So, what are you saying? And give a simple answer. You don’t need ten paragraphs to get your point across.
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.
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!).
“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?
[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]
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
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.
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.
which just happen to lie in the Kuiper Belt…which I’ve already mentioned the significance of.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
The Sun
Mercury
Venus
Earth + 5. The Moon
Mars + 7. Deimos, 8. Phobos Asteroids
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!
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’d almost swear you were trolling if you didn’t seem so honestly confused by the lack of acceptance for your ideas.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.