2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnas…Same as the universe, you don't need a fourth spatial dimension to describe a spherical space...…
I have to ask, just for clarification:
The surface of our earth is two-dimensional. Two coordinates is enogh to descrabe any point's location on this surface. You don't need a third dimension to describe any points of this spherical surface.
Same as the universe, you don't need a fourth spatial dimension to describe a spherical space. It only needs e fourth dimension for?
I think this confuses JK and gives him fuel to his twisted ideas...
Yes -you don't need a fourth spatial dimension to describe a 3d sphere -but the universe is NOT a 3d sphere! It is shaped like a 4d sphere!
…It only needs three coordinates to describe the location of any point in universe. Three dimensions are enough.
...…
Correct -but that doesn’t logically contradict the idea that it is curved in 4-dimentions.
Using the 3d analogy: to define a point on the surface of a 3d sphere, I could just mark an arbitrarily chosen point on its surface and then define all other points on that sphere as being the given direction and distance away from that point BUT where that “distance” is NOT the length of a 3d straight line but rather that “distance” is the length of a 2d straight line from one point to the other but which is curved along the surface of that sphere in 3d.
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou actually mean that the universe is a four-dimensional hypersphere where every point has four coordinates?
…Same as the universe, you don't need a fourth spatial dimension to describe a spherical space...…
Yes -you don't need a fourth spatial dimension to describe a 3d sphere -but the universe is NOT a 3d sphere! It is shaped like a 4d sphere!
…It only needs three coordinates to describe the location of any point in t line from one point to the other but which is curved along the surface of that sphere in 3d.
Or do you mean that the fourth dimension is needed to explain the spherical form of the universe? That a three-dimensional universe cannot be closed?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYea, straight is just a word, so is design, time, selection, choice,
You are still hung up on definitions of words. 'Straight' is just a word, and we must define it in a way that is useful to us. If find my definition useful, and it happens to match the most common usage of the word. I don't see definitions as 'good' or 'bad'.
However I realize that what you really want to do is avoid the actual argument by getting hung ...[text shortened]... . My argument remains valid whatever word you choose to use in places of 'straight'.
and on and on and on.
I understand you want to make straight lines into circles and call it
good and logical, you have to, to promote some of the things you
are promoting. It is useful I'm quite sure to stick to the meanings of
words when you want to and deny, alter, or change completely when
you feel like it too.
You cannot ever have an argument if you are not using the same
words the same ways, otherwise you are talking past one another.
None of you papers ever written on any topic in science could mean
anything if the words were not agreed upon by all readers, you
are as bad a some cults I've run into on the meanings of words,
you change them to suit you. Your argument can be anything you
want it to be, call it valid, call it solid, after all the meaning of valid
and solid are just whatever you want them to be too.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat does it matter what I propose, we don't speak the same
As I said, modern science is based on the observations. If I am a bubble off center then so is science in general - but I realize that you do believe that. I sure don't see you proposing any alternatives. Do you think that GPS devices are just working by accident or do you have another theory for why they work?
language! When I say straight I mean it, when you say straight it
means something completely different our frames of reference are
not the same.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt isn't my pet definition, and I resent you laying that crap on me
But straight lines by your definition do not exist in reality, so we are not having that discussion anyway. The discussion was straight lines by my definition.
We seem to be back to your age old tactic of using your definition of a word to try to disprove a claim made by me with my definition of the word. Thats bad logic.
Lets try your logic in revers ...[text shortened]... r and found no little green men.
3. Therefore your God does not exist.
Can you see the flaw?
you are the one changing words to suit you and avoiding the topic.
Kelly
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt is computer bug game language they can make mean whatever
Also the universe as a whole is like a 4 dimensional sphere in that if you keep traveling in one direction you will eventually get back to where you started (a circle).------whitey--------------
However , since points in the universe are defined 4 dimensionally and not 3 dimensionally how could one get back to where one started? It would have to tak ...[text shortened]... . I also think the idea of a 4d sphere is a bit misleading because a sphere is 3 dimensional.
they want, and since it is made up on the fly you cannot make
what they say stick to any standard definition of any terms if you find
a flaw they can change the definition again.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI pointed out to you examples of how your line of reasoning about
But straight lines by your definition do not exist in reality, so we are not having that discussion anyway. The discussion was straight lines by my definition.
We seem to be back to your age old tactic of using your definition of a word to try to disprove a claim made by me with my definition of the word. Thats bad logic.
Lets try your logic in revers ...[text shortened]... r and found no little green men.
3. Therefore your God does not exist.
Can you see the flaw?
this was bogus with the yard stick and globe, I notice the lack of
responce about that on your part.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnas…You actually mean that the universe is a four-dimensional hypersphere where every point has four coordinates? ...…
You actually mean that the universe is a four-dimensional hypersphere where every point has four coordinates?
Or do you mean that the fourth dimension is needed to explain the spherical form of the universe? That a three-dimensional universe cannot be closed?
Not quite;
In any given arbitrary defined frame of reference no “forth coordinate” is actually necessary to define where a given point is in 3-dimensional space. That is because a SOLID 3d sphere is NOT analogous to this 4d sphere but rather a HOLLOW 3d sphere with an infinitely thin 2d surface curved in 3-dimentions is analogous to this 4d sphere and, just like you don’t need a third coordinate to define all points on the surface of such a 3d sphere (for the reasons given in the bottom paragraph of my last post), you do not need a forth coordinate to define all points on the “surface” of a 4d sphere (note that the word “surface” is misleading here because it isn’t a 2d surface curved in 3d but rather a 3d VOLUME “curved” in 4d ! -which, of course, is impossible to mentally visualise! ).
…Or do you mean that the fourth dimension is needed to EXPLAIN the spherical form of the universe? ...… (my emphasis)
No. The conclusion by physics that the 3-dimensional space within our universe has 4-dimensional curvature is just a natural result of general relativity combined with various astronomical observations and was never derived from some requirement to “EXPLAIN the spherical form of the universe”. The spherical form of the universe cannot be observed directly and can only be observed indirectly. The conclusion that the universe is shaped like a 4d sphere didn’t came BEFORE the conclusion that 3-dimensional space within our universe has 4-dimensional curvature but rather AFTER that conclusion so, obviously, the idea of the fourth dimension was never conceived in order to “EXPLAIN the spherical form of the universe” but rather came from relativity and observations and then the conclusion that the universe is a 4d sphere naturally followed that.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton...but there is a center of this hyperspere, as you see it? And the distance from this center to any point in universe is constant? (let's call this distance d.) Is this how you see it?
[b]…You actually mean that the universe is a four-dimensional hypersphere where every point has four coordinates? ...…
Not quite;
In any given arbitrary defined frame of reference no “forth coordinate” is actually necessary to define where a given point is in 3-dimensional space. That is because a SOLID 3d sphere is NOT analogous to this 4d ...[text shortened]... d observations and then the conclusion that the universe is a 4d sphere naturally followed that.[/b]
Does this mean that it is an explanation that the universe is expanding? That this distance d to every point is increasing steadily?
Then d is a function of time. At the time of BigBang d=0 and that d, after the inflationary era, is a d(t) = 1/(t^2), or something like that?
I am not totally against your idea. I've had it myself a while. Until I got the idea that this 3d surface of this 4d hypersphere didn't need any forth dimension at all, like a surface of the earth tw dimensions is enough, if the interior is uninteresting.
So, my new undrstanding is that the Universe is indeed three-dimensional, the fourth is not neccesary, but spherical with no interior.
Have I understood you correctly, even if it differs from my own view? If so, my comments are over in this matter.
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnas…...but there is a centre of this hyperspere, as you see it? ..…
...but there is a center of this hyperspere, as you see it? And the distance from this center to any point in universe is constant? (let's call this distance d.) Is this how you see it?
Does this mean that it is an explanation that the universe is expanding? That this distance d to every point is increasing steadily?
Then d is a function of time. At u correctly, even if it differs from my own view? If so, my comments are over in this matter.
IF I understand modern cosmology correctly, there is no “centre” point in some kind of “4-dimensional space” of this particular hyperspere that is the approximate shape of the universe because there exists no “4-dimensional space” or any other kind of “space” within this “sphere” nor outside this “sphere”!!! there is no premise to believe that anything exists inside that sphere -not even some kind of “void” of “empty space” with dimensions.
But there is a huge problem with the 3-dimensional sphere analogy for the 4-dimensional sphere that is the shape of our universe and the huge problem with it is that you cannot mentally “visualise” a 3-dimensional sphere without visualising/conceiving of 3D space around outside it as well as inside it (I certainly can‘t!).
The problem with that is that the 4-dimensional sphere that is the shape of our universe is being represented by a 3-dimensional sphere has NO space around outside it nor inside it! It is impossible to “visualise” in 4D just as it is impossible to “visualise” a 3D sphere which has no space outside nor inside of itself -so, in that narrow sense, the analogies we are using here tell lies and this is what is causing all the huge endless and dreadful confusion here about 4-dimensional curvature of 3d space in all of these threads.
…So, my new understanding is that the Universe is indeed three-dimensional, the fourth is not necessary, but spherical with no interior.
...…
Correct -I think? -not totally sure; I would say your correct if you say that “the fourth is not necessary” to define the location of the 3d points of space within the 3d space BUT it is “necessary” in the very narrow sense that it is correct to say that the 3d space has 4d curvature.
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is you that wants the word to mean something non-standard not me. I gave the standard definition, and you gave a non-standard definition. So you can consider all your criticism to be about you.
I understand you want to make straight lines into circles and call it
good and logical, you have to, to promote some of the things you
are promoting. It is useful I'm quite sure to stick to the meanings of
words when you want to and deny, alter, or change completely when
you feel like it too.
You cannot ever have an argument if you are not using the ...[text shortened]... d, after all the meaning of valid
and solid are just whatever you want them to be too.
Kelly
Once it became clear that the word was not being understood by you, I did give a definition, and from there onwards it should have been agreed upon should it not? But no, you insist on the illogical attempt at using your definition to dispute my claims.
I still maintain that you simply wont admit that you are wrong and wish to create an argument where no argument need exist, to try to deflect the focus from the true points that I have made.
Regarding the other words that were disputed 'design' and 'selection', I am a native English speaker, and I can assure you that the proposed usage was within their standard range of usage in every day English - at least in my family. You may not like that but it remains a fact that the usage is not being changed willy nilly to suit an argument, but rather the most suitable words are being chosen.
Originally posted by KellyJayI wanted to first identify which meaning of straight you were using. But since you insist I will answer your question:
I pointed out to you examples of how your line of reasoning about
this was bogus with the yard stick and globe, I notice the lack of
responce about that on your part.
Kelly
1. Your definition of straight. The yardstick is never straight before or after being layed across the top of a globe.
The tape measure is never straight by your definition so it is always bent.
2. My definition. The yardstick is straight in three dimensions before and after being layed across the globe. Since it is not placed within the dimensions of the globe its straightness cannot be commented on in that context.
The tape measure may have started of straight in three dimensions (you don't say) but after wrapping it around the globe it is straight in two dimensions and curved in the third.
Now tell me again where my reasoning is bogus as I cannot see where you pointed that out.
Originally posted by twhiteheadStandard definition just to you, I'm afraid does not mean squat
It is you that wants the word to mean something non-standard not me. I gave the standard definition, and you gave a non-standard definition. So you can consider all your criticism to be about you.
Once it became clear that the word was not being understood by you, I did give a definition, and from there onwards it should have been agreed upon should it n ...[text shortened]... hanged willy nilly to suit an argument, but rather the most suitable words are being chosen.
the rest of the universe. Pull up a link of straight and show me
where it is something that has bends, has angles, curves and
so on, let me see that you are not alone in this 'non-standard'
use of the word straight by definition please. A straight line
is described specifically due to the way it is shaped as triangles
and circles along with other geometric shapes. You do not
think it odd that words like straight, selection, choice,
designer has to have their meanings twisted into a
‘non-standard’ definition to make beliefs about evolution or
the beginning of time sound logical, because they certainly
cannot be used in any standards way to make those world
views fit reality. Once a line is bent it is no longer completely
straight, once something acts upon something else, and
causes it to be altered we cannot say it wasn’t altered.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou yourself implied that a yardstick was straight. That is my definition not yours. Even you use my definition, you just don't understand it.
Standard definition just to you, I'm afraid does not mean squat
the rest of the universe. Pull up a link of straight and show me
where it is something that has bends, has angles, curves and
so on, let me see that you are not alone in this 'non-standard'
use of the word straight by definition please. A straight line
is described specifically due to the ...[text shortened]... cts upon something else, and
causes it to be altered we cannot say it wasn’t altered.
Kelly
Do you not think it is odd that you have no argument against my claims and thus resort to attacking words? My claim doesn't need to 'sound reasonable' it is mathematically provable or disprovable. If you can disprove it, you can do so whatever reasonable sounding words I use.