANYTHING - to back up your assertions, the more obvious your nonsense is.
So, in really really short, put up or shut up.
I look forward to your ignoring this post as well.
Let’s start with everything you’ve ever written, then we can move on to the addled thoughts that led you to write it.
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.
I don’t generally hear people running around talking about how the two-dimensional surface area of objects is what we actually interact with on a day-to-day basis. Yes, these concepts are simple and obvious when you stop to actually THINK about it, but most people don’t go that far. They just say “we’re 3d” and end it there. You can effectively argue that WE are 3d, but clearly our perceptions ARE NOT.
It’s taken this many pages for this SIMPLE concept to hit home with even just a few of you, and still there are people who will disagree with something this blindingly obvious and true just because it doesn’t fit with their preconceived notion. Math proves it rather simply (surface area is a function of two dimensions), science KNOWS it (information theory, etc), but PEOPLE deny it for reasons untenable. And they deny it staunchly and with much passion.
Did you even bother to read the rest of the question? Seriously, did you even bother? These aren’t questions with correct or incorrect answers…they are questions designed at getting you to actually think about the concepts which you believe intrinsically. Please stop trying to disprove concepts you aren’t taking the tiniest scrapling of time to understand.
I have been doing this a very long time. Just work with me; read through the questions FULLY, then respond. These aren’t trick questions, and I’m not testing you… I’m only trying to get you to test yourself. The only way to truly learn is through understanding.
OK, thanks. I tested myself, I passed. You, on the other hand, abruptly failed.
I’m curious if anthem’s wonderously special insight has alerted him to how annoyed everyone here is of him…
I believe that annoying people is his ultimate goal.
This guy is bordering hard on being a Chris Langan copycat: Word games, unfalsifiable silliness, a misunderstanding of current science, distrust of the scientific community, and no argument of substance.
Or did the Timecube guy have a kid that nobody knew about?
voltaire wondered the same thing in post 4. 
I’m only going to address this in the hopes that it finally sinks in this time.
The complex math has already been done, and is readily available in repositories of knowledge the world over. If you want to understand The Standard Model, and you believe math will help you, then by all means, you can find that math. If you want to understand calculcus or information theory, and and you believe math will help you, then that math can be located as well. If you want to understand relativity, then math can be located to assist you in that endeavor as well.
The only relevant math I have to offer you is in direct regards to the concept of OUR three-dimensional reality…which is in truth a composite of 2+1 dimensional and 4-1 dimensional. We exist in a state PERPETUALLY RELATIVE to two-dimensionality and four-dimensionality. This is all very easily demonstrable if you pulled your fingers out of your ears and quit spinning in circles clamoring for answers when you don’t even understand the bloody question.
If that doesn’t make sense to you, then pull the stick out of your ass, sit down, and either LEARN something - or at least understand it well enough to disprove it on merit rather than sarcasm and emotion. I’m actually WELCOMING that. But you can only do that if you take a few minutes (and that’s honestly all it would take) to understand what I’m saying. Then, once you realize you are utterly incapable of doing so, you can rejoice in your newfound knowledge, and apply whatever math to it that you want. It truly is that versatile a concept.
If all you’re interested in is math, then 2+1; 4-1.
If you gather enough fools in one place, you’ll eventually find a few who are less-foolish and (hopefully) even a tiny handful of great minds. That was what the calling was for, after all. Even now, there are a few watching silently, waiting for some of the less-foolish to clear away a bit more of the pure foolish refuse.
This is an old process, tried and true. My intent isn’t to annoy the fool, but that is an inevitable consequence of dealing with them.
^yes. the fool. Lemme predict how this ends: everyone tried to explain to the extremely loud fool why he didn’t make sense. The fool is too stubborn and trapped in his own game to bother noticing. Eventually, everyone gets bored of the loud fool and stops looking in his direction. So the loud fool goes to find a new crowd to hollar into, since attention is his only real goal.
(I’ll bite because I am bored)
So, Anthem, in three sentences or less, describe your argument/question.
[QUOTE=Anthem (0)]
The only way to truly learn is through understanding.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Anthem (0)]
But you can only do that if you take a few minutes (and that’s honestly all it would take) to understand what I’m saying. Then, once you realize you are utterly incapable of doing so, you can rejoice in your newfound knowledge,…
[/QUOTE]
So, we can only learn through understanding, it will only take a few minutes, we are utterly incapable of understanding, but we will gain knowledge. Are you even reading what you write?
Oh, ghod-he thinks he’s a guru/Enlightened Master.
Here’s some direct questions you haven’t answered yet:
- What did you mean when you referred to “this timeline”?
- What degrees do you hold?
- Where have you studied?