throng

To me it depends on conceptual properties. Nothing is purely conceptual and can't be imagined as a state. It is also absolute by definition and so is existance.

We have two purely conceptual constructs absolute existance/absolute nothing.

Of course, absolute nothing has no relative influence on existance, so it's irrelevent.

We merely use the concept to define existance as a singular, but the universe is relative and not singularily existant.

the field would be effectively equivalent in all directions, and the net field would be 0.

If a cavity existed at the centre of earth which way would be up?

If you dropped a ball within that cavity which direction would it go?

Yes, but that's not science, throng. Science is logic *AND* evidence. It's explaining REALITY, and to show that you are explaining reality, you need to make predictable theories that explain the phenomena they refer to.

 

If you don't have that, you don't have a scientific theory.

I do have a very basic expression that isn't previously considered I don't think.

Using math points, we have a primary feild and an inert location, this represents origin, if we draw another point the 'primary feild' becomes the distance consisting of infinite possible locations that preexisted.

Consider that two points, a singular distance dimension, doesn't define a relative location, It is fair to consider them two possible locations, and treat the 'primary feild' as non existant.

It defines 1D as two locations and nothing else, it disregards the 'nothing'.

Then your thought is fallacious, and apparently more closed minded than the scientists whose theories you claim to disprove.

I think all the theories are constructs with workable functions and my idea is actually completely functionless. So I don't refute of disclaim any construct most of which I don't understand. I just have ideas and try to find a conveyance.

I still don't conceive how a singular origin can be expressed without relative properties by which to do so.

I think primary space must exist before location is defined. When we have two points the 'primary space' becomes the distance between.

I think in more formless terms like a probability in a feild of infinite possibility, infinite sets etc, but still require a fundamental empty space of some sort as primary with which the origin is interactive.

No, we don't.. That would be false dichotomy.

 

There are a bunch of cases where our "simplified" geometry isn't enough, and we are stating that a model is simplified on purpose just to help us understand it. For example, the possible shape of the universe; since we know the universe is more than three dimensions, it cannot be represented by a "simple" geometrical shape. But we are imaginative creatures, and we need analogies, so when we speak about it, we create them on purpose - a "donut shape", for instance - knowing full well that they're not REALLY perfect, they just exist to help us imagine that shape.

 

We're not considering things as "either or", throng.

 

That doesn't mean that the simplified geometry is completely meaningless. It just requires adjustments when you deal with more than three dimensions, where it exists.

I actually consider everything either or, even a possibility among many.

I try to create a singular construct but I always think if it has no relative how can it be described?

Of course people think how geometry works, people invented geometry. Your statement is pretty much like saying you don't understand why hotdogs taste like meat and being surprised they just do.

 

We invented geometry as a way to explain things around us. We made it up so it works out. Obviously, they work.

 

As with the rest of your thread here - and as I repeatedly asked before, I don't get what is your proposed problem with it.

 

 

The universe is *NOT* 3D, the universe is, at the very least, 4D, and probably a lot more (String theory proposes 11 dimentions, and other theories propose either a larger or smaller number).

 

Human beings percieve their space in 3 dimentions. We cannot explain things easily with 10 dimensions or 11, so we simplify things into 3 dimensions. That's not to say the universe is 3D. Not at all. If it was, we'd be intercepting a lot more than we actually do. We'd be able to manipulate time as we do volume. We cannot, because we only grasp 3 dimensions, and we explain our universe in terms we can understand.

 

 

 

Those are philosophical questions, not scientific questions. What is the ROLE of time in our universe, might be a scientifically valid question, but why did it come to exist in the first place, well, as far as we could postulate there might be other universes with other laws of physics in which time acts different or is nonexistent (that might be.. hard to believe, though, seeing as without time there's no movement). Our universe does have time, and we quantified it to (again) make sense of it. Asking why things are the way they are is meaningless. Asking what it *MEANS* that things are the way they are is the role of physics, mathematics, biology, cosmology, chemistry and other sciences.

 

 

 

It doesn't sound incredible, throng, it just makes no sense.

 

 

This is the weirdest generalized qualifications I've seen. Mathematicians demand math, and it is only "extraordinarily complex" if you don't know what you're looking at. Some things in mathematics -- specifically the basic geometry, which this thread is about -- is incredible simple.

Not all spiritual folk hate logic.

Philosopher do not debunk.

 

Seriously. WTF.

 

 

I think it was said well, it just made no sense. If you think yuo didn't explain yourself properly, please feel free to revise your statements or explanations, but from what I got from your ideas, I think you're trying to impose philosophical thinking into mainstream scientific methodology, and those two just do not fit together. "Why this exists" is philosophy. "What this does" is science.

 

Try to separate between purely natural phenomena (black holes, planets, stars, time, etc) and concepts human beings invented for the sake of clearing up their own questions (like geometry).

 

Geometry was CREATED by man to explain nature. It was purposefully fitted to nature. How can you be so surprised it fits nature....?

 

~moo

Yes we did invent geometry as a model.

I think the problem is, to establish an origin we can only make a dual comparison, because all definition is relative.

We say there are two possibilities, is or isn't. One is absolute but there is no comparitive difference, so we express both simultaneously to express singularity (like a blank page is 'nothing' and the point is 'something'.)

Singularity (origin) is 'nothing and something' simultaneously expressed.

[math]\mathbb{R}^{0} = \{p\}[/math], i.e. the set containing one element.

 

Really, by the distance between two (near by) points you are assigning a length to the vector that joins them. This requires a metric as we have discussed.

Hello,

I have realised that the idea I have has not been thought of before, which doesn't matter, all that matters is if it adds up.

I start by saying establishing an origin requires two factors of comparison simply because the singular has no relative definition. In simple terms we create 'empty space' and a 'dot' to define the dot as a singularity.

0d is actually created using an 'is/isn't' comparison. We say the origin 'is' as opposed to 'isn't', and a singularity is really comparitive opposites.

We can go into complex feilds but the fact is, no concept of origin can be definitive wthout an 'isnt' for comparison, simply because singularity has no real relative definition.

I have been defining the primary origin in relation the founding structure of perception, as we witness an observer effect.

We represent a singular origin with a blank page and the point thereon, and primary origin is merely a comparison between that which has no relative and that which is irrelevent. It could be either, there are no differentiating qualities, so by contrasting the possible undefinable states we represent singularity as a demonstration of opposites, is and isn't perhaps.

I find accurate notions of an origin pertain to having 1 discernable element, we say location because two things can't occupy the same space.

So the primary origin consists of dual possibilitys that have no discernible difference.

Thanks everyone. I have a bit of a problem - it's a lifelong study.

I do other things and have a lifelong work already which I am passionate about because it is a wholesome endeavour.

What I really want to express is fundamental so learning everything else will not help me explain why geometry works, besides it is so simple and complex formulations will just drown the beauty in the expression.

Im surprised no-one has thought about why geometry works. It just does.

Why the universe is 3D. Why space exists. Why time exists. That is what I have made a representation of, but it sounds incredible, so I am not heeded. Mathematitions demand extraordinary complexity and I certainly have zero credibility in the feild, spiritual folk hate logic and philosophers only like debunking. Field unity is required.

It is destined to be an unsaid thing I'm afraid. Very sorry.

It's never too late to learn.

I appreciate your encouragement, I spent a bit of effort learning to write properly. Now I dabble in fiction, creative writing. It is fun now.

I want to learn geometry. I think I might be at a senior high school level stage, I thought I'd buy a geometry book and work through it.

Would you please suggest a good text book for that level?

Where does one start geometric study? I think I'll buy a book and work through it for a start. Can you suggest anything for say yr 12 high school level to start?

throng, there are ways to describe what you are saying in mathematics -- you just need a metric space that has a null line or null space in it. That is, a space wherein you define the distance measure so that that distance measure = 0 for points along the null line. See Tensor Calculus by Synge and Schild page 46 for more. (Note that you better have a very strong math background to read this book, it isn't for beginners in any way.) (And please don't take that last comment as being mean, because I'm not trying to be mean, just telling you that unless you have a strong background in calculus and differential equations and geometry, you will not be able to read more than 1 or 2 pages without being completely lost. It is a very advanced text.)

 

Finally, I think that it is also important so say that just because there are mathematics to describe spaces with null lines and the like, doesn't mean that that translates into reality. That is, reality as we know it cannot have two non-equal points that don't have a distance between them. But, we can write the mathematics of such a situation.

Thank you kindly, I find what you say very reassuring.

This must have been done before, my idea I mean.

I'm very basic at math, I'm largely uneducated in general, so I doubt I'd get through the 'couple of pages'.

I don't want to deal with reality, though I guess geometric concepts are bound by relationships that are proportionate, so it is true in terms of substance.

Even an uneducated person has ideas but they can't express them.

In hindsight I wish I studied more.

That is your (quite insufficient) subjective interpretation. It's hardly a definition or a proper answer to your own subject...

Crikey! Nothing allows me to touch two points together Mooeypoo, there are very complicated ways.

1) Two geometric balls touch leaving a distance of 0 being the thickness of a plane, I've been told, but I don't want the rest of the ball therefore it is no longer a ball and kaput goes the points touching.

2) Lorentz: Just such a difficult explanation, everyone shoots me down.

But I just say there are two points without a distance of seperation, it is a line two points long. So what if people don't agree, their imagined theorizing is only imaginary as mine.

Why should I stick to the rules?

I want to express this silly thing. It means nothing but it is eloquent, I only need two points that touch or have no distance between them and I can explain the very fundamentals of 3D, and the fractal nature of 3D geometric principles.

But I'm not allowed to have 0 distance, because math God decreed it so.

Why can't I just assert a 0 distance for this particular purpose, it is just a bit of fun, and it's fresh and original.

I just make up the rules myself then substantiate them by geometric logic.

Why problem? I can just do that don't you think? I have logic!

Thanks.

In the case of the spheres - the intersection is 1 point. 1 point, by definition, has 0 length, area and volume. I don't see how any confusion could arise there.

 

In the case of the (closed) balls - there is no intersection, but the distance between them is the depth of a plane - again 0.

Oh, now I understand more clearly.

The outermost points on a ball can touch with a distance of 0 being the thickness of a plane, but points cannot touch, being nothing.

I say two points can touch and distance is zero. If the outermost 2 points of a ball can, two points can, just ignore the rest of the ball or perhaps make r=0.

Do you realise that distance is nothing? It is just invented to seperate points or to give substance to points, because a point is not a location unless relatively distant from other points.

Distance is a function of two points. (see: metric)

 

Well of course there are infinite points. Why wouldn't there be? We're talking about spheres here.

Thanks for that, I am pretty interested in that kind of thing.

It's probably adequate to say we're speaking of two circles of curves. touching since only the circumference touches, and then we end up with two 0D points touching, so actually, all this is only about two 0D points touching, the rest of the sphere is irrelevent.

So if the spheres touch and the area is 0 points of contact, there must be a distance so they don't actually touch.

space?

You can put a protracter on the end of the line and measure 0deg, then at any other point you measure 180deg. So angle is requisite for length.

Points + Angle = Length

I don't see why that makes two points impossible. When I say there can be infinite points between them, I don't mean there's an infinite distance. Any two points with a finite distance between them can have an unlimited number of different points between them.

Does the distance consist of infinite points?

What does distance consist of?

If distance is infinite points there can logically only be either one or infinite points.

I mean, what is distance?

ya, but you can add 1diminsional objects together all you want, the hightest its gonna get is 3d, and thats only if you change veiws to a more eye level view instead of birds eye. if you add 3d objects together, it just becomes a more jumbled, fatter 3d object. it could doe do more, but we just cant visualize it because we dont know what it would look like at all. weve never expereinced it, and probably never will in this lifetime.

I think it's exactly right what you're saying. It is just as easy to say 3D is a great big pile of 0D points, so infine point line, infinite point plane or volume.

But since each point is 0D it still is not reasonable, so there is 'nothing' between points but we call it distance, and presto!

I think a line consists of two elements, because what is the 'distance' between each point?

In the stuff I read by Barbera Knowles, who as far as I know is quite credible, the study of junk DNA in rats was shown to transpose (Junk is a transposable element) during the emryonic stages then serve no genetic function after birth, and she basically says that it seem junk DNA is actually a necessary transposable element for embryonic developement and is in fact not junk.

Still, it is also apparent that parts of our DNA is not human in origin, which is the case for respective species of animal too.

And viruses do attach their DNA strands to ours and we can pass them on, so viruses might be a vital factor in evolution of species, I wildly speculate.

No, you wouldn't, because there's no such thing. Two mathematical points can't "touch" without being the same point. By definition, points have zero magnitude and no "parts." Their only quality is location. If the location is the same, it's one point. If their locations are different, they're not "touching," and you can fit an infinite number of different points in between them.

Hello, I see your point.

I find there is some parady in that. Under that premise there cannot exist a conceptualisation of two points.

If they touch they are one and if they dont there are infinite points of distance, so two points are completely mathematically impossible, or haven't been worked out yet.

In a mathematical way, if 2 spheres touched you'd actually have 2 points that touch together, and not a single point.

..

Thief here...

Correct to say three points define a plane.

Three points also define the boundaries (area) of a triangle.

Four points for rectangular items,five for pentagrams,etc,etc,

These are plane geometries...still 2d.

 

A point, above or below the plane, is needed for 3d.

 

Observation of 2d plane geometry would be difficult, within the confines of the plane.

That is what becomes remarkable, because 3D is easily observable from with a volume, and also the number of points is relevent because the universe is a 'relative' thing, and in reality space need only exist if distance is relative, and distance is requisite of locations (in this case 0D points).

So if there are three 0D locations equalaterally spaced all the distance/angles are Identical, not relative, however, if a fourth point is added to the plane it is inevitable that a relative distance would occur and a 2D space would be required.

Just geometrically musing, so don't shoot me.

Hi everyone,

 

I'm working on a science fiction novel, and came here to hopefully get some help with Real Science in order to make my story more plausible. I love science, but I'm more of an occasionally-informed lay person than a serious student of the sciences.

 

 

 

 

 

My current story is about a human subspecies genetically engineered for immunity to a virus I call The Grip. Their immune systems create Grip antibodies, but humans' do not, and the Grip virus attacks the organs.

 

I have a ton of questions about viruses and immunity, and hope you can help. I'll start off with just a few:

 

1. If the virus appeared to the human immune system as a beneficial protein, would this explain why no vaccine would work on them? (Is there another easy explanation for why a vaccine is ineffective?)

2. If the subspecies created antibodies, and those were extracted and injected into an infected human, would they find and kill the virus? What sorts of reasons could I use to keep that from happening?

3. Is it more feasible to have a virus release a toxin that is deadly, or to simply kill healthy cells? Which would be more difficult to treat?

 

Thanks in advance for any help you can give me!

A virus is basically a tiny bundle of genetic material—either DNA or RNA—carried in a shell called the viral coat, or capsid, which is made up of bits of protein called capsomeres. Some viruses have an additional layer around this coat called an envelope. That's basically all there is to viruses.

Some viruses insert their genetic material into the host cell’s DNA, where they begin directing the copying of their genes or simply lie dormant for years or a lifetime. Either way, the host cell does all the actual work: the viruses simply provide the instructions.

Viruses can also influence host genes by where they insert themselves into their host’s DNA. Recent decoding of the human genome shows that viral DNA sequences have been reproducing jointly with our genes for ages.

The viral genes are then copied many, many times, using the machinery the host cell would normally use to reproduce its own DNA.

http://www.microbeworld.org/microbes/virus/

"DNA, the molecule that contains the script of life, encodes its data in a four-letter alphabet. This would be an ideal medium for storing a cosmic calling card. In many organisms, humans included, genes make up only a tiny fraction of their DNA. Much of the rest seems to be biological gobbledygook, often called "junk DNA". There is plenty of room there for ET to etch a molecular message without damaging any vital genetic functions. See:

much of human DNA consisted of what has been called "junk" DNA. Junk DNA is DNA that does not make up genes - and so does not serve any functional

purpose.over time humans had incorporated DNA into the genome which was not human in origin,

The junk DNA resembles transposable elements - pieces of DNA that move around and insert themselves into other stretches of DNA - in the way that viruses do. So it has been thought by some that in the past humans contracted certain viruses and the virus sequences became a part of human DNA, being passed on from generation to generation in an inactive state." Paul Davies phd

You need to upload them to an external site and link them here, otherwise they won't work.

Hello again, thanks for all the info you provided, I'm not really proficient with computers so I think I'll just leave it alone for now.

I actually need to express two zero dimensional points that are 'touching', so that there is no distance between them, and I have scoured all kinds of geometry, but it seems futile.

Say there are 2 points x and y. Or x and y are sets containing one element (R^0)

x=y

d(x,y) = 0

Is that anything? I can't be sure because my math is not advanced enough.

If I could express this, I could express three points in 2D without creating an area because the three points would 'touch' with equalateral triangle representation.

Then the same with regular tetrahedron, no volume. If there were no point between points, this would be the case.

If five points were used then a relative distance is inevitable and a space is required.

Anyway, I will read into Lorentz because the distance between two locations is 0 at c, I think.

Are you aware of anything that relates to 0 distance between two points?

Near by is really a statement in topology. Think of infinitesimally close. Otherwise a vector could not join them and I need a curve. The distance would then be the length of the curve. To simplify things it makes sense to consider very close points, in which the curve is just a straight line, i.e. a vector.

Thank you very much for all the assistance you have provided me. I find it diffucult to understand this geometry. I don't have familiarality it takes for real understanding of it. I have never been interested in math/physics before, but suddenly I developed an obsession with dots (points), I guess 0 point locations in physics were not accepted as actual phenomena until recently, and now they are considered possible.

I don't want to express anything spectacular by learning this kind of mathematical 'language'. And any idea I might have has probably been done before.

My main problem is: If only two locations exist, without a location between them, movement between the points can't be measured in time, hence distance, so if I think of an infinitismal distance, that would require a third infinitismal point location.

Can two seperate points be described without a vector? I need something that is not a line or distance, and the 0D points are identical of course.

I need a line that is two points long, just the two ends of distance, without the middle bit. I'm going to try to grasp length contraction at c to find ideas.

I don't know if I understood, but I thought if x=y then d(x,y)=0. Does the d represent distance?

Is there a way?

Thanks again, I really appreciate your time.

Merged post follows:

Thief here...

For a moment or two...think like an artist.

On a flat surface...any number of points, any number of angles, any number of contours, let your imagination go as far as you can.

All of the geometry is "plane".

The circle is unusual, as it can be designated in size by the length of one line from center point to boundary (radius), or one line through center (diameter).

Angles are a study almost to themselves (trigonometry), but without that point above or below the plane, all that you see is flat 2d.

With the addition of any one point above or below the plane, 3d takes hold.

Circles becomes cones...or spheres. Circles can also become cylinders.

 

Movement is noted when the position of a figure, is not congruent to the position of another figure. That is to say, the measure between one position is not fixed to the position of a reference, and periodic measuring will note increase or decrease of distance.(time)(4d)

High velocity equations indicate distortion to simple geometry.(physically)

I think a plane is defined by a minimum of three points, though a point of observation in the third dimension is required to realise a plane.

Also if the three points are 'touching' in an equalateral triangle formation, there is no area because there is no distance between points, so perhaps four points in two dimensions are required, because a RELATIVE distance would be inevitable. Otherwise area is not required for 2D.

Is this a valid concept do you think?