How many dimensions fit in a point?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by loverbal, Apr 13, 2018.

  1. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    686
    Yes that's correct. Abstract mathematical points have no physicality or time. The number 2, for example. It has no physicality and no time. You are confusing math and physics, two different but related things.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,580
    Just what I was thinking.....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. loverbal Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    I am flattered that you think me smart enough to be a theorist, but no I am just a normal women.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    686
    How many normal women are you?
     
  8. loverbal Registered Member

    Messages:
    18

    Sorry I was not paying full attention and my spell checker automatically put women instead of woman.
     
  9. loverbal Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    Thank you that will help me with my grades.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,468
    Oddly enough, we had, not long ago, a visit from someone calling themselves "amber" who used to make the identical mistake. See post 179 of this this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/maths-to-explain-time.160516/page-9

    Amber, supposedly female, was in time banned for being a sockpuppet of the male Theorist (a.k.a. Antoine, Dylan etc etc, see here for a partial inventory of past sockpuppets: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...ion-caused-by-heat.160007/page-7#post-3480113) , a notorious attention-seeking timewaster.

    The modus operandi of this person is to ask a daft, or badly phrased, physics question and then to respond to answers in such a way as to give a tiny bit of hope that progress is being made towards understanding, while simultaneously bleeding in a stream of fresh silly or wrong ideas, requiring further dialogue, the idea being to keep it going as long as possible, but ultimately leading nowhere.

    But soft! Let us see how the dialogue progresses on this thread, started by our new ("female") friend loverbal.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2018
    Q-reeus likes this.
  11. loverbal Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    This forum seems really paranoid about somebody and people are posting none related stuff taking the thread off topic. I am lost where I was now with my questions.

    To recap , a point is a mathematical abstract with zero dimensions and zero physicality. A group or set of points has dimensions of xyz but no dimension of time?

    Space-time is an abstract and arbitrary?



    Is that right so far?
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    You're butting up against problems with infinities and infinitesimals here.

    Consider a mathematical line, for example. It has one dimension, but it's supposedly made up of zero-dimensional points. How do you get something one-dimensional from a bunch of things that are zero-dimensional? The short answer is that you stack infinitely many zero-dimensional points alongside one another to make a line. Each zero-dimensional point is infinitesimally small, but if you use an infinite number of them that's not a problem.

    I already discussed this with you, didn't I? Space is physical. Volume is a mathematical property we assign to space. Volume is a measure of how much space there is. It's a conceptual way of putting a useful number on a physical thing. And yes, we can do maths with the numbers, whereas we can't do maths with a physical space.
     
  13. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,081
    Yeah sadly I think you have nailed it.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    loverbal has been banned, in accordance with our policy regarding sock puppets.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  15. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    686
    Oh I see. I don't keep up with the social register. Can barely keep track of my own handles, let alone others'. Thanks for the heads up. All clear now.
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,468
    Thanks for acting so quickly, James.

    A further thought: my previous characterisation of Theorist as essentially random does not seem to be accurate in one respect, at least. Theorist does seem to have one theme that he returns to, namely a reluctance to acknowledge the role of the time dimension, as used in relativity. Hence the sockpuppet "xyz" that he previously used, and hence the nature of his "questions" now.

    This facet of his behaviour could possibly be useful for identifying the next sockpuppet, when it inevitably

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    arrives......
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,219
    As I understand it, in geometry, a point is not a thing, but a spacetime coordinate without needing dimensional properties.
    But for clarity: does every line consist of an infinite number of dimensionless points regardless of size of the line?
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,762
    Yes.
     
  19. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501
    I think there may be (deliberate) confusion between dimension-magnitude and dimension-er, dimension.
    Take centre of of an A4 sheet of paper (assumed flat) - this is by definition a point with two dimensions x,y which (by the definition of a point) have zero magnitude.
    Take the centre of a tennis ball (assumed spherical) - this is by definition a point with three dimensions x,y,z which (by the definition of a point) have zero magnitude.
    We can map the path of a tennis ball through time and x,y,z (and t) using coordinates for the centre of the ball because the centre is a point and doesn't have a 'left side' and/or a 'right side'.
     

Share This Page