Relative Spacial Dimension.

[Bebelina]

What is this actually all about?

 

[Oli]

Glitch's attempt at understanding geometry.

 

[ripleofdeath]

i feel like retracting my post as this thread seems to be more in line with a sunday tabloid

 

[Bebelina]

"fluxial poly rhythmic or FPR of just "F"."

-2

 

[ripleofdeath]

"fluxial poly rhythmic or FPR of just "F"."

-2

OR just "F"

fluxial as space time is constantly in flux
poly as you need more than 5 sides to calibrate your position in space and time and location
rhythmic because it will be an algorithmic equation


or we could just call it a riple

 

[Oli]

OR just "F"
fluxial as space time is constantly in flux
poly as you need more than 5 sides to calibrate your position in space and time and location
rhythmic because it will be an algorithmic equation
or we could just call it a riple

One more time:
You only need four co-ordinates.
X, Y and Z for position and time.

And algorithm has nothing to do with rhythm, the first is a corruption of an Arabic name.

i feel like retracting my post as this thread seems to be more in line with a sunday tabloid

Quite.
But your posts fit.

 

[phlogistician]

That's what makes it one-dimensional.
A straight line is the definition of 1D.
0D = point
1D = line
2D = area
3D = volume

Now Oli, shall we freak Glitch out with Newton's approximation, and showing that enough of nothing adds up to something? I think it's relevant, as it's how he determined the area under a curve, ....

 

[ripleofdeath]

One more time:
You only need four co-ordinates.
X, Y and Z for position and time.

And algorithm has nothing to do with rhythm, the first is a corruption of an Arabic name.


Quite.
But your posts fit.

and so cried Oli there shall be no more creation!
and so all human kinda stopped creating and stopped inventing and became stagnant like a pool of water with a rotting carcass in it...
and they smelt it from other planets and called it
"the stink of the OLi"

 

[Oli]

So you can't actually contend my points and instead resort to more nonsense?
Way to go.

 

[thinking]

I think if location is non-existant then space is non existant. In fact I think space is consequential to location and not prior to it.

If we use 0D points space is not required because 0D does not occupy space.

Usually, one takes a blank page which represents space and draws the origin thereon, so an origin representing existance is contrasted against a space representing 'nothing'.

I don't know which scientist rose to godliness and asserted there must be a pre-existing space to expand into, but there is no reason to accept that, I think fresh approaches are just as valid, and moreso in particular applications.

I invented a model which is congruent to relativity but it goes against what is taught in geometry, and the more set one becomes in academia the more resistant he might be to models that defy current definitions, but if it is cohesive I see no reason to debunk it, try if you like but I worked it out and I'd prefer open enquiry, and I can clarify any query or accept different perspectives.

I hope someone would like to discuss space being consequential to, and not prior to 'existance' or origin.

actually

space is simutaneous to existence of energy/matter

how could it be otherwise , really ?

 

[Oli]

If we use 0D points space is not required because 0D does not occupy space.

Except that a 0D point does require space since the point must be located somewhere.
For there to be location there must be space.

 

[thinking]

Except that a 0D point does require space since the point must be located somewhere.
For there to be location there must be space.

define oD

 

[Oli]

Define?
0D is zero dimensions. No length, no breadth, no height etc...
A point is 0D.
A point has location: location requires space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)
Take basic geometry.

 

[ripleofdeath]

So you can't actually contend my points and instead resort to more nonsense?
Way to go.

if your too ignorant to understand what i am saying then why on earth would i want to continue in this situation where you have taken on the position of denying my opinion and not offering any counter opinion ?

you are just being a troll.

where is your thesis/theory ?
no where to be seen!
that is where!
because your just breaking instead of making!
why ?
because you cant create ?
oh... here we are back again with the same comment i made before when you claimed to not know anything and be ignorant( how convenient).
sheesh

 

[Oli]

if your too ignorant to understand what i am saying then why on earth would i want to continue in this situation where you have taken on the position of denying my opinion and not offering any counter opinion ?

On the contrary, I have (twice now) pointed out where (and how) you are incorrect on the requisite number of dimensions.
And I'm not offering opinion I'm stating facts.

you are just being a troll.

Again, on the contrary, you spout nonsense, ignore correction and then resort to insults.
That would indicate the trolling is on your part.

where is your thesis/theory ?
no where to be seen!
that is where!

Why should I present a thesis?
I pointed out HOW my number is required, you provided nothing other speculation.

because your just breaking instead of making!

Breaking idiocy is what I do.

because you cant create ?

Ah, and now you resort to more assumptions.
I can and have created.

oh... here we are back again with the same comment i made before when you claimed to not know anything and be ignorant( how convenient).
sheesh

When I claimed to not know anything?
You have reading/ comprehension difficulties?
Sheesh indeed.

Still can't contend my points?
Go on, offer an opinion.

 

[ripleofdeath]

On the contrary, I have (twice now) pointed out where (and how) you are incorrect on the requisite number of dimensions.
And I'm not offering opinion I'm stating facts.

SOo...
you are saying that all realities have been defined now ?
wow i did not hear about that.
i guess the likes of Steven Hawkins and such like must be getting pretty bored now that reality and quantum physics has been cast in stone and finally defined as absolute.

 

[Oli]

SOo...
you are saying that all realities have been defined now ?

Ah, you do have difficulty with reading and/ or comprehension.
Nowhere did I state (or even mention) all realities.
But please, do expound upon alternate realities especially those where your number of dimensions are required, and then tell us how they apply to us.

wow i did not hear about that.

I'm not surprised, you seem to have a remarkable facility for not noticing a lot of things.

i guess the likes of Steven Hawkins and such like must be getting pretty bored now that reality and quantum physics has been cast in stone and finally defined as absolute.

And now you go for the strawman approach.
BTW the guy's name is spelt Hawking.
And he's dead, so I presume boredom isn't a particular problem for him.

 

[ripleofdeath]

you would be lonely without your agenda and someone to to exercise it against.
you may have your debunking propaganda all to yourself as i will no longer reply to you.

as much as you may like to think you have destroyed yet another discussion you have not.
only informed yet another person of your nature.

 

[Oli]

you would be lonely without your agenda and someone to to exercise it against.

Ah, more supposition, no answers.

you may have your debunking propaganda all to yourself as i will no longer reply to you.

Fine, if you can't actually reply sensibly then there's no point saying anything is there?

as much as you may like to think you have destroyed yet another discussion you have not.

On the contrary, I've continued the discussion by pointing out the correct direction.

only informed yet another person of your nature.

And another specious judgement.
Do you ever get tired of being so wrong?

 

[glitch]

Nonsense.
2 points define a 1D line, a third point may be placed anywhere on that line, either between the two points or outside of them, extending the projection.
At any distance.

The thing is, you assume infinite possible locations exist, but - two points only describe a finite value. (if it were distance then d is finite, and constantly its own measure, being the only existant value.)

Don't assume.

Two points might be the same point at a different time, then t is the only value.

All we say is two points constitute a finite value measured as itself. It doesn't matter where the points are. In fact 'where' has no relative definition.

A third point must be seperated by that value because there is no other value. If distance eq triangle, if time equal duration.

The point is the quantity and nature of the 'value' is the only value so the third point will only make one possible shape. (If distance then an eq triangle). But - by relative definition we can't assume distance. Could be time but really there is no knowing using the information 'two points exist'.