Spherical Issues

quote:

---

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?

---

I'm not one who twists reality via twisted science or history. Its very simple to KO me: just give one single 'name' pre-6000. You got a problem with this - why so?

quote:

---

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

---

Good that you are addressing responsa. The facts are with me here, and proven when a 12" circumference cannot be made into a 13" one. That is why we have definitions of a 'circumference' - it negates any semblance of unbounded meaning no boundary. The circumference is a boundary, one which manifests its containment.So when some smarty uses the term 'finite *but* unbounded' in the same sentence - it smells of a dead rat. Then when he uses that to also say there is no centre, because there are any number of centres, it is equally a bogus science. if one wants to 'visualize' - let them visualize flattening a sphere and turning that same mass/volume to a huge circle. Your welcome.

But you're misrepresenting what we're saying. We're not saying the circumference becomes any longer than 12" (in your example) that would be the finite part. But someone can keep walking along that circumference without reaching an edge. (An edge is defined as the point at which travelling in a straight line will mean leaving the surface or volume you were on.) That's what unbounded means. If you come back to point A without changing your direction, that surface is unbounded.Likewise, we are not saying they have multiple centers. You are the one who said that. We're saying they have no center. For there to be a center, there must be an edge, and we're saying there is no edge. No edge = no center. If you come back to your starting point when going in one direction = there is no edge.Flattening the surface into a huge circle changes the situation. It is no longer the surface of a sphere. The surface of a sphere is not a circle. Circles have centers, no one is disputing this, but by saying you can just flatten the sphere is the same as saying that all cars are star shaped because you can use a machine to rend the car and fold it into a star shape.

quote:

---

But someone can keep walking along that circumference without reaching an edge.

---

Incorrect. He will reach an edge after the first circular walk. What your saying here is, there is no milestone to mark the edge. One can do the same with a square or anything else they like: when we come to the end of a square's side, it makes a different trajectory from a sphere, is all [90d as opposed a curved one]. We are talking angles here - not boundaries. It is even more ubsurd than that - why would one demand an edge of a surface - it is contradictory and self negating. Surface = no edge anyplace, because it is the edge. Its like saying there is no outerspace in outerspace, or no darkness in darkness: meaningless jargon.Not that I am inclined to argue for the sake of it - that is not proper debating. If you examine the reasoning a boundaryless premise is proclaimed, it gets still more ubsurd. When some premise is presented as a statute or theorom, and applied in that mode, it is a bogus, meaningless premise twisted to mean something it is not. A statute is defined by its application: what is the application of a bounderyless phenomenon? Is there anything other than an academic metaphor here?

quote:

---

(An edge is defined as the point at which travelling in a straight line will mean leaving the surface or volume you were on.) That's what unbounded means.

---

Anything can have an edge, and it does not have to be a stright line. There is a boundary where oxygen ceases upon travelling in a curved path above the earth. That's an edge/boundary w/o the straight line condition.

quote:

---

Likewise, we are not saying they have multiple centers.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

Flattening the surface into a huge circle changes the situation.

---

Correct. And that's exactly what occurs when one moves from one position of the surface of the other: MANY centres happen. You have changed your position on the surface of the sphere.The point here is, when uses such academics to conclude there is no physical boundary or centre in an actual entity, it is bogus maths. And this is all they do when they say the universe has no centre or boundary: they have not got any proof or actual example anywhere on the earth to affirm this. All that is available is a surface example, and here too - it is distorted to apply as a reality.The conclusion is and must be - the universe does and must possess a centre, and so does everything else contained in the universe. Now if I am in error here - then you have to tell us what is the APPLICATION of a centreless and boundaryless sphere - aside from the academic - else it has no meaning?

Bowling.

---

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

Your thought processes are a source of great inspiration to us all IAJ.
I just wondered how you would go about solving Zenos paradox -"In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance for example 10 feet. It will then take Achilles some further period of time to run that distance, in which period the tortoise will advance farther; and then another period of time to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore Achilles can never catch up with or overtake the tortoise"The generally accepted solution involves calculus which presumably (due to it's reliance on the concept of infinity and the fact that it can indeed describe boundaryless surfaces without centers) is by your definition "bogus maths".How do you go about solving this paradox and at what distance, according to your method, would Achilles actually reach the tortoise?For the sake of argument lets say that the race is of no fixed distance. The race is over when Achilles catches the tortoise.The only question is how far does Achilles have to run and how did you get this result?

So far, all you've done is avoid the question.What are the coordinates for the center of the surface of the earth?The earth is an actual place. It has an actual surface.Thus, where is the actual center of the actual surface of the actual 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.

Ok. I won't even mention the surface of a ship having a centre.Your asute responses help confirm my belief - none of you REALLY believe in a centreless entity. And if I'm wrong - it makes it even worse for you guys?

Yes, I've avoided every question. But only on the virtual surface of your brilliant observation. No wonder you can't see the centre of the universe.I have even tried to move along, by making the point from other avenues. Now many hold that space always existed, infinitely, I guess because it is really awkward to created a back-door to infinite by saying an 'expanding' space can also be finite - so the next desperate measure is to say it has no borders. Does this bogus view prove space is infinite? No.Can one be a mathematician and not know an infinite space cannot 'expand' - because it then means it was not infinite 10 secs ago?Can one posit a BB Beginning and still say post-universe products predate that beginning? Is there a desperate need to foster an infinite space and no boundary? Yes.On this issue, in a science thread of this forum, I was told not to mix theology and science, because I stated there is no alternative to Creationism. But I was only positing this from a deeply considered scientific reasoning, and not at all by theology. Here's my reasoning, why some try to make space as infinite, and perhaps you can enlighten me - while being cautioned not to put any bogus maths on the table this time.One of the definitions for the BBT is this was the first point of the universe. This means nothing else existed. Only two consequences can be ratified here, from a scientific view:1. The BB acted as a transformer, converting pre-universe products to a new universe entity. This means products unlike anything in this universe existed outside this universe, and this was converted - similar to inanimate matter becoming life [though this is a wanting example, because life does contain matter]. Space cannot be a candidate as a pre-universe product, as this would violate the finite factor and the BBT.Or:2. An independent factor or force impacted on the BB and trgiggered it to become active.The [2] becomes implicit even with [1] above. And there is no alternatives possible here. This independent force can be seen as a Godlike superior being or Creationist figure - it does not have to allign with any theology or religious scripture. But all this fails when one introduces space as being eternal or infinite, however even here, the space cannot be said to act on its own, because it is inert but for an active force impacting it.From the above reasoning, I conclude there is no scientific or logical alternative to Creationism. Here, one can say our science is yet limited, and we may one day decipher this mystery via new premises and new knowledge. Fine - this is not contested. But as of now - Creationism is not only viable but imperitive and encumbent as the ruling science, by virtue of there being no alternatives.

quote:

---

we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point.

---

Unless I'm missing something significant here, there is no logic the achilles will always need more time to catch up. Is this not like a car and a man walking?

The paper is not about the history of language. Your original reply, "Languages are un-vidicated prior to 6000 years", is a typical example of one thing mentioned in the paper. AgainThe point I'm making is that your obvious problems with language are remarkably like the language disorders of schizophrenics as described in this paper.Don't you agree?

None of that is an answer, IamJoseph. Let's try again, shall we?What are the coordinates for the center of the surface of the earth?The earth is an actual place. It has an actual surface.Thus, where is the actual center of the actual surface of the actual 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.

Of coz it stands to reason. Asking for proof, even the simplest one concerning a name, which does not need writings and can be a result of recall - automatically proves I am dysfunctional. QED too.

Yes it is like a car and a man walking.
The man has a 100 feet headstart. Both set off at the same time. By the time the car reaches the point at which the man started the man has progressed a further 10 feet. By the time the car has covered this additional ten feet the man has moved a foot further etc. etc. etc.At what point does the car catch up with the man?

Nothing that you ask for automatically proves that you are dysfunctional. What indicates a language disorder is purely and simply your use of language, the type of mistakes that you make, and your apparent inability to identify them.It has nothing directly to do with your opinions.