I’m glad other people get this even if Anthem does not. The repeated suggestion that our solar system and atoms in general are meaningfully analogous in this context because electrons orbit a nucleus and planets orbit the sun is making my head hurt.
It is a wholly fallacious analogue, crafted from pseudoscience and make-believe.
I find it entertaining.
the primary issue is you all are claiming (for reasons unknown) that the visual evidence of this theory is somehow the precursor rather than the opposite, which is they are naturally derivative of the concept itself. You ask for additional complexity, then complain that it’s coincidence and retarded. Fair enough. We’ll start at square one. Work it forward for yourself from the central premise and see where you arrive. Which is:
The only things we can physically SEE is the part of an object which light reflects off?
Do you agree with this statement, and if not, then why?
Mind you, light slows significantly as it travels through mediums other than air, so trying to deliberately cheat by selecting a pane of glass or a tank of water will only work to a certain thickness, then you’ll be in the same position of picking a solid object to begin with. This will only serve to prove the point I’m going to make.
Topologically speaking, the digestive tract of an animal is, at heart, a torus and you would not be INside the dinosaur but merely in the hole in a donut until you got digested and absorbed, but then you wouldn’t be seeing much of anything.
It’s even worse than that: light reflects in lots of directions and we can really only see the light that ends up at our eyeballs.
Also, who really cares?
Agreed that it is pseudoscience, complete with the use of technical jargon in a nonsensical manner. Perhaps I’m just in a charitable mood, but I find it amusing in the same way as theories explaining the physics of Road Runner cartoons.
Stranger
You can also see light produced by an object, either from its surface or from within.
At any rate, this is not news to information scientists. The Holographic Principle shows that the maximum information content of a 3-d space is dependent on its area rather than on its volume. This does not mean that a seemingly 3 dimensional object is not actually 3 dimensional. Even if it were actually the case, the math works out much better if we assume that what seemingly is 3 dimensional actually is 3 dimensional.
I can’t help noticing, Anthem (0), that when people point out scientific errors in your theories, you don’t respond to them. It looks like you’d rather complain about the posts that mock you or snark at the people who can’t follow what you’re saying. And you haven’t explained your “surfing reality” thing either.
Apparently you’re mellowing. 
- If we all live inside the sun, does that make us daughters?
- I see inside people, after I cut them in half. What say you?
There is a relationship between Venus and the Earth that leads to (nearly) the same portion of Venus’ surface facing the Earth when Venus is closest to the Earth; some scientists have proposed that there was some sort of coupling going on between the Earth and Venus, but these days, the relationship is generally considered to be a coincidence - note that the relationship is not perfect, so that after a few centuries, a completely different portion of Venus faces the Earth when Venus is close to the Earth.
Therefore, you see dead people.
- It makes us brothers, sister
- You’re only seeing the outside of the inside.
finally, thank you. This is a really good starting point.
-
What is “seemingly 3 dimensional” if you’re admittedly only capable of measuring the information of 2 of those dimensions? This is of course assuming that you believe yourself to be 3-D, a fact which I myself would agree with. I’m not asking this to be funny, I’m genuinely curious how you specifically would determine that another object “seems” three-dimensional.
-
Using whatever qualifications you used in answer to question 1, if another given object were to be greater than three-dimensions, how would that entire extra dimension be translated to the 2-dimensional surface area “atop” the 3-dimensional volume of information you are capable of inputting? Once again, there is no incorrect answer, but please at least think about what I’m asking before responding.
Ludovic, I’m asking you specifically. If you understand information content, then you’re probably the guy I should be speaking to. But it’s important that you actually THINK about the questions. Don’t just blather out the first remark that comes to your mind - seriously think about an answer before responding.
After you are satisfied with your own answers to the above questions:
3. If spacetime is “4-dimensional”, and the other three-dimensions have spatial directions of up down, left right, forward back, how could this 4th dimension be interpreted in a way which is at all consistent with the rest of our “three-dimensional reality”? All I’m asking is if you can accept the premise that spacetime is 4-dimensional, or 3+1, or whatever variance pleases you so long as it’s more than JUST three-dimensions - so long as you can accept that premise, is there ANY way in which that 4th dimension could possibly be translated into your everyday life in a manner which makes sense or is at all detectable by observation?
In other words, if spacetime is 4-dimensional, and you can perceive six-directions simply by looking around you, is there any other possibly-not-so-intuitive-but-still-pretty-goddamn-obvious directional pair that you are capable of looking which runs perpendicular to length, width, and height at every point in space? Remember, that’s an important aspect of dimensionality… All dimensions are perpendicular to all other dimensions at every point in space - refer to xyz coordinate system, etc (I’m begging you not to argue this point with me). All this means is that if you look in any singular direction, are there two “other” directions which you’re also capable of looking without actually turning your focus away from the exact xyz coordinate where you are looking?
I can reword these questions in any way you’d like, but unfortunately these aren’t concepts where I can just blurb out a string of numbers and equations to you and you’ll immediately understand what I’m saying. New variables must first be introduced in order to properly account for the inherent limitations of conscious human perception, which is absolutely CRUCIAL to actually understanding a theory of everything. Gravity and time are integral parts of the equation, but not so long as we derive them based solely off of their governing of particles of matter. You must first understand what they ARE, what they look like, and why they look like that before the variables can be introduced. Then you can form your own conclusions about how that fits into the nature of reality without any more assistance from me, and run off and be rich and famous and whatnot. Write books, produce documentaries, do whatever, but first…understand. Please.
Time is of the essence, people.
What, you don’t think we’re capable of understanding hypoteneuticals around here? This is the smartest message board on the internet, dude.
Well mostly, I eat them.
If anyone is wondering if the OP makes more sense when you’re drunk, I can tell you he or she doesn’t. That said, I understand where Anthem (0) is coming from. One time I thought that I had information that I had to share with everyone. Then the salvia wore off.
On as serious note (or at least a less silly note): Please elaborate upon your earlier comments about ‘this timeline.’
Why? What will happen if time runs out?
We’ll just make more, like the government makes more money if it’s running low. And time, after all, is money.
everyone, stop being baited by his demand to be made to look foolish (that’s easy).
instead, let’s collectively await (demand) answers to the far more interesting questions:
*when * and *where *are you from?!
what time is about to run out? what *deadlines *are you on?
if you have access to different realities and timelines, why the heck are you always in a rush?
if you have some valuable information that you need us normal humans to digest in some rush amount of time, on some rushed deadline–why are you fucking around on an internet forum?
i seriously think we need to, as a group, push for answers to these questions rather than four more pages of blathering on and on about stupid, incoherent misunderstanding of science.
he is saying vaguely threatening things about time running out and all this, which isn’t ok–so i think we need to press for answers to these questions.
the details of his crazy nonsense theories should be secondary to dangers to our time-space and what-not. lunatic or not, i think it’s fairly important we assert vague insanity will not just get glossed over…
eta: we have now taken this guy more seriously than the insane people on the UFO forum and waaay more seriously than the science forum. we’re losing.
This thread made me go look at timecube.com, which I haven’t done in a long time.
I think the guy may actually have gotten crazier. He seems to have developed an obsession with belly buttons.
[QUOTE=Gene Ray]
Belly-Button Logic Works.
[/QUOTE]