Notices
Results 1 to 51 of 51

Thread: Dumb Questions III

  1. #1 Dumb Questions III 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,525
    Does a 2 dimensional object take up space or have a location in a 3 dimensional universe?


    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Space no, location yes.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    But two dimensional objects CANNOT exist in 3-dimensional space. It is a mathematical impossibility. They can only be imagined.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Draw a line on a sheet of paper. Is that difficult to imagine?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Even that line is 3D though. It is a representation of a 2D object but it still has all 3 dimensions. Now whether or not it's possible for 1D or 2D objects to exist in our universe I don't know, but a line on a piece of paper isn't an example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Perhaps this will interest some of you..... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1454663.ece

    Quote Originally Posted by The Times
    The substance, graphene, was created two years ago but could be made only when stuck to another material. Researchers have now managed to manufacture it as a film suspended between the nanoscale bars of scaffolding made from gold.

    Such a feat was held to be impossible by theorists, backed up by experimentation, because it is in effect a two-dimensional crystal that is supposed to be destroyed instantly by heat.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I assumed the object referred to was sense 5:

    ob·ject
    –noun
    1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
    2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.
    3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.
    4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.
    5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Even that line is 3D though. It is a representation of a 2D object but it still has all 3 dimensions. Now whether or not it's possible for 1D or 2D objects to exist in our universe I don't know, but a line on a piece of paper isn't an example.
    Euclid considered it to be two dimensional, and if Euclid thought so, then that is good enough for me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Dumb Questions III 
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Does a 2 dimensional object take up space or have a location in a 3 dimensional universe?
    By definition a 2-dimensional object has only two dimensions, and thus not a 3rd, nor can it exist in any representation using 3-dimensions.

    Using word trickery, the answer is yes. You can have a 2-dimensional object floating about in a 3-dimensional universe. I can take any 3-dimensional object in space, and describe one of its sides as a 2-dimensional object. In that sense of relativism, there's a lot of 2-D objects in 3-D space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The object may only have two dimensions, but that does not prevent it existing in three dimensional space. You seem to be tricking yourself with your own words.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Space no, location yes.
    agreed.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,525
    I'm probably out of my league here but I can't see how a 2D object in a 3D universe actually takes up space. Without volume can an object take up space in a 3D universe? I can see the 2D side of a 3D object but is that side actually taking up space? I don't see how. It's like 2D objects are merely flat images, like shadows, a boundary or transition between dimensions.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    I'm probably out of my league here but I can't see how a 2D object in a 3D universe actually takes up space. Without volume can an object take up space in a 3D universe? I can see the 2D side of a 3D object but is that side actually taking up space? I don't see how.
    2D objects can't take up space.
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    It's like 2D objects are merely flat images, like shadows, a boundary or transition between dimensions.
    Hmm...can shadows be considered "2D objects"? The have no volume. They don't take up space...they do have location. I guess they are 2D objects.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Hmm...can shadows be considered "2D objects"? The have no volume. They don't take up space...they do have location. I guess they are 2D objects.
    All I know is they better be 2D objects....Just thinking about it is giving me the creeps!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    The problem is that you need to define "space".

    A 2D object (like a square) takes up 2D-space (area) in a 2D domain. You can imagine this 2D domain embedded in 3D space with a clearly defined position. This is by no means a controversial or unusual concept. For example, in cartesian coordinates, the xy-plane at z=0 defines a 2D-domain embedded in 3D space (xyz), with defined position and orientation. However, since it has zero thickness, any 2D-plane takes up zero 3D-space, just as any N-dimensional object has a zero (N+1)-dimensional "volume".

    Another way to describe it: A 2D plane is in fact a 3-dimensional object with zero thickness and zero volume, possessing two properties: position and orientation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30
    Shadows are cast on 3 dimensional surfaces, but can they be cast on 2d surfaces? How can they be cast on a 2d surface when there is no such thing as a 2d surface in a 3d universe? (is there?)

    They are only the absence of an amount of light relative to the surrounding area. They are more of a non-object than an object?

    Is a photon considered 3 dimensional and a wave not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    You can have a 2D object in a 3D world. You just can't have a 2D object behave like a 3D object (unless you account for the 4th dimension in the 2D object).

    If I stand in the way of a beam of light, my shadow will appear on the ground because I am blocking the light, and the ground's surface becomes darker. If I move a 2D plane into the area of shadow, a shadow will be cast upon it because my body is blocking the light that would shine upon it otherwise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Well first of all, where exactly are you getting a 2-d plane from? You can't take a 2-d object as a given when the whole discussion is whether or not it can exist in the first place.
    And if you don't have that 2-d plane, then the shadow is 3-d as it is reflected off of a 3-d surface - assuming a shadow qualifies as an "object" in the first place which I'm not sure it does.

    I agree with benign psychosis's post
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Well first of all, where exactly are you getting a 2-d plane from?
    The same place he gets his 4d planes from. rofl
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Well first of all, where exactly are you getting a 2-d plane from? You can't take a 2-d object as a given when the whole discussion is whether or not it can exist in the first place.
    And if you don't have that 2-d plane, then the shadow is 3-d as it is reflected off of a 3-d surface - assuming a shadow qualifies as an "object" in the first place which I'm not sure it does.

    I agree with benign psychosis's post
    The shadow's reflecting off a 3D surface doesn't make it 3D.
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    Another way to describe it: A 2D plane is in fact a 3-dimensional object with zero thickness and zero volume, possessing two properties: position and orientation.
    Yup...
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    [quote="benign psychosis"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    The same place he gets his 4d planes from. rofl
    1st Dimension = Length (x)
    2nd Dimension = Width (y)
    3rd Dimension = Height (z0
    4th Dimension = Time (t)

    You can have a 2D object that moves through time, therefore it becomes a 3D object because it can now be described in 3 dimensions. x, y, and t.

    Did I go too fast? Or did I somehow not count three dimensions in that?

    BTW, before anyone gets high-n-mighty, no one actually stated that this thread defined 3D as a non-temporal 3D figure (ie - a cube of lengths).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    A two dimensional object could not even be existent due to the lack of mass. A
    line drawn on a sheet of paper has got three dimensions, three sites A, B and C.

    One, C normally, will be very little. Less than a mm, but was relevant in physical
    aspects.

    A two dimensional object for my terms and definitions was not even to imagine,
    truly. A physical figure with a*b not yet calculated, maybe. The frame but was
    yet three-dimensional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    A two dimensional object could not even be existent due to the lack of mass.
    A shadow has no mass.



    A shadow is 2-dimensional, people, get it in your heads... :x
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    What's a shadow?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27
    The "shadow" you observe is one part of something larger, a three-dimensional region where light is less able to reach. A piece of paper appears 2d, but it isn't. Same with a shadow, because you can stand IN the shadow of something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    A shadow is not an physical object.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    A shadow is not an physical object.
    True.

    A shadow is more of an...absent object...I guess. It's the appearance of a surface where there is an interrupt in the light.

    From a conceptual standpoint, though a shadow can be said to be a 2D entity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    I would have said a 2D illusion rather that a 2D entity. Anyway ive got to go to bed it's 3 o'clock NN.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Legendary
    The "shadow" you observe is one part of something larger, a three-dimensional region where light is less able to reach. A piece of paper appears 2d, but it isn't. Same with a shadow, because you can stand IN the shadow of something.
    But a paper is completely different from a shadow. It has mass; it has volume (though, granted, extremely small); it occupies space, whereas a shadow doesn't.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    I don't see how the argument that a shadow is not an object is valid in this discussion.

    A shadow does exist in two spatial dimensions; an 'object' must exist in three.

    How could one prove that a shadow has no mass/energy over time?
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    When I would have may back to the wall, and behind me on that wall there would
    be my shadow, that visible area on the wall being my shadow was certainly only
    the visible shadow, cause the whole region behind me would be the shadow visible
    on the wall actually.

    The region behind me mirrors in the grayed out spot visible on the wall beginning
    at my back.

    Thus, the visible shadow was not two dimensional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    The best argument against a shadow being three dimensional is that it has no volume, which is something required of 3D objects. Nor does it have mass, and hence has no density.

    Steve Miller,
    The fact that the shadow requires a 3D surface to be seen does not make it a 3D object in and of itself--this is non-sequitur.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    I didn't say something like this! I did say it's not two dimensional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Even that line is 3D though. It is a representation of a 2D object but it still has all 3 dimensions. Now whether or not it's possible for 1D or 2D objects to exist in our universe I don't know, but a line on a piece of paper isn't an example.
    Euclid considered it to be two dimensional, and if Euclid thought so, then that is good enough for me.
    Well euclid is talking out of his backside then !!
    The ink in the line is made from atoms, and atoms occupy 3D space !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    I'm probably out of my league here but I can't see how a 2D object in a 3D universe actually takes up space. Without volume can an object take up space in a 3D universe? I can see the 2D side of a 3D object but is that side actually taking up space? I don't see how.
    2D objects can't take up space.
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    It's like 2D objects are merely flat images, like shadows, a boundary or transition between dimensions.
    Hmm...can shadows be considered "2D objects"? The have no volume. They don't take up space...they do have location. I guess they are 2D objects.
    Bloody hell !! I think you may be right with that one !!

    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Well first of all, where exactly are you getting a 2-d plane from? You can't take a 2-d object as a given when the whole discussion is whether or not it can exist in the first place.
    And if you don't have that 2-d plane, then the shadow is 3-d as it is reflected off of a 3-d surface - assuming a shadow qualifies as an "object" in the first place which I'm not sure it does.

    I agree with benign psychosis's post
    Actually, a shadow may be cast upon a 3D object, but the shadow itself remains 2D, it is merely "warped" by the 3D object. The shadow still has a perceivable area but absolutely no volume. When we talk of "objects" our brains naturally associate the term with anything that is 3-dimensional. So if you do away with that beleif, then yes a shadow can be called an object that has 2-dimensions. However im pretty sure that shadows are the ONLY 2D "objects" which can exist in this 3D universe. And that is only because a shadow is the absence of something (light) its NOT actually made from anything. If it were - it would have to have 3-dimensions in order for it to exist in this universe.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,525
    However im pretty sure that shadows are the ONLY 2D "objects" which can exist in this 3D universe.
    How about a mirage? Any mirage I've ever seen, especially those highway ones you see on a hot sunny day, appears to be 2d. Can a mirage's area actually be measured?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    ID say no, because a mirage is hot air rising, so it has volume too.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    ID say no, because a mirage is hot air rising, so it has volume too.
    Not to be anal, but a mirage is actually a visual distortion caused by thermal currents rising from the hot surface. :wink:

    Technically, though, I wonder if a mirage really can be considered a volumetric object? I say that because in order to have a mirage, you must have a viewer, or a viewpoint. No matter where you look, you won't likely see the mirage any other way than the single visual distortion.

    Worth exploring....FIELD TRIP!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    However im pretty sure that shadows are the ONLY 2D "objects" which can exist in this 3D universe.
    How about a mirage? Any mirage I've ever seen, especially those highway ones you see on a hot sunny day, appears to be 2d. Can a mirage's area actually be measured?
    Along those lines...maybe a reflection? Like, your image in a mirror? Not too sure, but...maybe it could be.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Along those lines...maybe a reflection? Like, your image in a mirror? Not too sure, but...maybe it could be.
    The perception of your image in the mirror is, but not the physics associated with the creation of that image.


    Hopefully the original poster of this thread is starting to get an idea about the answer. There are both answers for perception and physical 2D surfaces.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,525
    I'm kind of thinking that a 2D object can only be viewed in a 3d universe. If I was 2D and living in a 2D universe how would I see a shadow, mirage or a reflection? Maybe all I could do is sense their presence and still I'm not confident about that.

    Could there be such a thing as 2 dimensional light?....Ok, I just googled and found this (www.aip.org/pnu/2006/split/770-1.html), something called plasmons. Not quite understanding it however.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    -->back to topic

    like Steve Miller already explained on page 2 about the a b c thing, I think it wasn't completed:

    x*y*z = volume (ahh, that thing...)

    if z equals zero there is no volume.

    so, if an object would have the size 5*2*0 the volume would be 0, that would mean it can't exist.

    then if the object would have the size 5*2*1 it would have a volume.

    So the actual question is:

    do you count an 2d object as the first or second alternative.

    assuming the universe has more than 3 dimensions (Not counting time),
    we as 3 dimensional beeings would have a problem.
    lets say I have the size 3*7*3 (x;y;z)
    if I would add a dimension (a) it would look like this:
    3*7*3*0
    what would lead up that I do not have any volume.

    so, if our universe is indeed 10 dimensional (or so) a 2d object would be calculated x*y*1 which would mean that it has 1 times z (it may be infinitly small but it exists)

    so, a 2 dimensional can have both a position and a pretty small mass (if you find a way to calculate a number 0. period 00000000..... 1)

    regards,

    miomaz
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz

    so, a 2 dimensional can have both a position and a pretty small mass (if you find a way to calculate a number 0. period 00000000..... 1)
    I disagree. A 2 dimensional object cannot have mass. Something of zero volume (a 2-dimensional object) cannot have mass, or perhaps the concept of 'zero volume' is what confuses you. It would be better to state: 'non-existent' volume.
    So the statement
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    x*y*z = volume (ahh, that thing...)

    if z equals zero there is no volume.
    can be revised as 'if z equals zero, or doesn't exist...'

    If z equals zero, then it's a non-existent 3D object.
    If z is non-existent, then it's a 2D object (composed of the dimensions x and y).
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    scientstphilosophertheist, we are(all of us) discussing if 2d objects are x,y,1 or x,y,0 , If it is 1 it does exist and with 0 it cannot have volume (does not exist).

    then this would proove that higher dimensions are not possible.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    scientstphilosophertheist, we are(all of us) discussing if 2d objects are x,y,1 or x,y,0 ,
    Apparently you didn't read the latter part of my post. I'm saying it's neither x,y,1 nor x,y,0, but rather x,y: that's what defines a 2 dimensional object. If you were to add 0 or 1, that would be adding a third dimension (though 0 would make the object non-existent, it would be a non-existent three dimensional object, not a 2 dimensional object).

    Here's what I'm saying:

    x*y*z = 3 dimensional (volume)
    x*y = 2 dimensional (area)

    x*y*0 = 3 dimensional = volume = 0 => non-existent 3D object
    x*y*1 = xy*1 = 3 dimensional = volume = xy =>3D object of volume xy

    x*y = 2 dimensional = area = xy => 2D object of area xy

    Where you're getting mixed up is in saying xy = xy*1, meaning that a 2D object can be x*y*1, but that's incorrect. If we added units, it would be:
    xcm * ycm * 1cm = xy cm^3
    versus
    xcm * ycm = xy cm^2

    The 1 is the dimension that makes the object 3D. You must view 1 as the "z" dimension here, not a number: whether the object has a "z" or not is what determines whether 3D or 2D; thus, xy1 is a 3D, not a 2D object.

    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    If it is 1 it does exist and with 0 it cannot have volume (does not exist).
    Zero volume in a 3D object means the object doesn't exist, but the same cannot be said for zero volume in a 2D object, because a 2D object doesn't have volume to begin with. "A 2D object of zero volume" is a paradoxical statement (volume, 2D), as is "A 2D object of volume 1", as both zero and one can be classified as the 'z' dimension (see above).

    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    then this would proove that higher dimensions are not possible.
    While I don't necessarily believe that higher dimensions exist, your x*y*z*0 example doesn't prove they don't exist. x*y*z*0 would simply be a non-existent 4D object with those dimensions.

    P.S. nobody was really discussing xy1 vs xy0, just whether a 2D object can exist in a 3D world or not.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Saying a shadow has no mass is like saying that a hole in the ground (on the moon, so no air in it) has negative mass.

    Then we'd be saying that it's possible for an object to have a mass less than zero.


    Yet......... a hole has sides, and those sides weigh something. A shadow has edges, and those edges are made of light - or actually of mass that is emitting/reflecting light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Ill ignor the last post, it humiliates science.

    Everything what you said was right, but you still have missed something.

    Does a 2 dimensional object take up space or have a location in a 3 dimensional universe?
    this was the question.

    3 spatial dimensions is what I suspect he means.

    And you know the formula for 3d? that would be: x*y*z and not x*y, which would be 2d. which would leave us ot the question 1 or 0?
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toledo, OH
    Posts
    68
    isnt the universe 4D? cuz the 4th dimension is time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Dear starwars fan,
    allot of people think that the 4th dimension is "time" it can be also the first the second or the 32.

    I damn the person that didn't seperate the two in the firstplace.

    and besides we are talking of spatial dimensions which means that they are spatial (....).
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    Ill ignore the last post, it humiliates science.
    No honest attempt to explain things humiliates science. I believe Kojax made an honest attempt. The fact that it failed is secondary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,525
    Ok guys, I have another one for ya. I was out in the boat fishing the other day and got caught in a quick rain shower. Once the clouds had parted and the Sun emerged I was staring at a double rainbow. My mind went directly to this thread and I began to wonder if a rainbow should be considered a 2D object.

    Personally I think it is but I'm not sure if anyone ever tried to measure one dimensionally.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    Ill ignore the last post, it humiliates science.
    No honest attempt to explain things humiliates science. I believe Kojax made an honest attempt. The fact that it failed is secondary.
    true, in a very wierd way but still it is true.
    (I would see his thoght philosopical)


    the rainbow is light being bent or reflected in a certain way so that the wavelengh is increased/decreased, our eye picks it up as colors.
    i think, that is.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •