Relative Spacial Dimension.

What is this actually all about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Glitch's attempt at understanding geometry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i feel like retracting my post as this thread seems to be more in line with a sunday tabloid

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"fluxial poly rhythmic or FPR of just "F"."

-2

 

OR just "F"

fluxial as space time is constantly in flux
poly as you need more than 5 sides to calibrate your position in space and time and location
rhythmic because it will be an algorithmic equation


or we could just call it a riple

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

One more time:
You only need four co-ordinates.
X, Y and Z for position and time.

And algorithm has nothing to do with rhythm, the first is a corruption of an Arabic name.

Quite.
But your posts fit.

 

Now Oli, shall we freak Glitch out with Newton's approximation, and showing that enough of nothing adds up to something? I think it's relevant, as it's how he determined the area under a curve, ....

 

and so cried Oli there shall be no more creation!
and so all human kinda stopped creating and stopped inventing and became stagnant like a pool of water with a rotting carcass in it...
and they smelt it from other planets and called it
"the stink of the OLi"

 

So you can't actually contend my points and instead resort to more nonsense?
Way to go.

 

Except that a 0D point does require space since the point must be located somewhere.
For there to be location there must be space.

 

define oD

 

Define?
0D is zero dimensions. No length, no breadth, no height etc...
A point is 0D.
A point has location: location requires space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)
Take basic geometry.

 

if your too ignorant to understand what i am saying then why on earth would i want to continue in this situation where you have taken on the position of denying my opinion and not offering any counter opinion ?

you are just being a troll.

where is your thesis/theory ?
no where to be seen!
that is where!
because your just breaking instead of making!
why ?
because you cant create ?
oh... here we are back again with the same comment i made before when you claimed to not know anything and be ignorant( how convenient).
sheesh

 

On the contrary, I have (twice now) pointed out where (and how) you are incorrect on the requisite number of dimensions.
And I'm not offering opinion I'm stating facts.

Again, on the contrary, you spout nonsense, ignore correction and then resort to insults.
That would indicate the trolling is on your part.

Why should I present a thesis?
I pointed out HOW my number is required, you provided nothing other speculation.

Breaking idiocy is what I do.

Ah, and now you resort to more assumptions.
I can and have created.

When I claimed to not know anything?
You have reading/ comprehension difficulties?
Sheesh indeed.

Still can't contend my points?
Go on, offer an opinion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

SOo...
you are saying that all realities have been defined now ?
wow i did not hear about that.
i guess the likes of Steven Hawkins and such like must be getting pretty bored now that reality and quantum physics has been cast in stone and finally defined as absolute.

 

Ah, you do have difficulty with reading and/ or comprehension.
Nowhere did I state (or even mention) all realities.
But please, do expound upon alternate realities especially those where your number of dimensions are required, and then tell us how they apply to us.

I'm not surprised, you seem to have a remarkable facility for not noticing a lot of things.

And now you go for the strawman approach.
BTW the guy's name is spelt Hawking.
And he's dead, so I presume boredom isn't a particular problem for him.

 

you would be lonely without your agenda and someone to to exercise it against.
you may have your debunking propaganda all to yourself as i will no longer reply to you.

as much as you may like to think you have destroyed yet another discussion you have not.
only informed yet another person of your nature.

 

Ah, more supposition, no answers.

Fine, if you can't actually reply sensibly then there's no point saying anything is there?

On the contrary, I've continued the discussion by pointing out the correct direction.

And another specious judgement.
Do you ever get tired of being so wrong?

 

The thing is, you assume infinite possible locations exist, but - two points only describe a finite value. (if it were distance then d is finite, and constantly its own measure, being the only existant value.)

Don't assume.

Two points might be the same point at a different time, then t is the only value.

All we say is two points constitute a finite value measured as itself. It doesn't matter where the points are. In fact 'where' has no relative definition.

A third point must be seperated by that value because there is no other value. If distance eq triangle, if time equal duration.

The point is the quantity and nature of the 'value' is the only value so the third point will only make one possible shape. (If distance then an eq triangle). But - by relative definition we can't assume distance. Could be time but really there is no knowing using the information 'two points exist'.