Doubtful, but irrelevant. If these closet geniuses won’t even answer a few simple questions which are designed only to get them to actually THINK FOR THEMSELVES about a simple concept such an “describing the physical characteristics of objects which they consider to be three-dimensional as compared with objects which they’ve only ever seen through a telescope or a microscope but, for some inexplicable reason, they are also assigning the concept of three-dimensionality to”, I seriously doubt that any of them would be capable of thinking of a subject as ordered as Math from a perspective which wasn’t taught to them by someone else. The thing about thinking is it tells you everything you need to know about your ACTUAL level of understanding of a subject.
Anyone can memorize the patterns of equations once someone else has done all the work for them. If you’ve ever tried to create a consistent math principle yourself, you’d realize it actually requires a different mode of thinking based far more on abstraction than pre-defined determinism. People with open minds are the ones who advance knowledge. It is very easy to parrot information you’ve heard from other people. It’s another matter entirely to actually THINK for yourself when the answers aren’t int he back of the book. Amazingly, it actually requires you understand the concepts laid out in the text. Which is why I’M here discussing dimensionality while most of the rest of you are complaining about the ridiculousness of the conclusions of a concept which you admittedly don’t understand.
But such is life. I hope there’s no hard feelings from the few of you who are at least attempting to discredit the points currently being discussed. If you’re one of the ones still asking about questions from page 1, then you’ve been hopelessly left behind at this point and would be better served only checking the last page or so.
I’ll take it to the BBQ Pit if I have to, but I just can’t get over how INSANELY pretentious Anthem is.
I’ve wish there was a way to maintain anonymity, but still have your face attached to user name, just so people could see what specific posters looked like. I honestly think it would be really enlightening.
Also, take the fact that we still don’t know where Anthem got this education (or lack thereof) from, a thing most people will tell readily, and the fact that he is a solo person blathering on while almost NO ONE has any idea of what he’s talking about, and you’ve got a formula for me backing out of a thread.
See ya later, bro. I’ll be watching from the sidelines.
Well… I know Jupiter is not 2-dimensional because it’s a round image when viewed from different vantage points. Case closed. That’s how we know everything is 3 dimensional. You’re suggesting that everything we see is a cardboard cutout of a ghost-town like a movie set until proven otherwise. Well that theory goes flying out the window astronomically speaking because the earth whizzes past the universe one complete revolution every year and there is no object out there that exists that disappears when you view it from the profile angle. Even the ancients knew about that.
I really feel sorry for you and your ardent believe in nonsense. I’m sorry that school has failed you so that you are left with such disdain for “institutionalized learning”. I’m sorry that despite your strong affinity for physics you lacked the ability to study it on any meaningful level. I’m sorry that you feel like you have to overcompensate by being boorish and pigheaded in your analysis and I’m sorry you have to glean what you can from the scrapheaps of pseudoscience.
Do not walk away from this message board though. Stay. Ask questions. Learn. There are some damn good scientists on this board who explain things very facilely if you ask nice enough. It just takes for you to swallow your pride a bit and think that maybe somebody else has something to offer you the same way you’re currently offering knowledge to us. There’s no shame in being ignorant. However, there is shame in willingly choosing to stay ignorant.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Anthem WAS that guy. The guy in that youtube video who allegedly set records for IQ only has aptitude, not knowledge. While it is impressive that his logic, reasoning, and spatial reasoning is off-the-charts high it does not make him an authority in anything - especially not theoretical physics. Anthem may be the same but without proper training, it’s all for naught. It’d be like expecting Usain Bolt to dominate in the NFL because he has ungodly physical tools but alas zero skill.
What a steaming pile of horseshit. You absolutely, positively, fucking have NOT. You have not posted one single solitary equation, assumption, or fucking DIGIT of math. This is a complete and total lie.
That is absolutely correct. Again, speaking as a scientist - that is, I am an actual, honest, for-real, non-pretend, professional scientist - that is exactly what you SHOULD want people to be doing to your theory if you have even the tiniest bit of a pretense toward it being at all related to reality. Every scientist craves, lusts after having people attempt to disprove his theory, because that is the only way it can be tested and proven to be true. Before you ever submit a paper for publication, you show it to as many people as you can convince to sit down and look at it, and you get them to think of every single objection and problem they can. Because if there’s a problem with your theory, SOMEONE will find it, and it’s better if it’s done before it’s out there in the public. More importantly, science seeks after truth, and if someone can find a problem with your theory or work, that means your idea isn’t true, or at least not proven. If all goes well, you can find a way to fix the problems. But you know what not one single actual real scientist ever ever EVER does? They don’t EVER fucking cry “quit trying to prove me wrong, you meanies!” and go sobbing about how unfair life is. That is the act of a child. That is the act of a person who has a personal pet theory that they KNOW deep down is complete donkey balls.
Again, IF you have a real theory, and IF you have any evidence to back it up, you should be proudly welcoming and inviting challenge and attempts to disprove it, because IF your theory is correct, it should be able to withstand each and every attack any person on earth can throw at it. That is how the process works. IF you insist that the problem is that no one can understand what your magnificent genius is attempting to bestow on us lowly worms, then the problem is that you suck at communication, another vital skill for any scientist. Quit blaming everyone else, and either BACK UP what you’re attempting to say with facts and logic, or do everyone a favor and shut the hell up.
Why is that a distinction worth noting? They interpret electromagnetic radiation and we SEE their interpretation. You aren’t levying the same complaint about cameras, which operate off the same principle, sans the convexity/concavity. Defining their mechanism as “altering the course of light” is beginning with the unsubstantiated assumption that light itself doesn’t alter its own course at a certain scale and rather that it’s somehow being tampered with by the machines. Even if that IS the case, it doesn’t change the fact that an ordinary camera sees the exact same image as our eyeballs do. Even if it’s filtered through infrared or ultraviolet, it’s not like the physical structure of objects completely changes just because we’re looking at it through a camera.
Also, if you’re concerned about them “altering the course of light”, then why are you reliant on information gathered from them. Don’t try to have your cake and eat it to. They are either reliable instruments for examining reality or they aren’t. I don’t even understand what you’re disagreeing with at this point.
However, if you define dimensionality to represent SCALES rather than just blindly assuming the entire bleeding universe is as three-dimensional as an automobile or a hydrogen atom, then these problems DISAPPEAR. The lines are already drawn. We’ve known for decades that these scales are very apparent and measurable, but we’ve failed to connect the dots.
Mmhmm. Using your own words, “what you consider to be ‘up’ and ‘down’ is just movement along a line in 2D space that can be described by vectors with xy components”.
Come on man, just be real with yourself for a moment. You don’t HAVE to disagree with everything I’m saying, just because I’m saying it. “Mvement along a line in 3d space that can be described by vectors with xyz components” is the exact definition OF a dimension. Hell, that’s a better breakdown of the concept dimensionality than I regularly use myself.
This is the sort of thing which occurs when you deliberately try to avoid obviously accurate conclusions. Be honest with yourself about what it is you’re doing. You aren’t even pretending to disagree with the statements you were responding to.
Take a step back and look what you just did in your desperation to avoid even *partially *conceding a simple point. You are clearly aware of the fact that MATH points to the possibility of extra dimensions (actually, math points to the virtual CERTAINTY of additional dimensions), the most famous of which is the strangely-dimensional time element of spacetime. You’re also fully aware that spacetime, because of this, is considered to be 4D. But you end your statement with “no 4th dimension required”. I never made that requirement to begin with, math pointed to it. I only suggested that in the knowledge that mathematically spacetime is 4D, and there being this weird thing called time which we clearly experience but can’t quite fit into the picture as a spatial dimension, are there any perhaps not-so-obvious directionally-opposing pairs which themselves are perpendicular to the other three-dimensions at every point in xyz space? You answered the question yourself, then disagreed with your own conclusion, just so you wouldn’t have to say “ok, I can’t argue with that statement, please continue?”
Why are you running from a conclusion this simple? You clearly know what a dimension is as you flawlessly described the concept in your vector analogy. I haven’t even proposed anything beyond basic reasoning at this point, so what exactly is the point of contention? How can you all demand MATH when you’re not following basic reasoning or even permitting for the possibility of viable candidates to be more closely examined? Honesty is the first step to meaningful intellectual discourse.
I’m physically exhausted and need a respite. I’ll resume this later if not tomorrow. At least we’re finally getting somewhere…I think.
Brilliant! Now, what happens to the surface of a billiard ball as you rotate it over the course of a year as compared to what happens to the surface of the Earth as it rotates over the course of a year?
Once again, we’re not demanding math because we believe it will convince us of your truth. We’re demanding math because it’s painfully, blatantly obvious that YOU DON’T HAVE ANY, because your entire “theory” is bollocks, and every time you duck, dodge, and avoid repeated demands for such math makes it even more blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain reading this drivel.
IF there is anything at all to your theory more than random musings of the “Duuuuude…” variety, then you should be able to prove it. If you have done that, all the math and evidence we’ve asked for should be at your fingertips, and there is no reason whatsoever to not post it. The fact that you have not and will in the future continue to not post it speaks volumes about your own intellectual honesty. If you are sincere and have not done this work, then not only do WE not know if you’re right, but, vitally, YOU do not know if you’re right. You would, in that case, be working off pure conjecture and speculation.
Because the definition of “interpret” is not “to alter the course of light”.
Would you disagree with that?
Because cameras have me by the balls due to some pictures of me and a goat so I am very careful not to ever levy complaints about cameras.
However, between you and me, if I thought I could get away with levying a complaint about a camera, I would do it IN a heartbeat.
I am very concerned about this.
I do not get too worried about global warming, but when I hear about the course of light getting altered I get pretty afraid for our future.
Every time a new batch of lenses is produced, the amount of altered light increases dramatically. I can see a distant future in which we are unable to function because all of the light is getting bounced around and turned this way and that.
They… both turn into a ball of water but only on the surface because that’s how the neutrionic hypopsiatic fusing mechanism dictates it to be? Oh wait, the baristatic nature of intra-asteroidal synapses work differently because the billiard ball is as viewed on earth as opposed to being a celestial fixture… but only if it’s a blue ball? red balls turn into venus? I"m confused. DON’t LEAVE! I ALMOST HAD IT!
I’ve been tolerant of this nonsense because enough posters are having fun with it, but now you are standing on the edge of trolling. Taking an objection based on your misapplication of the word “interpret” and using it to launch into a misleading and pointless tirade to change the subject to other posters not complaining about the use of cameras is a pretty clear indiction that you are here solely to yank chains.
If you begin to make it a habit to engage in that sort of dishonest rhetorical game, you will find your posting privileges curtailed.
Because without math, falsifiable hypotheses, reproducible experiments, and peer review, you’re not doing science. You’re doing philosophy. Which is all well and good, philosophy is a valid field of study, but it’s not science and doesn’t disprove any of the current body of scientific knowledge.
You’ve made a number of points about similarities between things that are of vastly different scales. Electrons orbit a nucleus, the planets orbit the sun. 99% of atoms are empty space, 99% of the solar system is empty space. The comparisons are striking and interesting. Some people see it as evidence of a creator, some people see it as evidence of certain principles of physics. What are you claiming it is evidence of?
