Pray, tell us-what degrees have you earned, and where did you learn these secrets of the universe? Who taught you?
When dealing with distances which cross infinities, only the average distance matters. Hell, all you have are the average distances anyway. You have no concept of what distance in space even is. What lies on the “other side” is merely a reflection of itself, and because we’re in the center of [one of] the reflections, any distances measured are just averages anyway. And crossing the asteroid belt is absolutely crossing an infinity…just crossing through the “center” of Earth and through to the other side is crossing an infinity.
Lastly, the Shortcut you’re mentioning had the qualifying statement of “Once you understand the concept of infinity”…which clearly you do not.
You learn a lot more with you eyes and ears than you do with your hands and mouth. Give learning a try before attempting to quibble semantics on issues you have no understanding of.
Thank you. As a bit of advice - if you’re going to make a claim that is not correct unless you apply some adjustments, it would be better if you said that upfront. Otherwise some might think you didn’t even realize your claim was incorrect, but merely made up an excuse after the fact.
Words to live by.
Just a few bits from one paragraph:
Venus is not a ball of fire. Venus is a rocky planet similar in size to the Earth, with a thick, hot atmosphere.
Io is not a ‘frozen ball of fire’, whatever that is. Io is a rocky body which is constantly churned by tidal forces, causing constant volcanism on the surface. It is not ‘frozen’, nor is it ‘a ball of fire’.
Earth is a rocky planet. The outside of the planet is mostly covered by a thin layer of water, but the planet itself is rock, not water.
Europa is mostly rock. It has an icy surface which appears to cover a liquid ocean, but again this doesn’t make it a ball of water. (And it isn’t even completely frozen)
Correct on this one. Earth’s moon is a ball of rock.
Sort of true. Ganymede has a stone core, covered by ice, possibly containing a liquid ocean between layers of ice.
No, beyond that are Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, the Kuiper belt, and a lot of other stuff.
What does that possibly mean? Frozen vacuum? Like Ganymede, Callisto is a mass of rock and ice, although probably without an internal ocean.
The mirroring you are claiming between the moons of Jupiter and the inner solar system seems remarkably cherry-picked and arbitrary. You seem to have no mirror bodies for Mercury or Mars, and seem to be picking bodies as mirrors at will as fits your theory and ignoring anything that doesn’t fit.
Can we just declare him the winner (see post #2), and be done with it? If I spilled Scrabble letters onto a dirty floor and sent in a photograph of the results, he would still have me beat by a mile.
And yet, when someone actually does that, as I did in my last post, you completely ignore it, almost as if you are unable to respond intelligently.
Interesting.
Actually, he does have an “out”-his words have no content whatsoever.
I take it you can’t prove him wrong, then?
Well, if we conveniently ignore Pluto and Charon.
Is there some kind of testable hypothesis here that would allow for falsification of conventional science and some kind of validation concepts provided in the o.p.? Because that is the standard to which we hold validation of every other scientific theory. Otherwise, this is all just unsubstantiated burbling about INward and OUTward dimensions. If you actually do have some kind of credible theory that will completely overturn the last four hundred years of natural science, there are some people in Sweden that would be happy to buy you a nice dinner and give you some spending cash.
Stranger
You’re all thinking in terms of relatively intelligent human beings, so I’m not surprised you’re finding this guy’s theories too complicated. Once you realise that we live inside the Sun, it’ll make much more sense.
This is a good starting place, as it underlines exactly the level of unthinking self-deception in which most of humanity is mired.
Surface area, as you well know, is a function of two dimensions. The world we see is a product of light bouncing off the OUT sides of objects. That is the only visible thing we can see. To call this three-dimensional is perpetuating a dangerous misconception. This is basic math: Surface area is never three-dimensional, and all you’ve ever seen is surface area (even four-dimensional objects have two-dimensional surface areas). This is the 2+1 dimensional aspect which constitutes our physical reality. This is particle physics. It is also the reason why relativity is so incompatible with it…because it doesn’t interact with surface area.
This has nothing to do with depth perception or eyes being closed. This is an extremely simple and obvious, yet perpetually overlooked, aspect of physical reality. We SEE the world as light reflected off the SURFACE AREA of objects…not the volume. We see the OUT sides of objects - period. This is why at any given point in time, you can only see [at most] half of any given object. This isn’t a terribly complicated concept, but it is rather important.
I’m going to abstain going into more detail until you’re at least clear on this much. I understand you’ve probably never considered as much until now. But there’s little point in continuing until this concept is no longer confusing to you.
So dimensions are…dimensions which are determined by measuring things in various ways? You do realize it’s ok to admit you don’t have a very good understanding of a particular concept which most people don’t have a very good understanding of?
But you’re probably right that “inversion of inside and outside” isn’t an immediately intuitive phrase. I was favoring brevity over depth of explanation, and perhaps that was a mistake.
The evidence was summarized in the rest of the post.
By “better” I meant “more complete”. As I was led to understand, science has no idea what time IS, other than it shares somewhat of an inverse relationship with gravity. So yes, my description of the fourth dimension is leagues “better” than “it’s something like a dimension, but different in some indefinable way, which we have no conception of or ability to explain.”
As far as evidence of that point, I think that concave and convex lenses in telescopes and microscopes, which render hitherto indefinable distant or tiny objects in splendid detail, pretty much proves that the IN direction and the OUT direction are extant, quantifiable parts of our reality.
Furthermore, if you apply the concept of IN and OUT to space (and indeed any other aspect of reality), it is suddenly rendered intelligible. How is any of this a bad thing?
As I was led to understand, physicists and cosmologists haven’t the faintest idea what dark matter IS at all, so that is rather an odd bunch to be appealing to for proper usage of terms. About the only thing they know about it is that there’s a LOT more of it in space then there is visible matter…and they also know that light doesn’t interact with it at all. Thus it is completely invisible, despite being clustered around pretty much everything which light reflects off of in Outer Space, and in much greater quantities.
Ironically, using my framework, this is not only explained, it’s predicted. Volume is always significantly larger than surface area (technically, there are exceptions to this, but nothing relevant to the discussion), as volume is a function of three-dimensions.
We DO see reflections when we look into space. The problem is science has been looking for reflections really far away…not realizing that the reflection begins much closer to home. And they aren’t exact reflections, they are inverted reflections. But the pattern is consistent and predictable all the same.
Once again, who led you to this understanding? What is your educational background? What do you do for a living?
You DO exist!! :eek:
Which happen to be objects located in the Kuiper Belt…you know, the point where “dwarf planets” invert back into rocky orbs from gas giants. Could you prove my own point any better? 
there are plenty of testable hypothesis, most of which has already been done, but we aren’t quite to that point yet.
I remember a documentary program about the failings of science education in the US. Specifically they were testing knowledge of “what causes the phases of the moon” amongst middle-schoolers. There was a classroom where they interviewed each of the students one at a time and their teacher watched the footage and predicted if each of them would know the answer. There was one young girl who the teacher said was very bright and would almost certainly know the answer. When she didn’t give the correct answer(I think she said Earth’s shadow) the teacher was mortified. They went over the subject the next day in class and repeated the interviews at a later time(enough time for the immediate refresher to wear off). The bright student had either misunderstood or forgotten the teacher’s explanation, but the lesson that there was something more to this phases of the moon thing had stuck. So she began inventing her own theory of the lunar cycle.
Sometimes when I read things like the OP, I can’t help but wonder what happened to that little girl whom science education in the US failed so badly. Where is she today? Did she ever find a teacher who explained things in a manner she understood, or is she still trying to come up with her own theories without truly understanding the theories already extant?
Enjoy,
Steven
Why should we? You aren’t nearly as entertaining as Gene Ray of the Time Cube and we can point and laugh without bothering to expend the effort to dig up facts for you to ignore.
On the other hand,
directing personal insults at posters is a poor way to get someone to cooperate with one–it is also a violation of the rules of this board.
If anyone wishes to play your game, they are welcome to do so, however, no one is required to do so.
Have you ever had to look… through anything? Or perhaps see what happens when light goes through a narrow slit?
It’s ok for you to admit that you don’t have a very good understanding of particular concepts either.
Probably since you’re trying to explain everything.
Then why is the 42 minutes so important?
what about the in-between? Is the lens itself inside or outside - and exactly inside/outside of what?
I have no idea what you mean by “significantly larger”.
Do you mean that the volume of a 1x1x1 cube is only 1unit cubed but the surface area is 6square units? Is 1 unit cubed significantly larger than 1 square unit? Or were you talking about only the side that we can see at a time? In which case, the 1 unit cubed is significantly larger than the 1 unit squared?
Is there the slightest chance you’re wrong? Even about the tiniest bit of something?
42 minutes is the time it takes to cross infinity while moving at the maximum allowable constant speed. It underlines the intrinsic relationship between size, distance, and velocity, and it does it better than any singular example I’ve run across. However, this is all based on perspective, which is based on location.
The reason that explanation doesn’t make any sense to you is because you’re asking questions in the wrong order. You must FIRST have a working understanding of the fundamentals of dimensional relativity before tackling the shortcuts.
How Douglas Adams was able to pull that particular rabbit out of the hat is anyone’s guess, but he was right all the same. Genius works like that sometimes. 42 really is the answer to life, the universe, and everything…at least from OUR perspective.
Anything you can physically SEE is the literal result of LIGHT reflecting off that object’s OUTer surface. This really isn’t that complex a concept. It has nothing to do with the lens being inside or outside telescope. If the object is physically solid and you can SEE it, then it is necessarily capable of reflecting light, and you are necessarily interacting with the OUTer surface of it - whether it’s hidden inside another OUTer surface or not is irrelevant.
Physical reality is a composite of layers of OUTer surfaces. If a person understands how calculus works (rather than just memorizing the equations for the test), then this shouldn’t be a foreign concept to them.
I’m not trying to be funny by saying this, but if you don’t have a grasp of the concept of surface area and volume, then why are you bothering to disagree with anything I’m saying? If you don’t know that the surface area of a cube is a significantly (technically, infinitely) smaller value than the volume of the same cube, then you have a few basics to brush up on before tackling this subject.
surface area is a function of two-dimensions while volume is a function of three-dimensions. Cubing is SO much greater than squaring that it doesn’t even use the same unit. This is as basic as things get. If the fact that its the number 1 is being squared/cubed is prompting you to claim identical values for the two concepts, then the fault is reducible to you not understanding of the concepts of cubed and squared.
What’s the point in a statement like this? You’ve already demonstrated a pronounced lack of understanding about rather basic mathematical concepts. Even I was wrong about any of this (which I’m not), you certainly haven’t even begun to explain why because you don’t even understand what I’m saying. Frankly, you’re not even trying.
Seriously guys, ATTEMPT to understand the concept before being glib and dismissive in response. This will go much smoother if you approach it with an open mind and a willingness to engage rather than scorn and ridicule. And you’ll look less the fool in the long run. It’s an all around better approach. Give it a shot.
Why do we show no physical change of probes and devices that have passed beyond the Asteroid Belt Threshold? If there is some fundamental change in the laws of physics that happens at that point, then we would be able to see soemthing happen… radio transmissions being different, light wavelengths being changed to render transmissions meaningless.
Also, I think you don’t understand, or have rejected the accepted usage of “infinite” to substitute your own definition. This is not science, this is generally known to be “foolishness” or even “mental illness”. This would be like me claiming that my Yorkie is a genius at particle physics, but we don’t understand what he knows because he’s so much smarter than we are.
This is clearly NOT the case, and attempts to insist on it would be met with guys with “I love myself” coats and heavy sedatives.
I get the point you’re making. I disagree however with the statement about “truly understanding the theories already extant.” It sounds good, but it’s empty rhetoric. For instance, there are no extant theories of time, despite the fact that we spend every moment of our conscious existence wading around in the stuff. Nor are there any extant theories of dark matter or dark energy despite the fact that they constitute 99% of IS. The only [relevant] extant theory which exist relate to particle physics; primarily Light which, by science’s OWN calculations, only accounts for less than 1% of the calculated mass of the universe. In other words, the extant theories only describe 1% of reality…and that’s by science’s own measurement. Maybe that’s acceptable to you, but it isn’t to me.
When science ITSELF is outright admitting that it has no clue what’s going on 99% of Outer Space, I find it strange that anyone would translate that as “science has theories which deal with this, maybe you should understand those first.” I would completely agree if the statement were true. I really would. But it isn’t.
It’s not that I have to invent my own theories because I don’t understand the extant theories…it’s that I have to invent my own theories because there ARE no extant theories on these subjects. And because I do understand the extant theories of particle physics (and I’ve worked very hard for a very long time from a VERY young age to do so), I also understand where they are deficient. And in understanding that, I’ve learned that physical reality is but an infinitely thin slice of what IS. None of what I’m saying invalidates any part of science, it only places OUR perception into a proper perspective – which is something that science utterly ignores. But by adding this context (our perception), the infinities resolve themselves and reality reveals itself. It truly is beautiful if you take the time to understand it, rather than championing for an extant theory which doesn’t even exist.