Unfortunately, due to the curvature of space created by the imense black hole at the center of our galaxy, the earth can not be "flat" A "flat surface" has only 2 dimensions. Therefore, since this imense black hole bends time and causes the three dimensional objects surrounding it to "fall" into it's mass, these objects inherently must be subject to both the third and forth dimensions. Thereby, all these objects can not be "flat". Now, the 2 dimensional flat surfaces of existance stay in one place and are not affected by gravity.
I love Quantum Physics ;-)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I'm coming around on inteligent design.
I'm coming around on inteligent design.Follow
Nexa wrote:
yossarian wrote:
Sorry Nexa, this will be boring. Skip it. Maybe my next post will be about something really exciting, like the fluctuation-dissipation theorem.
That would be more interesting, though over my head, since I don't feel it should be painfully obvious.
Nexa
It's my favorite theorem.
1. The name is fun to say.
2. It is a very interesting result.
3. It can be violated[1] and in these cases, you get really interesting results: see for example: http://www.mesopc.physics.neu.edu/papers/PRL_vol83_FDT.pdf
The wikipedia explanation is fine so I'll just cut and paste it:
"In statistical physics, the fluctuation dissipation theorem is derived from the assumption that the response of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium to a small external perturbation is the same as its response to a spontaneous fluctuation. There is therefore a direct relation between the fluctuation properties of the thermodynamic system and its linear response properties."
It's just so damn cool: you can measure linear response (to, say, a magnetic field) and predict the noise (the fluctuations). OR: you can measure the noise (as in the article above) and predict the linear response!
[1] It isn't really violated. It is a mathematical theorem and as such it is "proven" true from it's assumptions. It fails if the system isn't in equilibrium.
yossarian wrote:
It's just so damn cool: you can measure linear response (to, say, a magnetic field) and predict the noise (the fluctuations). OR: you can measure the noise (as in the article above) and predict the linear response!
That's super neat! Now can you explain how the picture flies through the air and ends up in my TV?
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Duhkha wrote:
Unfortunately, due to the curvature of space created by the imense black hole at the center of our galaxy, the earth can not be "flat" A "flat surface" has only 2 dimensions. Therefore, since this imense black hole bends time and causes the three dimensional objects surrounding it to "fall" into it's mass, these objects inherently must be subject to both the third and forth dimensions. Thereby, all these objects can not be "flat". Now, the 2 dimensional flat surfaces of existance stay in one place and are not affected by gravity.
I love Quantum Physics ;-)
I love Quantum Physics ;-)
You love general relativity. Yes, Duhkha, I was getting to this. I just wanted to try to explain the problem clearly on the curved Earth before jumping into curved space-time.
What Duhkha means is that there is no such thing as flat space due to the fact masses distort space (actually all masses do, for us, the Earth is vastly more relevant then the black hole at the center of the galaxy but the idea is right).
There are no straight lines; as Nexa says, there are no triangles. In the language of the previous post, all triangles are MentalTris.
Edited, Apr 12th 2007 4:56pm by yossarian
Nexa wrote:
There is no triangle.
yossarian wrote:
there are no triangles.
No one ever listens to me.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Why does no one ever listen to whats her face?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
bodhisattva wrote:
Why does no one ever listen to whats her face?
It's cause I'm a girl. At least I'm not Canadian.
sorry Tare
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
I was referring to Yossarian, he's a chick right?\
I didn't even see your post!
I didn't even see your post!
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Nexa wrote:
Now can you explain how the picture flies through the air and ends up in my TV?
Nexa
Nexa
I dunno but if they can do it with a picture why can't someone do it with a chocolate bar!
Quote:
You love general relativity.
^^ that too!
Nexa wrote:
Nexa wrote:
There is no triangle.
yossarian wrote:
there are no triangles.
No one ever listens to me.
Nexa
I edited my post to give you credit. I was building up to it but Duhkha jumped the gun and in my hastly reply I forgot to credit you.
bhodi wrote:
Why does no one ever listen to whats her face?
I must really write like a girl. Yossarian doesn't sound like a female name, does it? I just assumed everyone read the book. Oh, and when you do pay attention, the server goes down for 12 hours. So don't.
bhodi wrote:
I was referring to Yossarian, he's a chick right?\
He isn't.
yossarian wrote:
You missed the point.
Not unless your whole point is "I'm expressing a ridiculous argument".
Quote:
1. If the angles add up to 180, the surface is flat.
2. School children add up the angles every day, they sum to 180.
3. Therefore, each measurement means the surface, the Earth, is flat.
2. School children add up the angles every day, they sum to 180.
3. Therefore, each measurement means the surface, the Earth, is flat.
Um... The surface the school children drew the triangle on isn't the earth. It's a piece of paper on their desk. The desk most certainly is "flat". Which is why the angles add up to 180 degrees.
If you draw lines between points far away on the earths surface as described above, you are not drawing a triangle. Thus, the fact that the angles add up to more then 180 degrees doesn't really say anything. It's like declaring the scientific definition for cats to be wrong because the dog you're looking at doesn't meet all the criteria...
Quote:
4. This is inaccurate for analogous reasons to why the peanut butter video is inaccurate.
Perhaps if I'd bothered to watch the video, maybe the triangle thing would make sense? Maybe...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
yossarian wrote:
You missed the point.
Not unless your whole point is "I'm expressing a ridiculous argument".
No my point is:
4. This is inaccurate for analogous reasons to why the peanut butter video is inaccurate.
Quote:
Quote:
1. If the angles add up to 180, the surface is flat.
2. School children add up the angles every day, they sum to 180.
3. Therefore, each measurement means the surface, the Earth, is flat.
2. School children add up the angles every day, they sum to 180.
3. Therefore, each measurement means the surface, the Earth, is flat.
Um... The surface the school children drew the triangle on isn't the earth. It's a piece of paper on their desk. The desk most certainly is "flat". Which is why the angles add up to 180 degrees.
Yes.
Quote:
If you draw lines between points far away on the earths surface as described above, you are not drawing a triangle. Thus, the fact that the angles add up to more then 180 degrees doesn't really say anything.
It says the Earth must not be flat. As I've stated above, twice.
Quote:
It's like declaring the scientific definition for cats to be wrong because the dog you're looking at doesn't meet all the criteria...
No it isn't.
Quote:
Quote:
4. This is inaccurate for analogous reasons to why the peanut butter video is inaccurate.
Perhaps if I'd bothered to watch the video, maybe the triangle thing would make sense? Maybe...
We're in agreement that my line of reasoning 1-3 is in error. I've stated it is for reasons analogous to the reasoning in the video is in error. You haven't bothered to watch the video. If you had, perhaps you could comment my was is not a good analogy to why the video's reasoning is wrong. Perhaps you agree with the video.
This is the stupidist conversation in the world. Peaunut butter & triangles.
This is like listening to potheads try to philosophize
Quote:
This is listening to potheads try to philosophize
fixded
Wrong, this is totally geometry.
Recent Visitors: 317
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (317)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I'm coming around on inteligent design.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC