Mortal Monkey on 8/7/2006 at 20:00
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
You... just add it. A point in a plane aX + bY = c becomes a point in a
volume aX + bY + cZ = d.
Fail.
Apparantly what you and Raven are thinking about is a multi-dimensional universe that allows both 2D and 3D elements exist. It isn't very hard to prove that this is a physical impossibility in our universe, thanks to the building blocks everything is made of.
Agent Monkeysee on 8/7/2006 at 20:02
Okay you're definitely going for the Internet victory so I guess we're done here.
Mortal Monkey on 8/7/2006 at 20:05
I'm tired of explaining to you something that you just can't grasp, so yes, I'm going for the Internet victory. It's still not a volume though.
Agent Monkeysee on 8/7/2006 at 20:25
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
I'm tired of explaining to you something that you just can't grasp, so yes, I'm going for the Internet victory. It's still not a volume though.
It was a bad word choice, I couldn't think of what else to put there. How about addressing the rest of my post where I actually explained why higher dimensions are needed instead of nitpicking a single word choice and strutting around with your cock out.
You have a 2d universe where a straight line meets itself. You can't explain that without invoking higher dimensional curvature. String Theory is somewhat analogous in that you can't explain certain quantum phenomena using only the 3 spatial dimensions of our Universe, but higher dimensions make them describable.
TheGreatGodPan on 8/7/2006 at 20:36
If the curvature of the universe turned out to be 0 (or 1, I forget which one represents Euclidian), that wouldn't indicate that higher dimensions don't exist, but simply be lack of evidence for their existence, right?
Agent Monkeysee on 8/7/2006 at 20:51
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
If the curvature of the universe turned out to be 0 (or 1, I forget which one represents Euclidian), that wouldn't indicate that higher dimensions don't exist, but simply be lack of evidence for their existence, right?
I think at that point it would be equivalent to a Universe without higher dimensions, though that may be ignoring other effects like the quantum phenomena explained by String Theory which, I think, doesn't have anything to do with curvature.
But yeah if curvature was 0 there wouldn't be any topographical evidence for higher spatial dimensions. Also I think that would imply an infinite Universe.
Mortal Monkey on 8/7/2006 at 21:43
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
You have a 2d universe where a straight line meets itself. You can't explain that without invoking higher dimensional curvature.
And how do
you explain how a spatial dimension can exist outside the universe itself?
They explained your meets-itself conundrum fairly well in the flash - you pop out of existence here and into existence there. If this applies to
all the smallest building blocks of the universe, the trasnition is seamless. Does it necessarily have anything to do with the circle they used for demonstrational purposes?
Besides, a circle (or any curvature for that matter) is in itself 2D. If what you are saying actually had merit, the universe would be 4D, not 3D.
Now I'll say this one last time.
My definition of a dimension is something that is perpendicular to all the other dimensions. How on earth can a dimension be perpendicular to the others if it's not even inside the universe?
Stitch on 8/7/2006 at 22:03
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
My definition of a dimension
yeah what the hell monkeysee why's it always got to be about
your definitions :mad:
Mortal Monkey on 8/7/2006 at 22:09
THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE TRUE GOD (per universe)
dj_ivocha on 9/7/2006 at 00:04
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
You have a 2d universe where a straight line meets itself. You can't explain that without invoking higher dimensional curvature.
And how do
you explain how a spatial dimension can exist outside the universe itself?
If you can't explain a straight line meeting itself in your 2d universe, then your knowledge of it is insufficient and it actually has 3 dimensions, about which you can theoretize but not prove. Just as Monkeysee has been trying to explain (at least as I understand it).
