red-shift & the center of the universe?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every point = other, unrelated points - akin to Jupiter and pluto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Non sequitur. Please rephrase. We're talking about the surface of a sphere, not the planets.

---

No sir. You are talking about a surface, thereby replacing an imperical quanta with an academic one. My position is all things have a centre, including the universe, as well as a circle's imperical surface - which is a layer of matter - hello? The term surface can be applied in different ways, but so should the criteria of the factor of points and centres you attach to it. If you use it as an abstract, then it will equally have an abstract centre, affirmed when we refer to a surface layer of matter.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me put it very bluntly: if one condones a beginning [BB] - this MUST also condone a boundary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Yes, I'm sure you believe that, but you are wrong. The Big Bang did not occur in space. It created space. And the space it created has no frame of reference. Thus, it has no center.

---

Take two parts of H and one part of O, and you get water. Take a quart of that water and contain it in a tank: can you locate its centre? Yes. Now take the abstract terms of water in general: does it have a centre? Yes. In the abstract. Now the BB or space can be said not to have a centre only when one mixes its abstract premise from its actual premise - and then demand an actual centre in the abstract BB. Space, as is the term 'surface' in general terms is an abstract premise - but when seen in actual terms, all space quantas possess centres. You have become a victim of casino science, and now do not want to admit this. I suggest you re-consider your position.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this logic is at no times set aside by a bogus example of a circle's surface not having a center - it does too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Then answer the direct question I put to you TWICE:

​

What are its coordinates? Suppose you have a unit sphere:

​

x2 + y2 + z2 = 1

​

What (x,y,z) coordinate is the "center" that satisfies that equation? (0,0,0) can't be it because 02 + 02 + 02 <> 1 and thus is not in the locus. You keep on saying there is a center, but you keep on refusing to say where it is.

---

Why are you putting such bogus maths, and saying you are a mathematecien? I am certain if some financial company which holds your home title deeds, put that kind of maths to you, you would scream hell fire. Let's adjust your maths:x2 + y2 + z2 = 1.Now give each factor an imperical value - because you are seeking an imperical centre.1 cubic KM [x2] + 2 cubic km [y2] + 4 cubic KM [z2].Need any help?

quote:

---

Where is the center of the surface of a sphere? What are its coordinates?

---

How far from the uppermost layer of crust is your 'surface'? I hope you know - its your own question!

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now there is no need to have a circle to show such a casino science infinity: one can do this in the room they are in right now - simply go to the end of the room, then turn back, repeat. You are now traveling infinitely. Its the same thing with the surface points of a circle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

And the flailing continues. You seem to forget: I am a mathematician and I know exactly what those words mean and they have no connection to each other. When you reach the end of the room, you've hit the boundary and thus, you have traveled a finite length. The surface of a sphere, however, has no boundary and thus, you can traverse it infinitely even though there is only a finite surface area.

---

But you are wrong! Like the room which has a boundary, the outer layers of all circles and sphears have boundaries; they cease having boundaries only when you leave the imperical realm and jump onto the academic and use the term 'surface'. You can try that with the 'surface' of any room - and you will find no centre there.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANYTHING FINITE - MEANS ALL ITS CONTENTS ARE FINITE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Incorrect. The surface of a sphere is finite, but you can have infinite paths within it. It is clear you don't understand the math involved.

---

No sir. You cannot have infinite in a finite sphear. You can only claim so and get away with it when you use the term 'surface' - which location is in lala land. All sphears have finite paths within it - point for point, part for part, and also as a whole sphear. It is not clear I don't understand maths - it is clear you are using casino maths, and I pointed this out to you numerously. You are debating illogically now, and accusing me of what does not apply to me.

quote:

---

Hint: Spiral.

---

No need. The same criteria applies as with a circle. Pigs can fly in lala land and on the 'horizon' of a spiral. But they cannot do that in an actual spiral's outer layer.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you add or subtract $5 from an infinite number of $'s - it means the original amount was not infinite.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Incorrect. It is clear you don't understand the math involved. The point behind an infinite cardinality is that you can add or subtract any finite number from it (and even some infinite cardinalities) and still have an infinite number.

​

There's a classical thought experiment to show this:

​

Suppose you have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all numbered: 1, 2, 3, ....

​

Your hotel is booked solid; no empty rooms. A guest shows up. Can you accommodate the new customer?

​

Of course: Simply have everyone in the hotel move down one room: The guest in Room #1 moves to Room #2; the guest in Room #2 moves to Room #3; etc. This opens up Room #1 and the new guest can move in.

​

You can do this with any finite number: Just have them move that number of rooms down. Five new guests show up? Everybody moves five rooms down, the first five rooms open up, and the new guests can move in.

​

But what if an infinite number of people show up? Can you accommodate them?

​

Of course: Simply have everyone in the hotel move to the room number twice as large as the one currently being occupied: The guest in Room #1 moves to Room #2; the guest in Room #2 moves to Room #4, the guest in Room #3 moves to Room #6, etc. This opens up all the odd-numbered rooms and the new guests can move in.

​

And, of course, these processes can be done in reverse.

---

Excellent. If you include in your preamble that I suppose an infinite number of people and an infinite number of floors. But that makes the removal of a floor as supefluous. See your glitch, Mr. Mathematician?

quote:

---

Now, you have to be careful with infinity because it often depends upon how you manipulate it. For this thought experiment, you must make a few assumptions:

​

Superman and Captain Marvel both exist and are capable of moving any distance in any amount of time.

​

There are an infinite number of coconuts, all numbered, in a pile.

​

There is a pit next to the pile large enough to hold all of them.
Now, one day Superman and Captain Marvel decide to play a game. At noon, Superman throws in coconuts numbered 1 and 2, Captain Marvel flies in, grabs coconut #1, and tosses it out.

​

They then sit around for half an hour, discussing their heroic deeds, and then at 12:30, Superman throws in coconuts numbered 3 and 4. Captain Marvel flies in, grabs coconut #2, and tosses it out.

​

Again, they discuss the villains for fifteen minutes and at 12:45, Superman throws in coconuts numbered 5 and 6. Captain Marvel flies in, grabs coconut #3, and tosses it out.

​

They continue this process of waiting half as long as they did before, Superman tossing in the next two coconuts in sequence, and Captain Marvel tossing out the next coconut in his sequence.

​

When 1:00 pm comes around, and 1:00 pm always comes around, how many coconuts are in the pit?

​

Answer: None of them. For every coconut you might care to name, I can give a time when it was tossed out. Coconut #1 was tossed out at 12:00, #2 at 12:30, #3 at 12:45, etc.

​

Next day, they decide to play a similar game. This time, at noon, Captain Marvel throws in coconuts numbered 1 and 2 and Superman flies in, grabs coconut #1, and tosses it out.

​

They wait half an hour and in go coconuts numbered 3 and 4. This time, however, Superman goes in and tosses out coconut #3.

​

They wait fifteen minutes and in go #5 and #6 while out comes #5.

​

When 1:00 pm comes around, and 1:00 pm always comes around, how many coconuts are in the pit?

​

Answer: An infinite number. Specifically, all the even numbered ones. Even though the bare process is the same (two go in, one comes out), the fact that we never touched any of the even ones means that they never leave the pit.

​

That's the funky thing about infinity: It doesn't behave like finite numbers. To try and apply your common sense attitude toward it will only leave you scratching your head wondering why you're wrong. Infinity minus infinity is undefined.

---

Go back to your preamble again. Your cannot have an infinite number of coconuts and take one out: that means your coconuts was not infinite.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not change is you keep repeating your count - does it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Yes, it does.

​

That's how infinity works.

---

That's not how infinity works. There is one factor which determines an infinity: unchangeablity. That is why we cannot examplify it. There is nothing we know or imagine, which does not change. If something changes, then whatever changes it is transcendent of it. This is the attribute of actual infinity - as opposed an academic one used in maths to skip over and continue a process. They are NOT talking actual infinity. As a mathematician, you should know this.

quote:

---

IamJoseph responds to me:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you can see, by addressing that statement, I was responding to a fulcrum factor of your position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

"Fulcrum factor"? You're flailing again.

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The surface has no 'distances', as opposed no center - that is why you cannot ask of a centre, which is distance oriented. Get it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

(*blink!*)

​

You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously claiming that there is no way to calculate distance upon the surface of a sphere? Then how on earth (and I mean that literally) do you determine how far it is from your house to the grocery store?

​

There's a rule about the geometry of the surface of a sphere: The shortest distance between any two points follows the great circle route. That is the definition of a straight line in spherical geometry. To calculate the distance between two points on a sphere, (fi, li) and (ff, lf) is given by:

​

arctan((sqrt((cosffDl)2 + (cosfisinff - sinficosffcosDl)2)/(sinfisinff + cosficosffcosDl))

​

Why is it we can calculate the distance between two points on the surface of a sphere when you claim it cannot be done? I have a formula. What do you have?

​

Where is the center of the surface of a sphere of radius 1? What point in the locus satisfying:

​

x2 + y2 + z2 = 1

---

Here's your glitch.There is a caveat to the equations you put as your evidence, which you are not addressing. The equations are vested in the academic, and before using them - they require to be adapted to imperical quantas. Eg.The centre of a length of 5 miles = 2.5.Fine, but if I asked you to show me that centre - you won't be able to. Guess why? Because I have not converted that mathematical equation from the academic to the imperical and factual, before I asked to show me that centre in actuality. You cannot show me where that center of that 5 mile is any place in the universe.But! If I gave you a piece of string [imperical, actual], which is 5 miles long, you would have no problem showing me that centre - in actuality. And a 'surface' is not an actuality, but an abstract. So the centre of a surface can only be prevailent in the abstract - and I say there is a center in that abstract, and you cannot disprove me. Its like you are asking me to prove the center of a room in your dreams - by demanding this be done in a non-virtual mode. You can find the center of your room in your dreams - there is one there - but only in your dreams!

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

You are talking about a surface, thereby replacing an imperical quanta with an academic one.

---

Huh? The earth doesn't have a surface? You mean you aren't standing on the surface of the earth? You're hovering in empty space? You're buried inside it? What?What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

Take a quart of that water and contain it in a tank: can you locate its centre? Yes.

---

What makes you think the universe is like a tank of water?Be specific. Show us the math that indicates the universe is like a tank of water. A tank of water has a universal frame of reference but our work in relativity shows that the universe doesn't have a universal frame of reference?What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

Why are you putting such bogus maths, and saying you are a mathematecien?

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?The formula for the surface of a unit sphere is not:x² + y² + z² = 1Are you serious?What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

Now give each factor an imperical value - because you are seeking an imperical centre.

​

1 cubic KM [x2] + 2 cubic km [y2] + 4 cubic KM [z2].

​

Need any help?

---

Huh? Your equation makes no sense. The equation for the surface of a sphere is a locus of points. There are no units. You can define a generalized ellipsoid as:[(x+a)/p]² + [(y+b)/q]² + [(z+c)/r]² = 1Where p, q, and r are scalars that will stretch the ellipsoid along each axis (if p = q = r, then the ellipsoid is a sphere of radius r) and a, b, and c are translational scalars that will move the sphere through Cartesian space.But those are unitless scalars. What do you think throwing in "cubic KM" is going to do? Are you trying to determine the volume of a sphere? The surface of a sphere doesn't have a volume. It has a SURFACE area.You're not making any sense.What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

How far from the uppermost layer of crust is your 'surface'?

---

That is the surface. What do you think you're standing on? Are you floating in space? Buried beneath the surface?What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

Like the room which has a boundary, the outer layers of all circles and sphears have boundaries;

---

Incorrect. There is no boundary. The surface of a sphere is a two-dimensional object. The perimeter of a circle is a one-dimensional object.Help us out here: What are the coordinates of a boundary point of the surface of a sphere? What are the coordinates of a boundary point of the perimeter of a circle?What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

The same criteria applies as with a circle.

---

Then you agree that the perimeter of a circle has no boundary and yet is finite in length. Good. This then indicates you agree that the surface of a sphere has no boundary and yet is finite in area. Good.If not, then what are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

If you include in your preamble that I suppose an infinite number of people and an infinite number of floors. But that makes the removal of a floor as supefluous. See your glitch, Mr. Mathematician?

---

First, who said anything about a floor?Second, there is no glitch. This is the classic example used to introduce the concept of infinity in Real Analysis. Have you heard of David Hilbert? He's one of the greatest mathematicians who ever lived: 1862 - 1943. He is the one who came up with the hotel analogy.I'm sure the Field's Medal committee (assuming you're not older than 40) will be happy to learn that you have overturned all of Real Analysis simply by saying, "See your glitch?" Perhaps you'll do us a favor and formalize your proof. "See your glitch?" doesn't really have much substance to it.Now, what are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

Go back to your preamble again. Your cannot have an infinite number of coconuts and take one out: that means your coconuts was not infinite.

---

Sure you can. Infinity - 1 = infinity. That's standard Real Analysis.If you're going to contradict the work of Cantor, you're going to have to do better than bald assertion.Suppose you have written out the numbers:1, 2, 3, 4, ...Infinite, right?Let's remove the number 1 from the list:2, 3, 4, ...How many numbers do we have? It turns out that we have the exact same number. Why? Because we can put the first list into 1-to-1 correspondance with the second:1 2
2 <-> 3
3 <-> 4
.
.
.For every number in the first list, there is one and only one number in the second list and similarly, for every number in the second list, there is one and only one number in the first list.Since they are in 1-to-1 correspondance, then they are exactly the same size.And since the first list was infinite, that means the second list was also infinite.Therefore, infinity - 1 = infinity.Now, what are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

That's not how infinity works. There is one factor which determines an infinity: unchangeablity.

---

Incorrect. As Cantor proved, there are different kinds of infinity. Some are even larger than others. The size of the Reals (which is infinite) is larger than the size of the Integers (which is also infinite). If you want, I can give you the proof, but you would be better served by looking up "Cantor diagonal proof" in your favorite search engine.Now, what are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

That is why we cannot examplify it.

---

Except that we can. Physics requires it. It's that little thing called "calculus."Now, what are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

They are NOT talking actual infinity. As a mathematician, you should know this.

---

As a mathematician, what I know is that you clearly have no background in Real Analysis.Now, what are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

The centre of a length of 5 miles = 2.5.

---

That assumes a boundary. That assumes that there is a point somewhere along the line for which there is no more line in that dimension. 2.5 units from that point will be the center of a line segment 5 units long, yes.But the perimeter of a circle has no boundary. There is no point along the perimeter of a circle where you run out of line. So even though the length of the perimeter is 5 units long, there is no center because there is no boundary to start measuring from.Now, what are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

Fine, but if I asked you to show me that centre - you won't be able to.

---

Of course I will. I just did. The center of a bounded line segment 5 units long is 2.5 units along that line segment from the end of the line segment.But if that line segment is unbounded, such as by being in the shape of a circle, then there is no such thing a center because there is no boundary to measure 2.5 units from.Now, what are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

And a 'surface' is not an actuality, but an abstract.

---

So what are you standing on right now? It's not the surface of the earth? You're floating in space? You're buried in the earth? What?Now, what are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

quote:

---

So the centre of a surface can only be prevailent in the abstract

---

Incorrect. The center for a paper disc, which is a surface, is the point equidistant from the perimeter. You can find it pretty easily by folding the paper in half and then in half again along a different fold line. Where the fold lines cross, that is the center.Now, what are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

Huh? The earth doesn't have a surface? You mean you aren't standing on the surface of the earth? You're hovering in empty space? You're buried inside it? What?

​

What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

---

Huh? what's that for? Of coz I cannot stand on the surface of the earth - "physically"; only in the academic can i do that. I gave you examples and reasonings on this, yet you come back huhing me. I ask you again - in open forum - please tell me the length, breath or weight of the surface you refer to? Then you should see, that one cannot ask of a centre of an academic construct - in physical impirical terms. All you can give me of your surface, is another abstract, academic answer. You can say, 50% of the surface is black and 50% is red. But that is also academic. You cannot answer this in actual, imperical miles. With regard to the centre of the surface, I guatantee you that the centre of the earth's surface is exactly at the centre of that surface. And you cannot prove me wrong. The correct mode is:surface to surface; actuals to actuals.Surface means above. It does not tell you how much above, above what, and what distance from the above. So why would a mathematecian ask me where the centre of an imaginary construct is - in physical terms? And does a mathematician see a problem when I tell him that imaginary surface does have a center - has he gone and checked? Can he check - aside from more academic constructs? Nope!

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you putting such bogus maths, and saying you are a mathematecien?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

(*blink!*)

​

You did not just say that, did you?

​

The formula for the surface of a unit sphere is not:

​

x2 + y2 + z2 = 1

​

Are you serious?

​

What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?
Huh? Your equation makes no sense. The equation for the surface of a sphere is a locus of points. There are no units. You can define a generalized ellipsoid as:

​

[(x+a)/p]2 + [(y+b)/q]2 + [(z+c)/r]2 = 1

​

Where p, q, and r are scalars that will stretch the ellipsoid along each axis (if p = q = r, then the ellipsoid is a sphere of radius r) and a, b, and c are translational scalars that will move the sphere through Cartesian space.

​

But those are unitless scalars. What do you think throwing in "cubic KM" is going to do? Are you trying to determine the volume of a sphere? The surface of a sphere doesn't have a volume. It has a SURFACE area.

​

You're not making any sense.

​

What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of the earth?

---

I am making sense, you are not. The surface of a sphear DOES have volume - in its academic mode. When you remove it from the academic and give it actual measurements, then it also has volume in actual modes also. eg.the area of a square is L X B. but here, you cannot touch or weigh that area.Now look here:the area of a square is 2mL X 2mB. Now I can give you the actual measurements of that square.Likewise, if you applied actualities to the surface of a sphear, eg: it is 1 mile thick, around a sphear with a radius of 10 miles - I can give you the exact factors you want. But you are not doing that.Its becoming disgraceful maths. Its passed the slight of hand - the magician refuses to acknowledge the game is up.Now with the factor of the current scientific premise the universe has no center, but a beginning, I say this question has to be wrong - because all the factors of the universe are unknown. can you tell me the centre of a room which began at point A - and all requests for further data is hereby denied?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Mr. IamJoseph, you have just stated that you cannot stand on the surface of the earth in anything except an academic sense, whatever that means. This is nonsense. EvC Forum will not host nonsense discussions. Either support a rational position or stop posting in this thread.Please, no replies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Would you like to enlighten me, how many *miles* [or if you like, centermeters] is the circumference, peremeter or length or any other aspect of your surface? You seem to know what a surface is, and it appears I dont.To prempt, I did not ask for the applicable equations - I learnt this in class 101.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

As you are being so generous with the selection of units let us say the sphere has a radius of 427.42 miles. But for the sake of simplicity let us rename that distance, in your honor, the Iam. So the radius of our sphere will have a radius of one Iam. And as the Iam is the only unit of measure we will use in this, our discussion, we can simplify further; assume the units and not have to write it down over and over.So, now that we’ve gotten the units issue out of the way: What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of our sphere having a radius of 1?No equations supplied per your request.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

quote:

---

But for the sake of simplicity let us rename that distance, in your honor, the Iam.

---

AKA: otherwise it just does not work.Why don't you be more fair and rename your answer that way also. In your glorious honor of coz.I rest my case. And I never even took up rocket science.

Actually, my point was that whatever units one wishes to use is irrelevant. I pulled a number out of my back side ” I should have chosen one with less pointy bits, like 860.8 ” renamed it as a single unit. I could have used 1 mile or 1 meter, 1 yard, 1 Smoot, 1 whatever . 1 Iam; but I wanted also to get across to you the irrelevance of what ever units chosen. Chose one and stick with it is the only rule.AKA: it works just fine regardless.Please, use the R = 472.47 miles if you wish but it only makes the arithmetic cumbersome. But it effects the math not a trifling.This brings us back to: What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of our sphere having a radius of 472.47 miles?Circle:
Perimeter 2,968.6 miles
Area 701,290 miles²Sphere:
Circumference 2,968.6 miles
Surface area 2,805,200 miles²
Volume 441,790,000 miles³None of these has anything to do with the coordinates of the center of the surface of our sphere, of course, but if it will get you moving to answer a completely reasonable question . What the hey.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

quote:

---

Actually, my point was that whatever units one wishes to use is irrelevant.

---

Actually, no, that is incorrect. You can use whatever pointy bits you like - but keep the abstracts and the actuals apart. The issue is not with the radius, but with the term 'surface' - define its exact position in actual imperical bits, and we won't have a problem. Otherwise, try this for size:THE CENTRE OF A SURFACE IS EXACTLY AND PRECIELY 5 DEGREES LEFT OF JUPITER.Yes/no?

You really don't have a clue as to what any of this means, do you? That explains your odd rhetoric: You seem to be under the impression that if language is confusing it must be meaningful."THE CENTRE OF A SURFACE IS EXACTLY AND PRECIELY 5 DEGREES LEFT OF JUPITER" isn't even witty.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Its sufficiently witty for one asking for any imperical measurements of a spear's 'surface' per se. A surface is the outermost area of 'anything'; its measurements are 'anything' and its centre is 'anywhere' one wants.I challenge you, or anyone else, to give us the radius of a sphear's surface - in units of miles. Take your time - no rush.

Hi IamJoseph,Please cease participating in this thread. Thanks. No replies, please.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

This brings us back to: What are the coordinates of the center of the surface of our sphere having a radius of 472.47 miles?

---

I will leave this thread as given, with just this response.Previously, RH gave 'no quantitites' and based his question on the abstract x,y,z factors of a surface, and asked for actuals. The co-ordinated can be 1, and the x, y z be given any quantitites which will apply to the conclusion. But there is an issue of a surface centre when actual measurements are not given, and its answer required in actuals conversion. This was my point, not that of a radius given and I cannot define its centre.Bye.