2 dimensions into 3 dimensions

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Quantum Quack, May 27, 2017.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Any non zero radius value, however small, is deterministic, and will pose no problem.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    You should well remember my oft stated position on that topic.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Which is ?
     
  8. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    That in a truly self-consistent metric theory of gravity, BH's cannot exist. A formal singularity may, but is a purely idealized artifact that assumes infalling matter offers zero resistance all the way down to a notional zero radius. Which even then may or may not occur in finite proper time.
    PS - how far off-topic is this thread going to wander? Silly question to ask at free-for-all SF I suppose.
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
  10. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    No not short-hand for Broken Hill Pty Ltd, it means black hole.
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    QQ knows what you mean , just being making sure what BH means .
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    So we are back to 2D into 3D .

    2D has no possibility to transform into 3D .

    Because 2D can never physically exist .

    Why , because 2D has never had depth . Without depth 2D cannot manifest in the first place .
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    That is only true in our 3-D universe.
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Hmmm... what 2D object can manifest otherwise ?
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    You have defined 2D in the context of a 3D universe. Of course the conclusion is that it can't exist.

    It's the fallacy of begging the question - using the conclusion as the premise. To wit:

    "Since, in order for something to manifest, it must have depth, then anything without depth cannot exist."

    It's circular.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Not quite. Although generally you may be correct. I'll explain when I get back to my home office.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    I have defined 2D in the context of its self .

    The only way I could communicate what I'm trying to convey is through a 3D comparison .
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    No. You said it must have depth. A characteristic of 3D.

    In the context of 2D, an object does not have depth, let alone need it.
     
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Does the surface of a table exist? how thick is the surface?
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    2D can never gain depth . Because it can not exist .
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Again, this is circular.

    Why can it not exist? Because, as you say, it needs to be 3-dimensional (have depth) to exist.

    QQ raises a good point. The surface of a table certainly exists, yet it has no depth.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Disagree

    It is the depth of table , the physical manifestation of the table , that allows the surface of the table to exist in the first place .
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    And yet, the surface exists. And it's 2 dimensional.
     

Share This Page