Area of a line.

What is flat? Can flat be isolated or only described?

If you say flat can be isolated and exist independently then prove it? Am not saying you can't just want to see what new knowledge if any will come out of this discussion. I will start by making some statements below.

These are my falsifiable assumptions...

-No point can exist without space

-A point can exist in atemporal space + (positronic)

-A point point can exist in temporal space - (electronic)

-Any point in positronic space can exist in 1 dimension

-No point in electronic space can exist in 1 dimension

-No point in electronic space can exist in less than three dimensions

-No lines can exist in positronic space

- From the reference frame of electronic space positronic space only has only 1 dimension

- From the reference frame of positronic space electronic space has 1 dimension of time.

- A line extending in electronic space connects it to positronic space

- A line in electronic space is the scalar point in positronic space

Feel free to logically deduce these assumptions and expose all logical fallacy's it would be greatly appreciated.


I make a claim that no line constructed inside the confines of time and space can have 1 dimension and perhaps not even 2 , they must have at least 3...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What are you babbling about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Make an argument that a line has only 1 dimension?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's pretty much the definition.

 

By definition a point is one dimensional. By definition a line is two dimensional. Anything you physically construct will be three dimensional. Redefining terms such as electronic is never a good idea.

 

Of course I stupidly said a line is 2 dimensional when it is of course 1 dimensional and a point has no dimensions by definition. That will teach me to write something early in the morning before I am awake!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm confused... I thought a point is zero-dimensional by definition? And a line is one-dimensional, an area is two, a volume is 3 etc?
No longer confused by origin's comment

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If one is referring to a physically drawn line, then yes, this is 3-dimensional because it has a length (obviously) but also a width (of the pencil mark, or whatever the line is drawn with), with the third being the thickness of whatever is left on the paper etc (e.g. the graphite).
But then using this notion, a physically drawn point also has the same number of dimensions.

However one can not physically "construct a line" as understood by the term within mathematics/physics as such a line is merely a straight one-dimensional figure having no thickness and extending infinitely in both directions - by definition.

As soon as you construct anything then it may possess such lines, but it is not itself solely a line.
When we draw a line we are creating a physical approximation of a line, but it is not in and of itself solely a line.

This is trivial, though, surely?

BH, who is claiming that things defined as 0, 1 or 2-dimensional things can exist in their own right independent of anything else?
Or are you just stating the obvious and then asking people to challenge it?

 

Points, lines, planes, and curved surfaces, as well as any of the aforementioned idealized geometrical constructs exist only in the minds of mathematicians in purest form. They are also static constructs which when moved in an idealized mathematicians world, do not possess any lengths which contract, are not limited by the speed of light or any physical manifestations inherent in the properties of energy that is bound as matter. Quantum uncertainty never enters the picture in this deterministic view of a mental universe constructed within the confines of a real one. Vector addition of velocities works fine without a hard limit, and is the same to all observers regardless of their relative states of motion. Light may propagate at infinite speed by means of this.

About the only ideal of this geometry that seems to correlate one to one with the real world is that clocks may actually run at infinite speed. You may actually construct an entanglement clock out of energy or matter and it will most assuredly work as advertised. No mass or energy within it may propagate, but only change entanglement states. This only works because space itself is an illusion, as is our ideal of what it means for energy or matter to exist within space or to propagate.

Bound or unbound energy exists only in time, characterized only by the direction it may propagate at every instant. This is the illusion of 3D space immersed in time.

All of this activity are excitations is a pair of quantum fields. The one that is at rest is responsible for entanglement and is the rest frame from which all pair creation of bound or unbound, virtual or real energy derives. The other quantum field moves at a velocity of c relative to the first one in all directions at once, at every point from which energy may propagate. Unlike a Euclidean solid, neither of these fields possess inertia, origin nor coordinate systems on which to do geometry. Neither does the bound energy within it, which is never truly at rest.

Pi is not constant. It changes with rotation. This is part of the reason the real universe is so much different than the geometry which comes from the mind of a geometer or a mathematician.

 

What is your falsification test for the first statement? I seems to me it is not falsifiable. I think it is axiomatic, that is to say, intrinsic to the definition of what we call a "point".

 

Eh? Care to elaborate? Is Pi not simply a number? If so, how do numbers change with rotation??

 

Is this venturing into string theory?

Everyone familiar with basic linear algebra knows how to describe dimensions.

 

Seriously, did you just dis mathematics? It seems I always get attacked and someone accuses me of not being able to think because I know more mathematics then the average person. Did you just demise one of the corner stones of civilization?

 

As I have always understood it, π is a not just a number but is defined as a geometric ratio, viz the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.

If you inscribe a circle on the surface of a sphere, and draw a "diameter" on the surface of that sphere, then that "diameter" will be longer than if you do the same on a flat surface, due to the bulging of the spherical surface inside the circle. So it seems to me that if you define a kind of spherical-surface geometry, and then define π in the customary way, it will have a smaller value than it does in flat space.

 

He despises absolutes. It's on the other side you know...

 

Please be of assistance and demonstrate your understanding by objectifying my assumptions.

 

If you believe it can't be falsified and everyone agrees with it then I guess yes it should be considered "axiomatic".

 

YOU need to show how it CAN be falsified.

 

Thank you Sarkus for validating my claim. My claim is interesting because circumscribed and inscribed polygons atempt to measure Pi, a corresponding consequence is it will also atempt to measure a 1 dimensional line. Because you cannot construct a 1 dimensional line in reality as we know it you will never truly measure circumference accurately. The area of a line will always scue the calculation. Hence the irrationality of Pi. There is more to this.

 

Find me a point that exist without space. This is actually an important question.