4 dimensions, and I can prove/show how all 4 are intertwined. Now, picture a person dancing- 1st dimension: forward and backward. 2nd:side to side. 3rd: up and down. And the fourth...TIME! Or specifically, space/time.
Here is my proof; when someone says "meet me for lunch", you need 2 bits of information- 'where' & 'when'. The 'where' you meet for lunch is dimensions 1,2 & 3. You had to move forward or backward, side to side and up and down to get there, right? The 'when' is the 4th dimension, what 'TIME?' -Get it now? That's as simple as I can explain it. OK? Debate over. You make my head hurt.
Originally posted by @knightinwhitesatintime isn't spacetime.
...TIME! Or specifically, space/time.
Originally posted by @knightinwhitesatinThat's not a proof. Not at all.
Here is my proof; when someone says "meet me for lunch", you need 2 bits of information- 'where' & 'when'. The 'where' you meet for lunch is dimensions 1,2 & 3. You had to move forward or backward, side to side and up and down to get there, right? The 'when' is the 4th dimension, what 'TIME?' -Get it now? That's as simple as I can explain it. OK? Debate over. You make my head hurt.
You ask "Where?" and you get three answers.
You ask "When?" and you get one answer.
Why not ask "Why?" and get another answer?
And "With whom?" and get still another answer?
So back to the proof: "How many dimensions are there?" Answer: "As many as you want."
Where's the proof in that?
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelNo, I believe dreams simply allow you free will. I like the way you think though.
We're in 3 and asleep in the fourth ... except sometime when we dream .
- Joined
- 20 May 17
- Moves
- 20505
Originally posted by @christopher-albonof course god is/was an alien that landed here mucho years ago. The earth people were ignornant and terrified..what else were they to think?
Can you have a zero without having one zero? So that makes two and so on.
You ask 'where' and you get 3 answers? Asking 'where' gives only 2 answers: "Where are you?" (1) "I am in the bathroom, looking for Excedrin, for the headache you gave me". (2) I don't know, I'm lost". You can only be in ONE place (the where) at a time, right? So why would you expect 3 different answers?
You don't need to ask 'with whom'- you already know who is meeting you for lunch. 4 dimensions that we can interact with. 1,2 & 3 we can physically move through. And the 4th, time, is either flowing past us, like a river. Or is stationary with us moving one direction along it's length. And it is referred to as 'spacetime', Einstien's 'special relativity', describes the relationship between space and time.
I will admit you are probably correct about the dimensions being many more than 4 (string theory, etc.), but we can only interact with 4, so that is all I am obligated to prove.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasWe should separate science and Christianity.
Why I separate them has a very simple reason.
We cannot use science to study religious matters, such as miracles.
And we cannot use god to our wishes, like change the gravitation.
This doesn't mean that I dismiss one of the domains to favor the other. Each has its value. But they just cannot mix, and you cannot bring methods from one domain to the ...[text shortened]... ave for the domains per se.
Bottom line: Science and religion cannot be mixed with any value.
Originally posted by @lemon-lime[duplicate post]
Does this mean there are an infinite number of dimensions?
If you need a 4 and 2 for defining a 3, and then a 5 and 3 for defining a 4 (and so on), wouldn't it be necessary for there to be an infinite number of dimensions?
For example, if there are only 11 dimensions...
how could you define the 11th without a 12th?
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelWhich means we limit science to what is directly observable and repeatable.
We should separate science and Christianity.
Natural explanations rooted in science are not science. Only what is observable and repeatable are science.
If one thing explodes, that is not science. If similar things are seen to explode, then this makes it both observable and repeatable.
To be useful, we must be able to use that information to our advantage. Otherwise that knowledge and 50 cents will buy you a cheap candy bar.
Originally posted by @eladarFact: There are converging lines of empirical evidence that demonstrate organismal evolution and speciation occurred over hundreds of millions of years.
Which means we limit science to what is directly observable and repeatable.
Natural explanations rooted in science are not science. Only what is observable and repeatable are science.
If one thing explodes, that is not science. If similar things are seen to explode, then this makes it both observable and repeatable.
To be useful, we must be able to ...[text shortened]... ormation to our advantage. Otherwise that knowledge and 50 cents will buy you a cheap candy bar.
You're not making any counter-arguments. Based on the existing evidence, what is a logical alternative hypothesis?
Originally posted by @wildgrassFeel free to believe what you wish based on your assumptions.
Fact: There are converging lines of empirical evidence that demonstrate organismal evolution and speciation occurred over hundreds of millions of years.
You're not making any counter-arguments. Based on the existing evidence, what is a logical alternative hypothesis?
Humy said that the evidence for abiogenesis is the need for it.
My point of view does not necessitate abiogenesis. I will believe it can happen when I see it.
Who has a more scientific view of abiogenesis?
Originally posted by @eladar"need" for what? What is this "it" you are referring to? Evolution?
Humy said that the evidence for abiogenesis is the need for it.
If so, I clearly said NO such thing. Abiogenesis is NOT 'needed' for evolution. Evolution process would work if life always existed and/or Goddidit and evolution theory isn't a theory of the origin of the first life.
If not, I don't recall saying abiogenesis is 'needed' for anything in particular.
Either way, Please don't show the dishonesty of deliberately putting words in my mouth I DID NOT SAY.
I don't do the same to you, at least not deliberately although I may sometimes do accidental due to the massive ambiguity of your encrypted statements but you would have only yourself for that. So I would appreciate if you had the honesty of not deliberately putting words in my mouth in return.
Originally posted by @humyI thought I was clear enough. It is abiogenesis.
"need" for what? What is this "it" you are referring to? Evolution?
If so, I clearly said NO such thing. Abiogenesis is NOT 'needed' for evolution. Evolution process would work if life always existed and/or Goddidit and evolution theory isn't a theory of the origin of the first life.
If not, I don't recall saying abiogenesis is 'needed' for anything in ...[text shortened]... don't show the dishonesty of deliberately putting words in my mouth [b]I DID NOT SAY.[/b]
Originally posted by @eladarWe have evidence for abiogenesis. I already gave it to you so you make no sense if you are saying we need evidence for abiogenesis we already have which is why I assumed you weren't saying that but I guess I was just being stupid for believing you had any chance of making any sense given your rubbish track record.
I thought I was clear enough. It is abiogenesis.