in all honesty, how can you not be impressed with this guy? he is MASTERFULLY irritating and impervious to rational thinking. he’s a ninja of logical avoidance and has smug self-absurdness down to laser precision.
and all he wanted to do was fix your stupid, logical brain. if only you could stop thinking in rational terms…he’d fix you. if only you could suspend your credulous adherence to the laws of reality, you’d tooootally get what he is trying to teach you.
i’m still, honestly, dying to know what the point of this is. what is the benefit of is theory? even if we all 100% bought into what he was saying, where does that put us that we weren’t before? what problems does it fix? what advancement does it create? if love was all we ever needed, why are we literally arguing out past the asteroid belt? …is that where they keep all the love?
How am I misapplying the word interpret? I don’t even understand what this complaint is about. If you’d prefer to use another word, then do it. The concept doesn’t change either way. Telescopes absorb electromagnetic radiation and we SEE the image. Just like our eyeballs. But the images are completely different, and not in the sense
why the hell does it matter how you take to mean the word “interpret”? I’m not the one desperately clinging onto semantics here. I don’t care the word being used, I’m saying the same phenomenon is taking place FROM the same xyz coordinates with wildly different results. This is all rather obvious and no one is even attempting to disagree with the point, only picking on words like “interpret”? wtf
Skip talking about the details of the actual theory. What problems will it solve? What is the purpose?
we now have seven pages of unsuccessful vetting of whatever your theory is by explanation. it clearly isn’t going to happen.
i think at this point we would all be better served for you, in less than the corpulent, verbose wordbloat manner you typically do things, explain what point any of this serves.
Is this a serious question? There are no similarities in the environments. Not a single one. You all are disagreeing with things you can’t possibly disagree with.
Once again, you’re not accounting for your own limitations, but rather pretending they don’t exist. The fact that we have never seen an object which didn’t “appear” (in the crudest sense) to be three-dimensional means either one of two things.
All objects we’ve SEEN are three-dimensional, including planets, stars, people, cars, nuclei of atoms, etc.
Our ability to determine the “shape” of an object is limited strictly to two-dimensional surface areas, regardless of the actual number of dimensions the object contains and therefore EVERYTHING “looks 3D” to us.
Do you disagree with any of this, and if so, why?
It is frightening how blase most people are as to how much guesswork and “philosophy” goes into scientific theories all the time. I’m not suggesting anything which requires a suspension of current beliefs, only the tiniest tweaking in one direction.
But you are right in that all I’m doing is attempting to apply PURE LOGIC to the contradictory knowledge we already have in an effort to have our own data no longer conflict with itself. Unfortunately, that sort of philosophizing is pretty much how all science works. We glorify the experimental aspect, but that can only be done AFTER the philosophizing. Quit putting the carriage in front of the horse.
It’s evidence of the core principle of modern physics, which is that “spacetime is 4D”. But that isn’t the way WE paint it. We act like the 4th dimensions is something beyond our ability to fathom and only grudgingly accede to the concept because math suggests as much. And that’s well and dandy, but you don’t even NEED the math to logically demonstrate the 4th dimension in a clear, visual sense. It’s all around us, and we’ve been using it for centuries to further our understanding of the three-dimensions we are familiar with.
These aren’t even NEW concepts I’m talking about, it’s just rearranging the pieces in a way which makes some semblance of sense. It is patently absurd to argue that a star, let alone the entire universe MUST be 3d just because it LOOKS that way to us. If all you can see of an object which is infinitely larger than you is the simplest shape imaginable and ALL of these huge objects are shaped EXACTLY like that, then it’s a pretty good indication that you aren’t seeing something. The existence of “dark” materials confirms that we aren’t SEEING much of anything.
I know that you are ignoring me after your hissy fit yesterday, but I’ll try this anyway. The post of yours I have quoted was in response to a post by MDKSquared that asked “What makes you think things outside of Earth are different than conditions on Earth?”
Your response is a great example of why no one here is taking you seriously. Consider Earth and Mars. If you are seriously trying to claim that there are no similarities between conditions on Earth and Mars, you are the one who is ignorant, not us. There are differences between the two environments, but they are mainly differences of degree. There’s gravity, atmosphere, night and day, seasons, seismic activity, all kinds of similarities.
What do you hope to accomplish by claiming there are no similarities? What do you hope to accomplish by any of what you are doing here?
The billiard ball rotates and, because the object is 3D, the entire surface is exposed and we’re back to the starting point after a single rotation.
Earth, however, requires an entire year to get back to that starting point, during which time it’s “surface” undergoes through a very predictable and distinct pattern. And even then it’s slightly off, and after a few hundred thousand more orbits, an ice age comes, etc. But the surface of Earth INHERENTLY undergoes predictable pattern changes within predictable time limits. The SURFACE does this. Mathematically, a hyperdimensional object would, in theory, behave the same - it would require more than one rotation to reach it’s starting point. It’s not the same as a billiard ball which simply rotates once before you can see the entire surface.
Does this NECESSITATE that Earth is greater than three-dimensions? No. But do you have any reason to reject the notion outright? Do you have any at all, other than blind allegiance to the baseless idea that “all objects everywhere are 3D all the time because that’s just the way it is”?
Outside the Earth is a place called OUTER SPACE. This environment has literally nothing in common with Earth. Asking a person why they’d assume the environments are different almost sounds sarcastic. Earth is FULL: it has heat, sound, weather, terrain and objects don’t burst open from the inside out. Space is dead and empty: it is as cold as it is possible to be (varying a few degrees K), deaf, predictable, you have virtually no control over your movement (you’re pretty much stuck going whichever direction you existed the atmosphere from without speeding up or slowing down), and if you weren’t in a protective suit, your body would literally burst, ripping itself inside out.
The surface of Mars was never brought up, but it isn’t in outer space any more than the surface of Earth we live on. Yes it’s cold, but it isn’t SPACE cold. You can move around freely. Sound, light, environment abounds. Mars has infinitely more in common with Earth than it does outer space.
As to why I didn’t say this at first, I tend to ignore questions which don’t have ANY thought put into them for the sake of addressing questions which do, but they were in the same post so I couldn’t ignore it entirely. It’s difficult to gauge who’s being serious and who isn’t, and I try to ignore the not-too-serious as much as possible. And asking me why I would think that the environment outside of Earth was any different than the environment on the surface falls into that not-so-serious filter. He knows the answer to that question just as well as I do.
I guess the basic problems in this whole thread are that:
Despite typing way too much, you haven’t really explained whatever it is you think is true that the rest of us don’t get.
For things like the general belief that objects, including those in distant space, are three dimensional, we tend to believe that because that’s what our experience and every bit of science we have read tells us about the universe, and no one, including you, has presented any of us with a shred of an argument that things might be different elsewhere.
I’ll ask again - what are you trying to accomplish here? Can you state your purpose in a sentence or two?
1 - It takes a day to rotate. It takes a year to revolve.
2 - Math defines rotation as the fixing of one dimension while the others are free to move with that fixed dimension as the axis of rotation.
3 - I think you’re intentionally cherrypicking posts to respond to based on how easily you can twist the words and how easily you can strawman the argument.
As an example, I feel like I’ve tried to answer your post 2 or 3 different times with calm, rational logic yet you choose to engage those obviously frustrated with you and those who toss in sarcastic answers instead. In fact, the only post of mine you choose to respond to is the one I wrote about you being an asshole in insinuating that this board gets their information from yahoo news.
I’ve answered your ridiculous question of “how do you know objects everywhere are 3d” repeatedly. Why do you refuse that answer?
To recap, my reason is that you can view it from 2 different vantage points. This very topic is covered in introductory engineering classes as they have to learn the differences between orthographic and isometric projections of images and recreate a 3-d representation of that object accordingly.
I mean, it’s just blindingly obvious that you have very little formal training in any hard sciences to anyone with a science degree. Also to whoever thinks Anthem would make for a good Philosopher? He’s committed about a thousand logical fallacies thusfar as many others have noted. An F for that course as well.
other than novelty (and a logical punching bag) no one here has been able to ascertain any value from him.
what’s more interesting is he himself cannot, in spite of many, many people asking him many, many times, say HIMSELF what his value is. we’ve practically begged him to assert what his point is, what problem he looks to solve, and what the point of all this even could be.
I’m reminded of a thread I participated with a poster called Jetblast. He had a theory in which he passionately believed, that Jimi Hendrix had been murdered. He resembled Anthem(0) in that he typed way too much, treated everyone who responded with haughty disdain, and didn’t make any sense. He differed in that it was always clear what his purpose was: he thought Hendrix had been murdered and he wanted to convince us.
I’m beginning to think that this thread is some sort of performance art.
I’ve seen this before on other boards - there was a guy who believed that the earth was hollow, having inflated like a balloon to three or four times its original size, at the same time as ejecting its core (due to a collision with something big)… and that this happened during human history. His evidence was:
-Bits of terrain that looked like other bits of terrain elsewhere (often a long way away) - supposedly these had originally been superimposed layers of the Earth’s crust that had delaminated
-The fact that plasticene models of the continents can be smooshed into a completely-tesselating surface on a globe of about 1/3 of the previous size.
-A bunch of legends about big fiery things.
The guy wrote vast amounts, ignoring the most pertinent questions and answering vaguely or with hostility.
so then we all agree: he is deliberately avoiding answering directly what his point is or what purpose this serves.
it’s worth noting again that he 1. joined this forum just to post this and has no other participation, that 2. James joined for this convo, but adds a little this-and-that to other threads–but somehow knew instinctively, even tho he AND anthem were both new to the forum, that Anthem did not participate anyplace else but this thread (i am not making an accusation, i am point out something i find interesting). 3. Anthem posted this cut-and-paste elsewhere on the net all in one night, to whatever end, but all the other attempts were DOA.
there’s certainly something afoot, but for someone who is talking about love, unification theory, alternate timestreams and having some kind of special insight, he sure has an aversion to explaining his purpose.
i suspect this was all just a bait for self-satisfaction. it certainly wasn’t a cordial, mutual discourse…guy refuses to acknowledge even the simplest of questions but demands all else answer his.
of course, when you can’t answer the questions, i guess ignoring them is the next best thing.
(i used to be on a paranormalist board. there was a guy who claimed to be God there. big G god. he is frighteningly similar in mentality and debate tactic as Anthem, and equally as irritating, pointless and self-assured. he had the same acutely wrongheaded scientific word-salad shit going on, too. dude demanded so much ridicule it came down to leave or be banned because it was impossible not to attack him. i wonder if anthem thinks he is god?)
I keep hanging around this thread in the hope that Anthem(0) will at some point type a short post that bluntly describes what he actually believes and why he is expending so much energy to tell us about it. I expect to be disappointed, yet I hope.
Definitely. The pattern with this variety of Internet Person is: Post lots of confusing waffle, ignore most responses, especially those where a response would clarify things and fail to engage in any discussion on falsification.
I agree he has deliberately avoided all attempts to get him to state his point or purpose.
On another of the boards on which he posted this OP, he implied that he is not human, saying something like he hoped a particular poster was not an example of a great mind in the poster’s species.
