Well, I can’t come this far and not go further, right? Yes, I agree- I didn’t know I’d disagreed previously- but I’ll agree that, in a very real and legally binding sense, everything I “see”, excluding spurious events occurring in my optic nerve unrelated to external stimuli, is a manifestation of incoming light rays and that, with that in mind, my ability to view an arbitrary object is the result of light rays either reflecting off the surface of that object or originating from within the object itself.
So… on with it then?
I have to admit it: I’m curious again!
Lay it on me. Square one, here we go! I see stuff because of an appropriate set of light rays striking my eye. Do go on…
I can see the inside of an inflated condom. I have a feeling that our OP’s definition of unseen inside boils down to a tautology about not being able to see things that one cannot see.
ETA: Forgot about something from page 1. Inverting a dwarf planet across the Kupier belt requires applying the falling giant template. I cordially invite the OP to rebut my assertion.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think so. There’s some entertainment value here. And there’s always the hope that he will address the timeline and time running out questions, which will almost certainly be entertaining.
No, after your postings saying you can travel between dimensions, timelines, or any other non-sense you like to say to feel like you’re some kind of super-being that is superior to everyone else on this forum, you cannot sink to a level of humanity that shows you’re not some super being. In my honest opinion, you need to stick with what you KNOW, (Seeing only two dimensions of things) and not what you’re assuming for theories. Then, when someone is insulting, you ignore it. Simple social interactions you should’ve learned in your schooling in another timeline.
EDIT: Excuse me, Alternate Realities that you surf, not timelines.
I apologize, ADMIN Marley. I would like to say to those who are disagreeing with the information he gave on the IN and OUT, take a moment to seriously think about it. It makes complete sense, and is commonly taught in more advanced learning, just used in different terms. If you cut a person open, you are looking at the OUTside of their INsides. It sounds rather ridiculous, but it’s true. I see his logic entirely.
Now, the argument of “mirrors” in space? I find the information he put forth entirely logical and sound, but is a little far fetched none the less.
He did mention he can travel through Alternate Realities, although. He used that as a claim. That’s completely ridiculous and Anthem (0) must know it. He was looking for a “Shock factor” argument to shut people up.
Anyone can come off as half-assed correct when discussing astrophysics especially with nebulous theoretical topics like dark matter and dark energy. That doesn’t make this “theory” grounded in any kernel of truth.
I demand math. Even if we’re being trolled by Hawking, I still demand math.
Please explain why. If you find his propositions logical or sound, you’re the only person in this thread apart from Anthem that does. Maybe you can explain it better than he can?
Agreed. Although widely remembered for what he got right, it’s only fair to point out Johannes Kepler spent most of his life trying to map astronomy to the structure of musical harmony or the ratios of the Platonic solids. Epistemology by analogy is tempting to even the best of us. In fact, I’d argue that a lot of the scientific method is designed to force us out of this mode which we fall into so naturally.
Hey. Been a lurker for long time, but I found this thread rather amusing so I’d thought I’d break my silence to bring up one point and then disappear into the ether again.
Anthem(0) began his ‘theory’ with several premises, of which there is one I’d like to bring to light.
I guess technically you’re right. We DO only see surface areas. However, a surface area of n-1 dimensions is a manifold of n dimensions, i.e. it’s an object whose existence is predicated on higher dimensions while requiring one less degree of freedom than the number of dimensions it exists in to describe. Therefore, though we only see the surface area, this does not mean we don’t see in three dimensions. We do, we just only see manifolds of the third dimension.
Your first premise is flawed and anything that follows, even if it follows logically, is negated. It’s logic from an absurd premise.
No, that’s not quite accurate. What you said is true, up until your last paragraph. Logic is logic, cold and pure. Just because it seems absurd, it’s still logic. You seem to know what you’re talking about without a doubt, but we still only see in 2 dimensions. We see in what seems to fool us into 3D, because our brains needed to be able to distinguish distances of objects in reality when we were fun little monkeys hopping from tree to tree, where we gained binocular vision.
I’ve no math to offer you.
I’m not going to pretend I have more knowledge on the subject than I really do, but what he said doesn’t negate anything I’ve ever learned or read about before. I researched the topic yesterday, and found nothing that is directly controversial.
I guess you could say that we don’t see 3d. That it just our brain combining a 2 x 2D picture into a 3D one. But the argument was that we don’t see 3D because we can’t see the INSIDE of objects.
The inside of objects (or the rear) is not another dimension. It’s just an obstruction of our view.
If someone steps in front of my view of you, you did not just disappear into another dimension.
