# 2 dimensions into 3 dimensions

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

Messages:
3,546

3. ### The GodValued Senior Member

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

5. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,005
You should well remember my oft stated position on that topic.

Messages:
10,584
Which is ?

8. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,005
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.

Messages:
18,215
BH??

10. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,005
No not short-hand for Broken Hill Pty Ltd, it means black hole.

11. ### river

Messages:
10,584
QQ knows what you mean , just being making sure what BH means .

12. ### river

Messages:
10,584
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. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,784
That is only true in our 3-D universe.

14. ### river

Messages:
10,584
Hmmm... what 2D object can manifest otherwise ?

15. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,784
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 QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,215
Not quite. Although generally you may be correct. I'll explain when I get back to my home office.

17. ### river

Messages:
10,584
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. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,784
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 QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,215
Does the surface of a table exist? how thick is the surface?

DaveC426913 likes this.
20. ### river

Messages:
10,584
2D can never gain depth . Because it can not exist .

21. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,784
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:
10,584
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. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,784
And yet, the surface exists. And it's 2 dimensional.