Calling all Great Minds: The Theory of Everything

[Anthem_0]

@Crotalus

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?

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?

In conclusion, I’m completely done responding to YOU (Crotalus) at all. Feel free to continue berating me, but it’ll be a totally one-way dialogue from this point forward. You’ve contributed nothing aside from antagonism and negativity, and as yet failed to demonstrate even the slightest degree of competence in even basic reading comprehension. I can deal with moderate incompetence, stubbornness, and even flagrant personal insults (which I can dish back as well) so long as a person is at least willing to attempt to understand what I’m saying. You clearly have another agenda entirely which is running directly counter to that of my own, and I therefore have no more desire to interact with you. No hard feelings, but I’m just done dealing with you and I truly hope the feeling is mutual. Truly.

In other words, feel free to exit the classroom until you’re ready to be behave. If you insist on staying and being disruptive, then you will simply be ignored. I hate resorting to this mode, but I hate to be distracted from the few people who are actually willing to engage even more…particularly for the sake of a person who is doing their damnedest to make the argument about me on a personal, private level.

[Ludovic]

@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?

Because water is less dense than rock.

[Marley23]

@Anthem_0

In other words, feel free to exit the classroom until you’re ready to be behave. If you insist on staying and being disruptive, then you will simply be ignored. I hate resorting to this mode, but I hate to be distracted from the few people who are actually willing to engage even more…particularly for the sake of a person who is doing their damnedest to make the argument about me on a personal, private level.

So you’re still ignoring a bunch of questions, and finding that is still not enough to make it look like you are winning the argument, you have now proclaimed you’re going to start ignoring posters entirely. Answer the questions I quoted for you. I did not do that for my health, and I was giving you a formal instruction to answer them. And stop demeaning other posters. If that continues, I may I decide you need to exit the classroom, and in that case you’ll exit for real.

[Marley23]

@Docta_G

I just farted.

Grow up. If you don’t want to participate in the thread, don’t post in it.

[MDKSquared]

@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.

You do realize we can see other planets being formed/destroyed elsewhere in the cosmos, right? We know how planets form, and we know how the processes differ based on the materials used. There are countless metrics we use to determine such attributes. We know how our planet was formed, too.

And it’s all consistent: How Do We Know What’s in the Earth’s Core? PM Explains

You say “blind guesses” as if scientists just sit around and make shit up.

I’m stepping out of this thread because you’re just ignoring the tougher questions that poke major holes in your statements, which is no debate at all.

[Smeghead]

@Smeghead

So you’re taking the “shut up” option out of “put up or shut up”. I’m not asking for mathematical proof for everything we already know is true. I am asking YOU to give mathematical proof for ANYTHING - just one little solitary fact - that YOU and YOU ALONE believe to be true. You’ve offered dozens, if not hundreds of such assertions in this thread. Back one of them up. Or admit that you’re pulling this all out of your ass.

@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.

How terribly frustrating it must be for you to repeatedly make a simple request for cooperation, only to have it roundly ignored over and over again. I cannot imagine how that must feel. Poor thing.

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.

This is factually incorrect. We do not need to drill through the mantle of the earth to have some understanding of what it is made. Measurements have been made, primarily through seismological studies, that make it very very clear that there are not vast underground waterways under the earth’s surface. If there were, the echoes of earthquake vibrations would be VERY different from what it is observed. Thus, our understanding of the composition of the earth is not based on “assumptions of the highest order” but rather from hard, empirical data collected and analyzed by very smart people. We may not know every little detail, but we do know for certain that your proposed “underground waterways” are horseshit.

If you - what was your term? - had even the tiniest familiarity with the field, you would know this.

[Crotalus]

Wow. You think I have been insulting? You are a member of a sensitive species.

I am guilty as charged concerning what I think I know about the earth. What I consider to be my knowledge of the composition of the earth is based on what I have read of the commonly accepted scientific beliefs on the subject. Since everything that gets discovered seems to reinforce those beliefs or nudge the theory a little closer to reality, I’m pretty comfortable with that.

You write a lot, but you’re not good at it. Are you saying that the earth is in fact a ball of water, or that because we haven’t actually looked at every cubic centimeter of the earth’s interior, you are free to speculate about what it is made of, or to dismiss current theories about its composition?

And as for leaving the classroom, this isn’t a classroom, you are not the teacher, I’ve been here quite a while and enjoy it, and I will participate in whatever way pleases me within the rules.

[Latro]

@Smeghead

I cannot imagine how that must feel.

It’s cold outside.
No kind of atmosphere.
I’m all alone, more or less…
Sorry couldn’t resist..

[Smeghead]

@Crotalus

You write a lot, but you’re not good at it. Are you saying that the earth is in fact a ball of water, or that because we haven’t actually looked at every cubic centimeter of the earth’s interior, you are free to speculate about what it is made of, or to dismiss current theories about its composition?

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.

[Dob]

while I couldn’t follow most of what you said (im not in any dimension a physics expert), you endend your post with “hint: Love is all you need” however, you are providng a “hint” to a question that you didn’t ask… at least I didn’t see any questions.

So where you asking us a question?? Did I miss it?

So while at some level I wanted to take the time to understand your position and respond in a reasonable well thought fashion… you just killed it all with that line.

[Crotalus]

@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.

Are you telling me he’s deluded and full of it? I am deeply disappointed.

[trabajabamos]

@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.

I’m sorry, if you honestly believe that anyone here- myself included- was surprised by the revelation that we see things because they reflect or emit visible light, you’ve been sharing your “theory” with the wrong sort of people. That said, if you’re accustomed to speaking over the heads of those who have never taken a physics class, I begin to understand why the denizens of this board, demanding math and logical coherence as they tend to do, frustrate you so.

…I think I was in 7th or 8th grade when it dawned on me that “red” things aren’t really red so much as they reflect a lot of red light. Man did I feel smart!

[trabajabamos]

@Anthem_0

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.

(Bolding mine…)

Stop using the word “we.” I categorically reject the suggestion that you are a scientist or that you have any of the training necessary to perform any sort of meaningful research (cutting edge or otherwise). If you submitted this dreck to a journal you’d be lucky if they deigned to mock you.

[MDKSquared]

@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.

This, this, this, and more this. Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Anthem_0]

@MDKSquared

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.

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.

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.

No, I’m not. Please, stop assuming things which I am not saying.

So your argument is because we can’t “see” in 3D, we must therefore not live in a 3D world? This is nonsense.

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.

Having said that, there are relatively clear patterns which EMERGE both mathematically and observationally, which suggest that a there is a very clear border which, if applied to the dimensionality of a given object, suddenly renders confusing phenomena completely sensible. This has nothing to do with the origins of reality or “God” (which are not subjects I can profess any “deeper” understanding of) or anything like that, but it does explain *everything *we SEE on every level of existence. It explains explains the things we don’t see AND why we don’t see them even though we measure them to be there. And it does so consistently across all scales of reality.

Strawman argument. Who on earth is making that claim? Nobody.

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.

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.”

Hilarious, considering the primary charge being leveled at me is that I’m pretending to know things which no one else knows.

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

Fair point. We’ll stick with the word projection. However, this is in no way related to the holographic principle, so don’t start trying to argue either for or against that in thinking that those arguments apply to anything I’m saying.

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?

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.

I’m also suggesting that correcting for that singular flaw (which itself is reducible to the lazy shorthand of 3D) opens up reality in a very clear and very easy to follow pattern. It is THAT SIMPLE. The math suddenly fits without losing meaning, obsrevational reality at the subatomic and galactic scale are no longer confusing and contradictory. If you no longer ignoring your own limitations, but rather take a second or two to put them into perspective, shit starts making a low more sense. And the beauty is it doesn’t change ANYTHING we’ve already proven to be accurate. It only eliminates all the confusing contradictions.

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.

Whether I acknowledge that is ancillary if we both agree with the statement, which appears to be the case. If you are acknowledging that we only see 2D projections, then please answer questions 2 and 3.
EdiT: Marley, give me a ten minutes or so, I just saw your reponse.

[pancakes3]

but not mine?

[Czarcasm]

@Anthem_0

Great. Two quick follow up questions designed to remove the smugness so we can speak as equals.

Excuse me, but who the hell are you that I would care to be your “equal”? What is your background? What degrees have you earned? Who failed in teaching you basic social skills?

[Smeghead]

Dude - he’s the guy that figured out that everything we know about everything is WRONG! We should be bowing down to him, groveling and scraping and begging for him to share a few tidbits of his genius with us.

[trabajabamos]

@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”?

Unless MDKSquared is an astronaut or a heretofore undocumented biological anomaly, the answer to both question must certainly be “never.” Make a point for once!

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.

Discuss, briefly, a 2D object you’ve encountered.

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.

Discuss, briefly, a 2D object you’ve encountered.

The math suddenly fits without losing meaning, obsrevational reality at the subatomic and galactic scale are no longer confusing and contradictory.

You’ve no math. Not one single equation.

Tell you what: Name any widely acknowledged incongruity between the scales to which you allude, provide relevant existing math related to that incongruity, and then explain how specifically- using numbers- your theory clarifies and/or does away with that incongruity.

[Crotalus]

@Czarcasm

Who failed in teaching you basic social skills?

I know this one! His parents, whatever, wherever and whenever they may have been.