If physical laws really did invert, imagine the implications. The space station would crumple, buckling under the intense (borderline infinite) anti-pressure. Every piece of extraterrestrial dirt would immediately burst into flame due to the intense (borderline infinite) anti-heat. It would be infinitely bright. If the anti-pressure didn’t get you, the anti-gravity certainly will as all that non-mass exerts their push (not pull) on your pathetic massed body.
Fantastic.
Does this mean he’s flip-flopped and we’re not gonna see the thread where he lays out the math behind his theory?
he’s spent the last few pages back-pedaling on the math. he is now admitting that math will support the scientific reality everyone’s argued against him–now he’s stressing how valuable it is we look at things with an askew perceptive, because the math doesn’t change, even tho reality inverts. i am perplexed by this notion–all forces are exactly opposite in space, reality itself is inverted–yet the math remains the same as on earth? the fundamental laws of physics shift inconceivably–but the math stays the same…?
this is just him conceding mathematical defeat because he’s not *that *dumb…he knows the math won’t work in his favor.
I don’t believe he can - because this (erroneous) view is at the very core of the whole argument.
At extreme risk of appearing to support the theory you are refuting, I must take exception to this:
This is pretty much all wrong. The atmosphere is so thin in relation to the radius of the earth, that the slight difference in gravity on Mt. Everest vs. that at the bottom of death valley is insignificant. Yet the air is far denser at low elevations. This is due to the weight of all the air stacked on top of it, not to a difference in gravity.
The pressure at the bottom of a 1000 foot tall cylinder of water on top of Everest (keeping it from freezing is left as an exercise for the reader) will be about the same as you’d find 1000’ below the sea. Air is far more compressible, though, so it’s density increases far more with pressure.
Here ya go…
Convert all coordinates from Cartesian to Polar.
Substitute “infinity minus r” for r.
“Out” is now “in.” Nothing much else changes, although solving equations for orbital mechanics gets a lot uglier.
conceded. however, i will still maintain that the reason we have an atmosphere in place is still due to gravity, yes?
Well, I think you’re sort of both right. The atmosphere is there because of gravity and air is compressed more (or less) as a function of the weight (gravity again) of the air above it. I like to think of the surface of the earth as the bottom of an ocean of air.
At what point am I supposed to reverse the polarity?
Once you’ve got it all written out, simply hold it up in front of a mirror.
I love how you dodge every single question that directly crushes your argument.
Yes, I know the difference between my living environment and outer space. Holy shit. We ALL know the difference here, and we’ve all asked “So what?” and you have yet to come up with a response.
You don’t seem to understand that space is space. We live in space. Space is full of gas/dust clouds. Some of this pulled together into galaxies and stars, which underwent thermonuclear fusion that created new generations of stars, planets, etc. And our planet just so happened to have the conditions that were sufficient for life to eventually form/develop. Do you understand this? Being on the planet is certainly different from being out in the middle of space (not on a planet), but so what? In both situations, the same laws, the same math – applies. In one scenario you’re near a big ball of water/rock/atmosphere, and in the other, you’re further away (and dead).
Stop it with the “opposite” crap, lol. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
This is way too much fun.
So what are the obvious holes in suggesting that IN and OUT are representations of 4th spatial dimension other than “science hasn’t verified that for us yet”? What are the obvious holes in suggesting that we have no reason to blindly ASSUME that Earth is 3D, especially considering it has nothing in common with any three-dimensional object ON Earth. All you’re doing is defining the individual parts as the whole. Then, conveniently, you ignore the obvious holes in your own assumption - mainly, your OWN perception.
If by “point out the obvious holes” you mean run in a line one after the other and demand MATH when the only relevant math was already posted in the OP (2+1, 4-1), and probably 4 or 5 times since then. Not one comment so far on that part though, naturally. Not even a question requesting an explanation. It’s been pretty clear from the jump that invalidation was the goal rather than the logical conclusion.
This is just plain dishonest. The gradations are only noticeable to us because we’re inside of them. This is why I keep imploring you all to THINK about what you’re actually saying. You do realize that once you get to outer space that the gradation jumps instantly to a scale which is no longer comprehensible…and it STAYS that way. This is NOT the same environment in any meaningful way at all, size least of all.
The distance between the clear gradients on Earth from the ocean depths all the way up to the edge of the atmosphere is literally ZERO compared to the distance to the nearest object in whichever “3D direction” you exit. This is how math actually works. When something tends that close to zero, it IS zero.
It’s irresponsible to throw the matter under the rug unresolved and just say “yes it’s harsh, and we know why.” It’s not JUST that it’s antithetical to everything in our environment. If it were ONLY that, then the matter would. It’s the immediate and permanent change in scale which is the biggest red flag that something significant has changed. “We know why” is not only dishonest, it’s plain intellectual laziness.
and here we go once again. Framing my argument as something that it isn’t, then attacking your own deliberate misinterpretation. I have specifically and repeatedly said that the mathematical equations which DESCRIBE these laws don’t change, but the concept BEING described changes entirely. This applies to literally every single definable characteristic of space. The math still works, but it’s describing another environment entirely. Mathematically, this is all solvable by simply differentiating between 1+1 and 1-(-1). Yes, the ENDPOINT is the same, but how is that at all helpful if your own extremely limited perception is capable of discerning the astronomical difference between the environment of London and outer space. Just because our lazy shorthand MATH can’t tell the difference doesn’t mean that the difference doesn’t exist.
What’s amazing is that you don’t realize that that is (more or less) EXACTLY what happens when objects enter outer space. We have to specifically design things in a way so that they are capable of withstanding the dramatic change of environment.
How can you possibly be in here arguing this if you didn’t know that?
“dramatic change” does not equal “opposite”. Please get this.
INside a black hole - the density difference between the inside of a black hole and space or earth makes both space and earth look almost the same, on a percentage basis
Or even deep within the ocean. The pressure difference between outer space and the air is negligible compared to the air and thousands of feet underwater. It’s so much more difficult to engineer for this pressure differential that until this year, man had been to the deepest part of the ocean only once. [sup][When?] [For how long?][/sup]
So you could also say more convincingly that the opposite of the surface of the Earth is deep inside the ocean. Which is really weird since we’re supposedly made up of water.
Well… apart from pretty much all observed reality? Someone suggested you were a Solipsist. Are you?
See, the thing about mathematical equations is that they establish a relationship between various quantities- “equating them”, in a sense- so that useful logical inferences can be made. If I write “x + 2” on a chalkboard, there is no information. If I write “x + 2 = 10”, a whole world of math opens up for me. Do you now understand why equivalence is relevant when it comes to equations?
If nothing outside of our atmosphere is comprehensible, how did we land on the moon? Serious question.
Is “antithetical” the word you’re going to torture now? If I suck all the air of of a glass jar, does the edge of the jar take on any of the special properties to which you allude?
Provide one example. Just one example of a “definable characteristic of space” that “changes entirely.” Describe how it changes and precisely when the change occurs.
Quoting this again so Anthem won’t ignore it this time. It’s such a crushing blow to his argument that he HAS to avoid it.
I sincerely hope this guy is just playing around, because having such a twisted, strange view of reality is no way to go through life, man.
This is hopeless. Anthem (0) can’t even make a rigorous argument. He will continue to cling to his, well it’s not even a theory is it? He’ll continue to cling to his belief simply because he cannot accept the fact that he’s not vastly smarter than everyone else and we simply can’t see his superiority.
It’s like a distilled form of the Dunning-Kruger effect in high gear.
I can tell you guys this right now: I’ve debated a fair number of these Theory of Everything types. This conversation could literally go on forever until someone dies, the universe experiences heat death, or a moderator steps in. Anthem is not going to concede any point whatsoever, no matter how much sense you make. Meanwhile he’ll just continue to insult people who are “too dumb” to see the obvious brilliance of his Theory Of Tautological Nothingness To the Infinitieth Power (OUTside divided by INside variant).