lbiarge

The probabilities and characteristics for the dinosaurs extintion are many but all their against an impact of a meteorite, but like the theories say this all people believe that without proofs.

But that also depends on the size of the meteorite. Sure, we're bombarded by rocks from space daily, but very few are big enough to do a lot of damage, and even fewer are as big as the one thought to have wiped out the dinosaurs.

In same form also if were by solar wind and lower magnetic field would to be of big size.

There have been five or so. Not all are thought to have been caused by meteorites though.

Sure? and the probably underwater collisions, and the collisions erased by wind, water, erosion, ...?

for example "10 Greatest Major-Impact Craters on Earth" in http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/10-greatest-major-impact-craters-on-earth/1403 not say 5, not 10, only say the 10 greatest.

Many craters are not discovered or discovered now :

Also look the Moon, you can see many impacts, and the Moon is very little compared to Earth. in 2012 "Earth's oldest impact crater found in Greenland" in http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21996-earths-oldest-impact-crater-found-in-greenland.html

And not only meteorites impact, also explosion of volcanoes, look the krakatoa explosion "Year Without a Summer" that probably are more - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer - This was little but the probability of bigger is also possible, this occurs in 1816 (very near compared to the time of the dinosaur extinction).

But that also depends on the size of the meteorite. Sure, we're bombarded by rocks from space daily, but very few are big enough to do a lot of damage, and even fewer are as

And it seems you think the impact theory says the animals were killed by the impact itself. But that's not the case. While there was a mass extinction in a relatively short time, From what I remember of the theory, debris was flung into the air by the impact, which blocked out the Sun and cooled the planet. It also seems there was an unusually high volcanic activity at the time, which didn't help. In the end, herbivores died from lack of edible plants and carnivores died because their food died out. But all this could have taken a few hundred years, it wasn't instant.

This really difficult more, without eat the probability of total dead is very high.

If really would be a meteorite in many years, that means that none vegetable grow (look krakatoa explosion and year without summer), without vegetables carnivores live a time eating dead animals, but if the time is very long " blocked out the Sun and cooled the planet" the result would to be near all dead.

This you say also is against the meteorite impact theory

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Probably I go to use the krakatoa explosion and the "Year Without a Summer" like another proof against the meteorite impact theory

If you like we can write over the "Year Without a Summer" and the probably effect if against only 1 year were for example 100 years or 1000 years without light, without plants germination, ...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Also this of long time is good for my hypothesis.

Imagine the effect of radiation in long time, the animals and plants are worse, the generations go bad and end in extinction.

Against this the effect of no Sun light and not germination is dead and total extiction of all animals, nor more seeds, ... this would be a probably end of total life in the Earth.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Also the problem like occur in "Year Without a Summer" where the seed not germinate, the result was not seeds, not plants, ... the problem was terrible, I see this in any documentary. Imagine in more years.

Did you not read the bit about the timing being wrong, or did you not understand it?

I don't understand, according to the page you say "17 reversals took place in the span of 3 million years", the moment of the dinosaur extinction not need to be the more important or complete

"The geomagnetic field changes on time scales from milliseconds to millions of years" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

"Data from THEMIS show that the magnetic field, which interacts with the solar wind, is reduced when the magnetic orientation is aligned between Sun and Earth - opposite to the previous hypothesis" - in same page

"Changes in Earth's magnetic field on a time scale of a year or more are referred to as secular variation. Over hundreds of years, magnetic declination is observed to vary over tens of degrees" - in same page

The magnetic field is changing constantly and also the solar wind, so imagine the many times in a million years.

I repeat, it's not necessary a total poles interchange or zero magnetic field, the combinations with low magnetic field and solar wind and/or Sun particles are infinites.

Today the Sun is growing their activity that repeat near every 11 years.

There are records of many pole reversals, but few extinctions.

So, pole reversals don't cause extinctions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

Also, the timings are wrong.

Yes, in same form that many meteorites and few extinctions. So like you say "So, meteorites don't cause extinctions."

In same form that by a meteorite would to be a big one, I speak over a probably low magnetic field and a big emission of Sun particles at same time (probability is low, but also in all Earth history only 1 maxive extinction).

According to your note seem that pole reversals cannot because there are many and against it meteorite can without have importance that also are many (the same answer is usefull for one solution and not for the other).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

more:

Why Did Crocodiles Survive the K/T Extinction? (5 theories without 1 proof) - http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurextinction/a/Why-Did-Crocodiles-Survive-The-KT-Extinction.htm

Tough turtle survived what dinosaurs couldn't - http://tortoiseblog.com/tough-turtle-survived-what-dinosaurs-couldnt

and so I can add many more.

From the Dinosaur Wikipedia page:

"The discovery that birds are a type of dinosaur showed that dinosaurs in general are not, in fact, extinct as is commonly stated.^[123] However, all non-avian dinosaurs as well as many groups of birds did suddenly become extinct approximately 66 million years ago. Many other groups of animals also became extinct at this time, including ammonites (nautilus-like mollusks), mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs, and many groups of mammals."

 

So, not only dinosaurs, but lots of other groups.

Yes, but not all mammals, ... only all dinosuars less birds or ancestor of birds.

This is probably a problem with the language barrier, and I apologize if this isn't what you meant. But "precis to within 11,000 years", in this case, means that they can say the event happened within that time-span. So it could have happened 5,500 years before the date they found, or it could have happened 5,500 years after, or anytime in between those dates.

This give not precission.

As for why some animals went extinct and some didn't, it probably had to do with why a lot of species have gone extinct over the years - they couldn't adapt to their new environment. And on that note...

This is another question and without relation to meteorite and dinosaurs, for this is more time, extinction of dinosaurs is in few time.

Also, your idea seems to have the same "problems" as the impact theory - why some animals rather than any other. The question is, can we find evidence it happened? Are the rock layers from that time radiated to show the Sun was more active around that time, and radiated the planet? Can we find evidence the magnetic poles changed?

Is proved that any species admit strange conditions (animals in noth pole, ...) like admit radiations, but there is not proved that a meteorite collision could to be admitted by any species and not by others.

Like you say is needed to find evidences but not only for my hypothesys, also for the admitted theory of the extinction by meteorite.

Is proved also that Earth has impact of meteorites and also that many times has changed the magnetic poles and changes in magnetic field.

More: is proved (until is know today) that only birds of ancestor of birds is the only dinosaur survive this period, also the land is a good protection and would be probably that survival animals would protect from radiation from land but more difficult from collision winter, also for vegetables, not only animals.

I can't see your graphic but this one shows Venus as not always within and sometimes outside the habitable zone, the earth can be said to be very close to too close...

Venus is considered a probably future for Earth. This post is not for Venus, Venus can to be near to Earth or not, same like Earth in future can to have life or not. I write over Venus and Mars because are the only probably planets that can study for life.

There are many information for "greenhouse effect" venus earth.

No more to say here, Venus maybe is in habitable zone, maybe not.

Could we focus on this?

 

That's an interesting idea.

Against my hypothesis the Moon move away from Earth at : “"The Moon's linear distance from the Earth is currently increasing at a rate of 3.82±0.07cm per year" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon”

So we need to consider that always move away, so with 3 cm per year from begin of life in the Earth (aproximatively make 4600 million years) ("The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

At only 3 cm by year are 0.03 meters x 4,600,000,000 = 138,000,000 meters or 138,000 km, the distance from Earth and Moon today is of near 384,400 km ("The average distance from Earth to the Moon is 384,400 km" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28astronomy%29 so 138,000 of 384,400 is 1/3 of less of distance or a initial distance from that time of 2/3. All this with 3 cm by year (not 3.82±0.07cm) and without have in count the "escape velocity" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity this say that at more distance the escape velocity is less in same form that the Earth orbit around the Sun that is not a circle.

So, according to this the Moon would to be more near from Earth, or change the speed of move away, ...

Also you need considerer any probably cause for the change of polarity of the Earth.

Magnetic polarity - if you turn an iron in a direction this create always the same polarity for change the poles you need to turn against directions.

I add a new topic in relation to this in Dinosaur extinction was probably by Sun particles

(hypothesis against the mainstream)

Actual theory accepted today says that dinosaur extinction is by a meteorite but this has many problems.

A meteorite could to kill all animals or big animals but extinct all dinosaurs (less birds). Dinosaurs was big and also little (“Dinosaur size” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_size not say the moment but say that was so little like 30 cm).

Dinosaurs only exist on land, in the sea were reptiles.

After the extinction not exist none dinosaur, only the birds that are a branch considered a branch of the dinosaurs (“birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur )

So, ask: How is possible that all dinosaurs disappear from a meteorite, same that of 30 cm but not birds and not other little animals?

“the new extinction and impact dates are precise to within 11,000 years, the researchers said” - in “New Evidence Suggests Comet or Asteroid Impact Was Last Straw for Dinosaurs” in http://paleontoriano.blogspot.com.es/2013/02/new-evidence-suggests-comet-or-asteroid.html : this is to say that we today can extinct by a meteorite impacted in Earth made 11,000 years?

In other words: What is the possibility that a total specie extinction by a meteorite and not the rest including any sub-specie like birds?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My hypothesis:

So is near or more probably that dinosaurs extinct by a big Sun particles eruption and more in time where the polarity magnetic is changing or with very low intensity in the magnetic field of the Earth.

In this situation an specie not well prepared for particles emission can extinct, against this specie others species that live in burrows have more protection and also any species like bird that may accept the radiation.

Exist species that admit radiation is true, for example in the poles of the Earth there is not protection against the Sun particles eruption and live animals, also there are live bacteria that live in water of the nuclear reactors.

Is probably that birds by admission of radiation or by making their nest in places with protection and very little animals that live in burrows could survive at Sun particles that cannot the dinosaurs that not make burrows. (also consider that not all species of birds and little animals need to survive for survive their specie).

It’s known that in time of the dinosaur extinction survive many little animals include mammals (look with these terms: survive dinosaur extinction). Also it’s known that the Earth change the magnetic polarity and the magnetic field has variations and also that the Sun emission also has variations.

This hypothesis maybe true o false, but it’s more probably that extinction by an asteroid.

A criminal proof could to be proof Sun particles emission on birds, but maybe not because it’s probably that actual birds not admit theirs.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now consider the extinction is by asteroids?

Asks:

Why are extinct all dinosaurs and same that little of 30 cm? Also flying dinosaurs different from birds?

Why not extinct the birds?

Why other little animals not are extinct in that time? All not extinct animals were less of 30 cm?

Why from a asteroid collapse to Earth from until 11,000 years old only an specie disappear and not all or none?

(this topic has relation to Life in Earth is by Moon and 3 articles more over Moon and Earth

Thanks.

© Luis Biarge Baldellou. - webpage :

Well, thanks for clearing that up. I thought that the lack of life on Venus was something to do with a surface temperature that would melt lead and an atmosphere full of sulphuric acid. But now you have explained that it's because it has no moon.

 

I agree that tides probably helped but...

1 - I don't say this, this is say in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone , you can see a graphic that go from Venus to Ceres.

2 - today Venus is full of sulphuric acid but "Studies have suggested that billions of years ago, the Venusian atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there may have been substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface," by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

So, I don't say that, that is say by wikipedia.

Ibiarge, have you read "Rare Earth" by Ward and Brownlee? If not you should...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

According to this note: "The hypothesis argues that complex extraterrestrial life requires an Earth-like planet with similar circumstance and that few if any such planets exist"

I dissagree, a Earth-like planet without our Moon would be probably without life, and many planets with relation with a Moon or near to the relation of our Moon can to have life.

I don't say rare, I say that the condition for live in Earth is by the Moon and not by the Earth.

Many times the same effect is obtained in different forms, for example Jupiter has aurora in form different to the aurora in Earth - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28astronomy%29

No-one can deny, that the Earth is unique in the solar system, in these two respects:

 

1. It's the only planet with oceans of liquid water, and an array of multicellular living organisms.

2. It's the only planet with a really big moon. (Big compared to the planet)

 

Is there a connection between 1 and 2, as proposed by ibiarge? Perhaps it's just a coincidence - which often breeds false theories.

 

But our big Moon must have something to do with how Earth has developed - and possibly, why it's not lifeless, like Mars and Venus. Both those planets lack the equivalent of our Moon.

Probably you have true and I only say "breeds false theories" but, admiting I say false, why occurs any

rare causalities?:

1 – The strength of Earth's magnetic field “is decreasing and Moon distance is increasing so tidal forces decrease.

2 – Tidal forces in nucleus: Enceladus (a moon of Saturn) has tidal forces according “the probe discovered a water-rich plume” and “proximity to the planet can then lead to tidal heating of the satellite's interior” in http://en.wikipedia....nceladus_(moon) – this give hot to the nucleus (at least to Enceladus).

3 – Inverted polarity of poles and tidal forces from Moon that make rotate the nucleus against rotation direction. Do you know another explanation?

4 – Changes in polarity of magnetic poles. Do you know another explanation?

5 – In habitable zone are also Venus and Mars without live, both in past had water.

6 – Liquid water: The Earth is the only planet we know with liquid water in present. This is probably only by our big magnetic field created by tidal forces from Moon. Probably in past Venus, Earth and Mars had liquid water, but only Earth had green (vegetation), today only Earth has liquid water.

7 – Life need very probably magnetic field and Earth has more that correspond by the size, Venus and Mars not have. Without Moon the magnetic field of Earth would to be less.

 

 

Is there a connection between 1 and 2, as proposed by ibiarge? Perhaps it's just a coincidence - which often breeds false theories.

 

 

"A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon", I would prefer you can propose, argue and say my errors, please, simply is better.

Thanks

Also add that it's also one of the few planets where can to have live by the magnetic field.

Can you please be more cohesive in the structure of your points? I really don't know what this is about or what you are saying all the time.

Sorry my bad english, I cannot write better.

Ah but the options are not mutually exclusive; can we put our money on both

 

!

Moderator Note

In either case I think Speculations is a better home for this topic.

Probably you has reason. Sorry.

Perhaps I can summarise it for you Sam:

 

"By ignoring key factors such as the differences in mass of the terrestrial planets; and by disregarding reasonably well established models for such things as the geodynamo; and by forgetting about a plethora of interlocked observations; but relying instead upon misunderstood and misinterpreted information from the popular press and the Discovery channel, it is possible for me to formulate an ill conceived, self contradictory, concatenation of word salad and gobbledegook."

 

Of course I could simply be an ignorant, dogma ridden, close minded skeptic whose requests for evidence and logical argument are nothing more than a feeble attempt to stand in the way of progress and block the bursting of the next Newton or Galileo upon the world. I'll let you judge.

my points:

1 - tides - are from moon or not? Half from Sun

2 - Magnetic field? magnetic field is not bigger for the size of Earth and poles are against?

3 - Volcanoes in Mars and other planets are not end? Also probably in Venus. In Earth are very active or not?

4 - Water, any planet near Earth has water liquid? The magnetic field has not effect here?

5 - Continental drift: Mars in past was continental drift? It’s a proof their big volcano?

More:

Any solution today to the change of the magnetic poles of Earth?. Any known solution over so hot nucleus in Earth? Any probable relation between move away of Moon and decreasing of the magnetic field from Earth? . Any known solution over the inclination of magnetic poles over the rotation axis?

Perhaps I can summarise it for you Sam:

 

"By ignoring key factors such as the differences in mass of the terrestrial planets; and by disregarding reasonably well established models for such things as the geodynamo; and by forgetting about a plethora of interlocked observations; but relying instead upon misunderstood and misinterpreted information from the popular press and the Discovery channel, it is possible for me to formulate an ill conceived, self contradictory, concatenation of word salad and gobbledegook."

Earth and Mars have different mass but Earth and Venus have near same mass, you say it's like affirm that the Earth thas the perfect mass.

The rest of your note I think also is gratuitous and don't give no more (not affirm or deny only is subjective).

Jupiter also has magnetic field, turn in same direction that Earth but the poles are against in Earth)

Sorry. 3 point define a 2d (not 3d)

Another proof, this for magnetic field, “”The Moon’s linear distance from the Earth is currently increasing at a rate of 3.82±0.07cm per year” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon” – and also “According to Tarduno, the strength of Earth’s magnetic field “has been decreasing for at least 160 years at an alarming rate, leading some to speculate that we are heading toward a reversal.”” – http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2158-earth-magnetic-field-poles-flip.html and according to this today “The gravitational attraction of the Sun on the Earth’s oceans is almost half that of the Moon” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon because the Moon distance is increasing.

This formula of an sphere was first derived by Archimedes, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere) and Archimedes live in 287 BC – c. 212 BC - http://www.google.com/search?q=formula+esfera

Archimedes was Euclidian, because between other option the non Euclidian begin in 1818

By this you can read that in Euclidian geometry exist the 3d.

Good edit:
Triangles are assumed to be two-dimensional plane figures, unless the context provides otherwise (see Non-planar triangles, below)

as for the rest of it you should take it to Wikipedia.

A triangle always is 2d, because with 3 point you can make a flat plane.

The other over non flat 2d like spherical triangles, I write over that in my first note. A semi-sphere is not a triangle,or another time draw me a triangle that their angles not add 180º

2 point define a 1d, 3 point define a 3d. A triangle has 3 point by that all tirangle can define a 2d flat in any geometry.

A cone and a semi-sphere is not a triangle, but you can obtain a triangle joining their 3 points.

In my note I like to say near to:

An area is enclosed by 4 lines (a rectangle), 1 of that lines is fix, other use the common point and the other 2 are perpendicular to the 2 parallels,

According to that can to be many parallels in the same point, all this parallels need to be equidistant to the first line and by that:

- if they are equidistant and by that 3 lines are the same (the first) and the 2 perpendiculars, but in the same point are many parallels: How is possible that the area remain the same with other line that is not the same parallel? Or the area may be different with another parallel equidistant to the first line and by the same point?

In physics and mathematics, a sequence of n numbers can be understood as a location in n-dimensional space. When n = 2, the set of all such locations is called 2-dimensional Euclidean space or bi-dimensional Euclidean

-Wikipedia

 

I'm confused. Are we talking about 2-d or 3-d

If we are talking 3-d then I agree. 2-d not flat is extrinsic curvature. If you are 3-d or more the curvature is obvious, not so much if you are 2-d.

According to this in non euclidian geometry not exist the parallels and not exist the 2d figures like triangles. Triangles, square, .. and parallels are 2d

"Triangles are assumed to be two-dimensional plane figures," - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle

Really parallels can to be not 2d, but parallels are equidistant and by that form a 2d flat plan.

In physics and mathematics, a sequence of n numbers can be understood as a location in n-dimensional space. When n = 2, the set of all such locations is called 2-dimensional Euclidean space or bi-dimensional Euclidean

-Wikipedia

 

I'm confused. Are we talking about 2-d or 3-d

If we are talking 3-d then I agree. 2-d not flat is extrinsic curvature. If you are 3-d or more the curvature is obvious, not so much if you are 2-d.

I believe here is error, 3d also is euclidian, euclidian more clear is to say where the plane is not curved.

Really the Euclidian geometry use 2d, 3d and 4d (with time), the non euclidian geometry use curved (hyperbolic, ...) but also is 2d in the form that consider their 2d (from an Euclidian geometry a not euclidian flat seem 3d and viceversa).

Another time remembering that I say that we cannot proof that we live in an Euclidian universe but in same time in our universe Euclidian or non Euclidian exist the 2d flat and our triangles add 180º in their angles.

In physics and mathematics, a sequence of n numbers can be understood as a location in n-dimensional space. When n = 2, the set of all such locations is called 2-dimensional Euclidean space or bi-dimensional Euclidean

-Wikipedia

 

I'm confused. Are we talking about 2-d or 3-d

If we are talking 3-d then I agree. 2-d not flat is extrinsic curvature. If you are 3-d or more the curvature is obvious, not so much if you are 2-d.

This is bad, bad, bad, in Euclidian exist 1d,2d,3d and 4d (with time), and in non-Euclidian also 1d,2d,3d and 4d

This is near to say that until near 1 century ("The beginning of the 19th century would finally witness decisive steps in the creation of non-Euclidean geometry. Around 1818," - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry) maths not know the sphere.

So all that phrases of wikipedia are error: "When n = 2, the set of all such locations is called 2-dimensional Euclidean space or bi-dimensional Euclidean" is error and would to be "When n = 2, the set of all such locations is called 2-dimensional space or bi-dimensional"

This is a very big error to say that Euclidian is 2d, is like to say that the 3d were unknow until 1818

Also this seem to say that 2d is Euclidian and 3d is non Euclidian, but this affirmation is false.

 

If you replace Euclid's idea about no intersection with the idea of equal length perpendiculars everywhere between the parallel lines, then at most there is one parallel to a line.

I think on a hyperbolic surface, a "line" equidistant from a straight line would not be the shortest path between two points and that makes it a curve, and on a sphere... well, you know.

I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post, sorry.

Could you try and say the same thing using different words ?

You continue thinking that a not euclidian geometry is not flat, by that begin in 3d, because a 2d not flat is 3d.

By that you consider that the shortest distance would to be a curve. Like a geometry without 2d

Life in Earth is by Moon and 3 articles more over Moon and Earth

According definition of parallels in math : "Parallel lines remain the same distance apart over their entire length. No matter how far you extend them, they will never meet." from http://www.mathopenref.com/parallel.html

So if by a point can to be more that 1 parallel also need to say that there are many point in same distance and that can draw many differents lines equidistant to the line and that with a common point.

Also an area is the space between a segment of 2 parallels and theirs perpendiculars, so in that form its possible to change 3 of the 4 lins with the same result in area, and all theirs other areas have 1 common point outside of the line that remeain the same in all the examples.

In same dictionary: "Area is a measure of the size of a 2-dimensional surface. For example in the rectangular shape on the right is 8 meters wide by 2 meters high. As you can see it can hold 8 square meters. So we say it has an area of 8 square meters. This is written sometimes a" - http://www.mathopenref.com/area.html

By that the area need to be in the same 2-dimensional surface for use the same point and line or mabye other 2d with the same point and line?

I can locate any point on the surface of the Earth using latitude and longitude, the surface of the Earth is 2-d.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, are you saying non-Euclidean geometry is the same as Euclidean or non-Euclidean is impossible?

A map is a conversion of the word in 2d without use the z coordinate, but next time if you live or send a post to anything in not the floor not put the floor in your adress.

At same time you can say you are in New York because a time you were there, because for you the time (4d) is not important and by that you can speak over a 4d system only with 3 coordinates and for you has not importance time.

In general we can speak over any x dimension only giving 1 only coordinate: If you can speak over 4d with 3 coordinates also with only 2 and only with only 1.

In Euclidian and not Euclidian geometry need to exist 2d and by that in all cases a triangle is 2d and by that in any geometry the sum of angles allways is 180º in a triangle.

A x dimensional geometry or system can not be described with x-1 coordinates.

Against this if a x system could to be described with x-1 coordinates in same relation any x dimensional system would to be described with only 1 coordinate.

It seems you believe 2-d means "flat" but it simply means 2 coordinates are enough to locate any point on the object.

No.

If is sufficent is because is 2d.

For example : city, street, number, date, this is a 4d, if you not give date is 3d and by that without temp, but not for sufficent.

In this example: If you give only 3 coordinates of a 4d at what time refer you? at all or at none, you can say tomorrow in your house if only give your house, or imagine you give time but your direccion only in 2d without the floor, ...

In same form if you only give 1 dim of a square is insufficient, and so all.

A non flat coordinate cannot to given with only 2 dimensions, for exmaple a map is converted to 2d from 3d but all people know this, but against this never can to use floors and undergrounds.

Sorry, but any mathematical need to know that given 2d of a information 3d is insufficient and not like you say.

Really is imposible to name a x dimension with x-1 coordinates. (graphs, directions, time, ...)

Being more exact you cannot speak over circles, circles are 2d, like triangles and parallels and you speak over a non Eucidian without existence of 2d.

Really seem that you admit 2d if it's in the direction you admit and not in the spherical dimension, but a circle is 2d and without admit 2d flat existence circle also cannot exist.

If circle exist also exist triangle and parallels flat = 2d, if you not admit triangles flat and not exactly 180º in angles then you also cannot admit cicles existence.

select two points on a sphere. now imagine all the circles on the sphere that intersect both points.

measure the distance along the circles circumference between the two points,which circle minimizes the distance between the two points?

You haven't said what your definition of a line is, but by the definition: a line is the shortest distance between two points, a Great Circle is a line. Other circles are not.

line definition by http://www.mathopenref.com/line.html for example and about google the page is "Line - math word definition - Math Open Reference"

1 - "A geometrical object that is straight, infinitely long and infinitely thin."

2 - shorter : "A straight line is the shortest distance between any two points on a plane"

by this: A sphere is a plane?, if you work with that geometry there is not 2d in that not Euclidian geometry?

I don't believe the shorter line between New York and Sidney is the line over the sphere, the shorter is by 2d by the center of the Earth. If you put the World map in 2d (flat) the the shorter line is by the surface but only if you consider 2d in the sphere like atlas or maps.

"which circle minimizes the distance between the two points?" I only can considerer the circle that minimize the distance only considering they like 2d not 3d, like 3d always there is a line shorter.

More: according to this line definition a circle cannot to be considerer a line because not go until infinite. Look : 1 - "A geometrical object that is straight, infinitely long and infinitely thin." and a circle is closed.

Is very probably that our universe is not euclidian Universe, according to this and that you deny that in not euclidian geometry exist 2d, then we need to affirm that 2d and 1d not exist and our triangles have not 180º.

The probability of live in a Euclidian universe is less that 1/100000000000, only a flat universe is Euclidian, all the other probabilities like the draws of TED video are not.

First thing, I'd like to apologize for causing you to feel an apology was needed. We're just talking here, no apologies necessary so far.

One of the reasons you cannot draw parallel lines on a sphere is that a "straight line" on a sphere is a Great Circle.

 

In a way, Geometry is about definitions. If you don't use the standard definition of line then any argument you make about parallel lines will be invalid.

Same for triangles if you don't know what Extrinsic Curvature is you can't argue about the sum of the internal angles of a triangle.

 

I don't think it's known if we live in Euclidean space or some other Geometry is a better fit to the universe.

”In a way, Geometry is about definitions. If you don't use the standard definition of line then any argument you make about parallel lines will be invalid.

Same for triangles if you don't know what Extrinsic Curvature is you can't argue about the sum of the internal angles of a triangle.”

I consider this answer a low blow and consider I don’t like to use this system. I prefer before to use these techniques to end this conversation.

I know really what is parallel lines, and also triangle, maybe you doubt in my known but this not negate this.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The maths have a characteristic and this is that are exact. A math not exact is not math. The geometry is part of maths by that it need to be exact and by that a geometry not exact would to take out of maths. In maths 2 + 2 are 4 in Euclidian and not Euclidian universes, by that if geometry change from one universe of the other is not maths.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If we negate the existence of flat triangles (2d) in a not Euclidian geometry we are negating that in that geometry exist 1d and 2d, because if we admit 1d not flat would be 2b that is negated.

Maybe also that we live in a not Euclidian universe, by that we negate the existence of triangle flat (2d) in the Euclidian because for a people that live in a not Euclidian universe they seem their universe like flat and the real Euclidian universe like not Euclidian.

Another example: a sail of a ship triangular, this is triangular and their angles add 180º, you and wind can bend in any direction but continue in triangle, you can bend to spherical geometry and other not Euclidian geometries but at last if you put in a flat is a triangle.

Like we cannot to know if we live in a Euclidian or not universe and it’s very possible that our universe is not Euclidian this represent that in our universe the triangles will not add 180º and not to be flat (like you say) and lines have more of 1 line in 1 point.

The probability to live us in a Euclidian universe probably is less of 1/1000000 because the only Euclidian probably is without any curve, all the other probabilities are not Euclidian.

"One of the reasons you cannot draw parallel lines on a sphere is that a "straight line" on a sphere is a Great Circle."

Math is exactly and a big thing is same that a little thing so if you can "draw parallel lines on a sphere is that a "straight line" on a sphere is a Great Circle."" also same in little circle.

Repeating, if you can so that only in great circle and not in little circle is not maths.

First thing, I'd like to apologize for causing you to feel an apology was needed. We're just talking here, no apologies necessary so far.

One of the reasons you cannot draw parallel lines on a sphere is that a "straight line" on a sphere is a Great Circle.

 

In a way, Geometry is about definitions. If you don't use the standard definition of line then any argument you make about parallel lines will be invalid.

Same for triangles if you don't know what Extrinsic Curvature is you can't argue about the sum of the internal angles of a triangle.

 

I don't think it's known if we live in Euclidean space or some other Geometry is a better fit to the universe.

4 + 1 = 5 and 34646494446461 + 1 = 34646494446462

if a big circle is different to little circle is not math like if x+1 in any number is not the next integer number the maths would to need dissapear.

in this x and x + 1 are intengers.

I'm not a math guy but I believe the definitions are something like:

a line is the shortest distance between two points.

a triangle is three lines arranged so each line intersects with the other two.

parallel lines do not have an intersection.

a triangle is 2-d but it doesn't have to be "flat".

Sorry, any puntctuations:

- "a line is the shortest distance between two points." - this is a "straight line", a line joint 2 points in any form. A line can join a distance of 1 meter with a 1000 km.

- "parallel lines do not have an intersection" and also are equidistant in all the points, many times 2 lines without intersection in 3d are not parallels.

- "a triangle is 2-d but it doesn't have to be "flat"" - Do you know a plane not flat?, flat is by definition 2d, a 2d not flat need to be 3d and by definition 2d in not 3d. If a 2d has z dimension is 3d.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

More:

You can affirm or deny that we live in a Euclidian universe?, you can affirm or deny that we cannot to live in a hyperbolic universe? Can you give any proof to confirm by positive or negative the difference over an universe Euclidian, Hyperbolic, ...?

More:

Do you believe that in a hyperbolic universe the triangle would not be flat and the sum of their angles is not 180º?. Do you believe that in an hyperbolic universe the parallels are not equidistants?

I affirm: in a hyperbolic universe exist triangles in their flat 2d with addition of angles of exactly 180º.

More:

I use a sheet of paper, here I make some parallels, then I put 1 of their in a static positions and I put in a nail a point of other parallel to their, then according to Euclidian in a point there is only a parallel, now I roll the paper and put in the nail another point of another parallel, according a 3d coordinates in that nail are many parallels but really are differents point with differents parallels that I have draw in the same paper, but in any proof the geometry of the paper change.

Another example: I put a world globe and I point New York, now I turn the globe and in the same point is Sidney, the I can say that New York and Sidney are in the same point, and so with all the world or same all the universe (another example is the center of a gps screen).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Another example: according to Euclidian in a point only is a parallel to a line, in mathematical form, if we take the line, their parallel in that point and a section of theirs and the perpendiculars we obtain a square or a rectangle, according to area formula this acotation has an area that is the result of both distances, the distance of the section of the line and the perpendicular distance from line to the point of the other parallel. So for example to be easy the xy area is a. According to that is posible many parallels they will give an area with any parallel and by that will have the areas xy=a xy=b xy=c xy=d where x is the section of the line, y the distance from the line to the point and a b c and d the result of the rectangular area that is enclosed by x and 1 of the parallels that is in the point (you say that can to be more that 1 parallel in a point of a line). So if a = b = c = d where are differents that give the same value area with differents lines?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In hectare the space is considered 2d but really the land is not 2d, so there are hectares with 3d that really not give the same real area that another (1 really flat o leveled) and another not leveled, by result if the not leveled hectare is really well measure give more area. In same form if you change the geometry seem that in same point can to be more that 1 parallel but really the area is different and the geometry change.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In the TED video all is false, this woman say in time 8.12 that there is not parallel in the point with the equatorial line, that's false, in our globe (the world) only is a parallel in the equator but in other point of the globe is a parallel but not point the equator because parallels are equidistant, in time 9.58 show a jersey with 3 lines with a common point, this 3 lines cannot to be parallels to a side, because a parallel is equidistant. For example she show a worm, for example the eye of the worm make a parallel line to any of the sides of the worm, the worm can changing geometry change the point at the distance of was the eye but really that is not the point and another parallel, the point continue in the eye and if the worm short the thickness change the geometry and the point continue in the eye and the same parallel line, in the point where was the eye now is another point.

Maybe I create a new topic asking who can affirm or deny we live in a Euclidian or hyperbolic universe and how can proof that.

If you could give your definition of "straight line" it might make it easier to understand where the confusion begins.

It's no more possible to draw the picture of a triangle you asked for than it is to fit a piece of paper to a sphere or saddle-shape, and for the same reason:although the (surface of) sphere,saddle, or plane are all 2-d they don't share the same geometry.

Please, better give me you your definition of triangle and parallel.

You can draw a triangle in the sphere and the put in 2d.

Or a triangle is not 2d?

If you could give your definition of "straight line" it might make it easier to understand where the confusion begins.

It's no more possible to draw the picture of a triangle you asked for than it is to fit a piece of paper to a sphere or saddle-shape, and for the same reason:although the (surface of) sphere,saddle, or plane are all 2-d they don't share the same geometry.

Sorry the answer.

Maybe that I don't understand well what is triangle, parallel, 2d and 3d.

But I believe that a triangle is a 2d figure, by that a draw of a spherical triangle need to be also a 2d triangle.

A draw of Earth meridians and equator seem a triangle but it's not a triangle, in a triangle a line cannot to be equidistant to one angle.

Thanks and sorry for my answer.

Another question if in a point can to be more of 1 parallels to a parallel: How is possible that all this parallels in that point are parallels to the first line and not parallels between theirs?

Can to be 1+a = 1+b = 1 + c and a, b y c to be differents?

Can to be a = b = c mathematic and the parallels not parallels between theirs and also mathematics? Geometry is part of the mathematics?

10 = 10 = 10 , .. but 10 binary = 10 hex, that means that 2 = 16 and mathematics exact? If we change the base and consider is equal is the same that change the geometry and consider is equal.