Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spherical Issues
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 256 of 301 (467325)
05-20-2008 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by IamJoseph
05-20-2008 9:42 PM


Re: Yes but.........
The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. The surface of a god damn sphere. For one.

Kindly
A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 9:42 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 05-21-2008 12:32 AM lyx2no has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 257 of 301 (467326)
05-20-2008 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by IamJoseph
05-20-2008 9:42 PM


Re: Yes but.........
The surface of the earth or any other spheroid

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 9:42 PM IamJoseph has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 258 of 301 (467327)
05-20-2008 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by IamJoseph
05-20-2008 7:12 PM


Re: Yes but.........
1. It does contain a centre and boundaries, as does all surfaces of all entities, including the universe.
So where is the center & where is the boundary?
Edited by bluescat48, : correction

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 7:12 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Perdition, posted 05-20-2008 10:52 PM bluescat48 has replied
 Message 261 by IamJoseph, posted 05-21-2008 12:41 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 259 of 301 (467329)
05-20-2008 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by bluescat48
05-20-2008 10:20 PM


Re: Yes but.........
Isn't it obvious, everywhere is the center and everywhere is the edge, and like, man, it all makes so much sense now. Whoa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by bluescat48, posted 05-20-2008 10:20 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by IamJoseph, posted 05-21-2008 12:55 AM Perdition has not replied
 Message 266 by bluescat48, posted 05-21-2008 6:58 AM Perdition has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 260 of 301 (467333)
05-21-2008 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by lyx2no
05-20-2008 9:49 PM


Re: Yes but.........
Do you also know the boundaries of an 'entity'? What's next - the surface of a surface?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by lyx2no, posted 05-20-2008 9:49 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by lyx2no, posted 05-21-2008 12:53 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 261 of 301 (467334)
05-21-2008 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by bluescat48
05-20-2008 10:20 PM


Re: Yes but.........
The centre of a surface is wherever you stand or wherever you look on that surface: it is equidistant from and to that position, the same measurement applying to any other position; a surface of a sphere also has a circumference - which boundary is when you traverse the same point again. If you move to another position of that surface, then that is the centre. When there is no boundary, you are not on the surface anymore.
The term boundaryless does not vindicate a back-door counter of infinite, nor can a 12" circumference ever measure 13". Aside from the backdoor to infinity, boundaryles has no meaning whatsoever. All mass has a centre; virtual mass have virtual centres. A surface w/o dimensions is a virtuality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by bluescat48, posted 05-20-2008 10:20 PM bluescat48 has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 262 of 301 (467335)
05-21-2008 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by IamJoseph
05-21-2008 12:32 AM


Re: Yes but.........
Do you also know the boundaries of an 'entity'?
I know the boundaries of many entities. But I also know of unbounded entities. Take the surface of the Moon for example. If we send an excavation team to the Moon with lots of really heavy equipment, and they bulldoze all the mountains and valleys and pave it over, we could walk uninterrupted all the way to the edge. From there we could measure over to the center. Yep, just as soon as we got to the edge.

Kindly
A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 05-21-2008 12:32 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by IamJoseph, posted 05-21-2008 1:09 AM lyx2no has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 263 of 301 (467336)
05-21-2008 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Perdition
05-20-2008 10:52 PM


Re: Yes but.........
With the universe, the beginning is the centre, which has expanded to the current diameter of the universe, around itself, harmogeniously [equally in all directions]. We are somewhere within the centre, because we emerged after the beginning point expanded 10B years [15B less 5B].
When the earth was formed, there was no life, because there was yet no sunlight [luminosity], even though the sun existed. A star reaches luminosity phase after a certain embryotic period; some do not reach this stage. So life existed here in its potential, non-dynamic stage, till luminosity occured, marking the advent of the rains cycle. Adam became dynamic [a living soul], on the 4th cosmic day - which is a period of time or an epoch, as opposed a 24-hour day. Other life forms predated.
All these life forms became dynamic some time after luminosity occured, but not because of the luminosity; the life forms had to also reciprocate, in an anticipatory mode, which accounts for an intergration. An intergrated system negates randomity. Thus we know the light predated stars, and that stars could not otherwise produce light unless it was pre-existant.
The metaphor, 'The dinner table is ready for the guests' applies.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Perdition, posted 05-20-2008 10:52 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by lyx2no, posted 05-21-2008 7:10 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 264 of 301 (467337)
05-21-2008 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by lyx2no
05-21-2008 12:53 AM


Re: Yes but.........
quote:
But I also know of unbounded entities.
Negative. Aside from a virtual surface [dimensionless], you have not shown other such entities having no boundary. The Moon example represents the outer crust of a sphere; this has a centre, which is not discernable as with a circle because it's trajectories are curved to itself - but if it is flattened out, a centre will be seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by lyx2no, posted 05-21-2008 12:53 AM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Perdition, posted 05-21-2008 11:26 AM IamJoseph has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 265 of 301 (467339)
05-21-2008 1:35 AM


A Waste of Time
There are some people who are gifted with spatial intelligence and can visualize objects in three dimensions. Such a talent is particularly useful in the geosciences, organic chemistry, or even mathematics, particularly topology.
Now a person who is incapable of visualizing three dimensions is at somewhat of a disadvantage in such fields, despite the fact that most can use other visual cues to compensate for such a shortcoming in their imagination.
It is the rare person indeed who can't visualize objects in three dimensions and also insists that no one else can either. To argue with such a person is as futile as expecting a jackass to speak English.
Edited by anglagard, : because a jackass may actually be able to understand a few English words

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by IamJoseph, posted 05-21-2008 7:29 PM anglagard has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 266 of 301 (467349)
05-21-2008 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Perdition
05-20-2008 10:52 PM


Re: Yes but.........
yes as much sense as virtual reality

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Perdition, posted 05-20-2008 10:52 PM Perdition has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 267 of 301 (467351)
05-21-2008 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by IamJoseph
05-21-2008 12:55 AM


Re: Yes but.........
Well, the one on the right was on the left
And the one in the middle was on the right
And the one on the left was in the middle
And the one in the rear was a Methodist
” Johnny Cash

Kindly
A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by IamJoseph, posted 05-21-2008 12:55 AM IamJoseph has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 268 of 301 (467378)
05-21-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by IamJoseph
05-20-2008 9:40 AM


Re: Mmmm.....the pure insanity....
This post (241) is a reply to this post (234) which includes a link to this paper
Post 234: [bluegenes]
quote:
I'm off topic here, but may be relevant. See if this article that I happened to be reading the other day helps you to understand what's going on. [link to paper/see above]

The reply to 234:
IaJ writes:
Languages are un-vindicated prior to 6000 years. But getting back to the topic at hand, and to move on, the issue has widespread impact, namely that of a finite universe. There are only two possible explanations for the emergence of a finite universe.
Then, hilariously illustrating a point made in the medical paper:
1. It occured using different materials/forces not contained in this universe whatsoever - else it violates a finite universe.
2. Ex Nehilo. This however is not science, but a premise unique to Genesis.
I recommend the paper again, here. It's useful to anyone attempting to understand IaJ. Your reaction to it is unlikely to be "Languages are un-vindicated prior to 6000 years....."
What do you diagnose?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 9:40 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by IamJoseph, posted 05-21-2008 7:33 PM bluegenes has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 269 of 301 (467385)
05-21-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by IamJoseph
05-21-2008 1:09 AM


Re: Yes but.........
IaJ, I apologize in advance. This is sort of a shotgun response to things you've been saying frequently in this thread. It's not a reply to anything specific in your most recent post.
1) You seem to be unclear about the definition of the word "unbounded" and you seem to think this equates with "infinity." It only does in the most superficial sense. What unbounded means, in the most simple way, is that if you start at point "A" and travel in a straight line, yet still end up back at point "A", then what you have been traveling on or through is unbounded. By definition. So every time you bring up your circle analogy and say that you end up traversing the same line you've already traversed, you are, despite what you may think, proving that the circle is unbounded. The same with a sphere, no matter where you start, if you walk in a straight line, you will end up back at the point you started from, thus the surface is unbounded, again, by definition.
2) When you claim that when you stand on a sphere, you are at the center of the surface of that sphere, and if you move somewhere else, then the center also moves, you are dealing with (and I find this very ironic and humorous) a virtual edge. Essentially, you are drawing a circle with your mind, based on what you can see. If you are looking at a sphere, your virtual edge is the limb of the sphere, the point at which the curvature takes it "around back." These edges are not actual edges, they are solely in your perception. In essence, you are drawing a circle around what you can see, then claiming you are the center of that circle, which is true. You then claim that that circle is the same thing as the surface itself, which is no true. This is what I alluded to before when I brought up the fact that when we say "center" we mean it of something specific, which is usually implied rather than expressly stated. You can draw all the circles you want on a sphere, and every circle will have a center, but that has no bearing on the surface itself, because none of those circles IS the surface.
I know, this is a waste of my time, you won't understand what we mean, and we won't understand what you say, and you'll still feel that everyone on Earth is wrong and you're the only one who's right, and who am I to argue with that logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by IamJoseph, posted 05-21-2008 1:09 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by IamJoseph, posted 05-21-2008 7:41 PM Perdition has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 270 of 301 (467472)
05-21-2008 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by anglagard
05-21-2008 1:35 AM


Re: A Waste of Time
The term 'visualize' is telling in this case. Far from not being able to visualise a 3-D [lol!], it only confirms what I've continuously stated: a surface w/o actual dimensions remains a virtual entity. Its dumb - or worse - when one demands an actual conclusion to be nominated in this case - its like asking where in Arizona is the spot one is visualing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by anglagard, posted 05-21-2008 1:35 AM anglagard has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024