A lingual theory of everything

Recommended Posts

Sam, I believe that if it is not progress, then it is not worth money. Appealing to eternity will never prove the existence of anything. Take .9r, and keep subtracting 1 9 from the end of it, that number is equal to 1 in the moment now.

Not sure about you're statement, but an infinite number of .33 after the number 3 mathematically equals 1/3, whether you like it or not. You can get the exact volume of the are under a curve by doing a summation of infinite boxes that are infinitely thin. The trick is that you never just "say" infinity boxes, you use properties of mathematics to see what the result is as the number approaches infinity. For instance, as x approaches infinity in y=1/x, y approaches 0. You never say that x=infinity and that y=0, you just say what the answer is as x is indefinitely approaching infinity, the concept of which has a wide variety of uses in mathematics and engineering as well as physics.

Edited by SamBridge

• Replies 570
• Created

Posted Images

Not sure about you're statement, but an infinite number of .33 after the number 3 mathematically equals 1/3, whether you like it or not. You can get the exact volume of the are under a curve by doing a summation of infinite boxes that are infinitely thin. The trick is that you never just "say" infinity boxes, you use properties of mathematics to see what the result is as the number approaches infinity. For instance, as x approaches infinity in y=1/x, y approaches 0. You never say that x=infinity and that y=0, you just say what the answer is as x is indefinitely approaching infinity, the concept of which has a wide variety of uses in mathematics and engineering as well as physics.

So firstly, you prove my point "whether like it or not", I like it btw. Secondly, you actually can't get the exact volume of the arc under a curve by doing a summation of infinite boxes that are infinitely thin, you'll lose focus or get old and die first I guarantee it. For all intensive purposes, round the number, we've been doing it for this many years, why stop now? But, does the actual function of rounding a number have a physical correlate? If it does, then .3r is equal to 1/3, and .9r is equal to 1.

Share on other sites

So firstly, you prove my point "whether like it or not", I like it btw. Secondly, you actually can't get the exact volume of the arc under a curve by doing a summation of infinite boxes that are infinitely thin, you'll lose focus or get old and die first I guarantee it. For all intensive purposes, round the number, we've been doing it for this many years, why stop now? But, does the actual function of rounding a number have a physical correlate? If it does, then .3r is equal to 1/3, and .9r is equal to 1.

Again your ignorance of mathematics leads you to false conclusions. Take calculus. I explicitly stated that you yourself never add an infinite number of boxes or that an input value ever equals infinity. What we do in calculus to absolutely find the exact area is to see what number the pattern of becoming indefinitely thin leads us to in nearly the same exact manner as I described with y=1/x. We never divide 1 by infinity, but we can still state that as x approaches infinity or becomes indefinitely larger, y becomes closer to 0 and indefinitely smaller. As boxes become indefinitely thin, the number of them indefinitely increases and we see a different number that this function approaches as the number of boxes goes to infinity, or as the thickness of the boxes goes to 0 and thus see what the area becomes as we get an indefinitely increasingly exact number.

.9 does not equal 1, .99999999... equals 1, the action of assuming that .9999... is infinitesimally close to one allows us to treat it as the number one, in a slightly different manner than the logic above.

Edited by SamBridge
Share on other sites

You don't rest your case at all, that phrase isn't even used in real course. On top of that, your 6-point system with an arbitrary and inefficient 7th "course plot" does nothing more to identify a location of any distance than mine. The difference is your 6 points are merely duplicates of locations on my 3 axis Cartesian coordinate system.

.

You still are not getting this are you?

I am well aware of what you are talking about...it's value and it's limitations.

One of those limitations is to be able to find...exactly...and not using a representation for nor using any other knowns other than what I have presented in my BOX question...the location of the invisible object.

For you to continue to argue that you have...well is...sad.

Split Infinity

Share on other sites

You still are not getting this are you?

I am well aware of what you are talking about...it's value and it's limitations.

One of those limitations is to be able to find...exactly...and not using a representation for nor using any other knowns other than what I have presented in my BOX question...the location of the invisible object.

You have failed to prove that you can prove the location of an object in the box merely by arbitrarily placing 6 points around it. I can arbitrary imagine 6 points around anything, but that in no way effects my knowledge of how far away it is from me, and nor should it. The reason you cannot prove your method is because it is merely an extension of a 3D Cartesian coordinate system, and is inefficient.

Edited by SamBridge
Share on other sites

You have failed to prove that you can prove the location of an object in the box merely by arbitrarily placing 6 points around it. I can arbitrary imagine 6 points around anything, but that in no way effects my knowledge of how far away it is from me, and nor should it. The reason you cannot prove your method is because it is merely an extension of a 3D Cartesian coordinate system, and is inefficient.

OK...here we go again. Since you obviously do not pay attention to what is being posted I will explain this one last time.

There is only ONE POSSIBLE WAY....by using ONLY GEOMETRY...to find the position of an object....and that objects position is at this point unknown....in any 3-D Space.

If you have the locations of 6 other objects RELATIVE to the object which you are seeking....by drawing straight lines between 2 of these objects...and then doing so two more times with the other 4 objects....where all 3 lines intersect....WILL BE THE POSITION OF THE UNKNOWN OBJECT.

If you need to plot a course to that object all that is needed is to draw a straight line from a 7th point of position...the 7th point being where you are traveling from....to where all three lines intersect...THAT BEING THE POINT OF POSITION WHERE YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY LOCATED THE UNKNOWN OBJECT OR PLANET!

Now I learned this back in 6th grade and I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU DO NOT EITHER KNOW THIS OR EVEN WORSE...THE ACTUAL FACT YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS VALID!

Split Infinity

Share on other sites

If you have the locations of 6 other objects RELATIVE to the object which you are seeking....by drawing straight lines between 2 of these objects...and then doing so two more times with the other 4 objects....where all 3 lines intersect....WILL BE THE POSITION OF THE UNKNOWN OBJECT.

Ok? I can say sin(theta)=y/z, in what way does finding the location of an object change the topology of existence?

If you need to plot a course to that object all that is needed is to draw a straight line from a 7th point of position...the 7th point being where you are traveling from....to where all three lines intersect...THAT BEING THE POINT OF POSITION WHERE YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY LOCATED THE UNKNOWN OBJECT OR PLANET!

Once again, I can describe each of your apparently treasured 6 points with three unique (x,y,z) points. By drawing 3 intersecting lines you merely prove the geometry of 3 dimensions to identify the points using triangulation. This 6 points do not use 6 different axis of location to describe relative locations from each other, they only use 3.

If you need to plot a course to that object all that is needed is to draw a straight line from a 7th point of position...the 7th point being where you are traveling from....to where all three lines intersect...THAT BEING THE POINT OF POSITION WHERE YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY LOCATED THE UNKNOWN OBJECT OR PLANET!

And what if you and the planet are both still?

Now I learned this back in 6th grade and I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU DO NOT EITHER KNOW THIS OR EVEN WORSE...THE ACTUAL FACT YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS VALID!

I did not say it was an invalid way to find the location of an object, I stated that your method does not substitute 3 dimensional topology. On top of that, merely drawing lines between the 6 points does not give you all the information to find distances. Without a known distance, you can only state mathematical relationships of the distances.

This is the extent of your method http://www.mediafire.com/?39vs5994mn1eis4

Edited by SamBridge
Share on other sites

There is only ONE POSSIBLE WAY....by using ONLY GEOMETRY...to find the position of an object....and that objects position is at this point unknown....in any 3-D Space.

If you have the locations of 6 other objects RELATIVE to the object which you are seeking....by drawing straight lines between 2 of these objects...and then doing so two more times with the other 4 objects....where all 3 lines intersect....WILL BE THE POSITION OF THE UNKNOWN OBJECT.

I am just curious... if this is the only possible way to locate the position of objects, how did mankind ever figure out the locations of anything off of the earth?

For example, the Earth's moon? We didn't have 6 other objects of known position to draw lines that intersect at the moon's position, so how could that ever be known?

In other words, how could this procedure ever be started? And ask yourself, how we know that Alpha Centauri is about 4.37 light years from our sun?

Share on other sites

Ok? I can say sin(theta)=y/z, in what way does finding the location of an object change the topology of existence?

Once again, I can describe each of your apparently treasured 6 points with three unique (x,y,z) points. By drawing 3 intersecting lines you merely prove the geometry of 3 dimensions to identify the points using triangulation. This 6 points do not use 6 different axis of location to describe relative locations from each other, they only use 3.

And what if you and the planet are both still?

I did not say it was an invalid way to find the location of an object, I stated that your method does not substitute 3 dimensional topology. On top of that, merely drawing lines between the 6 points does not give you all the information to find distances. Without a known distance, you can only state mathematical relationships of the distances.

This is the extent of your method http://www.mediafire.com/?39vs5994mn1eis4

Sam...you are continuously changing and modifying your replies to my question and especially to the BOX QUESTION...every time I have shown both you and the membership that YOU REFUSE to come to terms with the reality......... that as far as the 3-D Cartesian Coordinate system is concerned...and as an example I will site how two HAM Radio operators on Earth can by taking the data gathered and then calculated from the reception of say...Radio Broadcasts from a NASA Spacecraft traveling to the Moon...thus such data as the two HAM Operators will know their distance from EACH OTHER as well as Signal Strength from the Space Craft as well as Time Delay of signal reception and several other techniques for calculation using different forms of data......which will allow the HAM Radio Operators to calculate VIA RADIO SIGNAL TRIANGULATION THE EXACT LOCATION OF THAT SPACECRAFT.....you REFUSE TO COMES TO TERM WITH THE FACT THAT....using this system will NOT WORK to locate the INVISIBLE OBJECT IN THE BOX...with the information and conditions set forth in my question.

So rather than admit this to be the reality you instead skirt the issue by neither saying...Your right...I can't find the object using my stated method...or...Your Wrong...I CAN locate the object using my method.

Instead you go on and on siting an ever changing number of replies or answers to my question with such statements as...Your question is immaterial...or something to that extent...or you will say...Ok? I can say sin(theta)=y/z, in what way does finding the location of an object change the topology of existence?

You originally posted this....All a dimension is, is a way to describe a location of something. In 3 dimensional space, it takes 3 coordinates to describe the exact location of something,

Now regardless that this statement is very lacking as far as the definition of what a Dimension is...so I won't even bother to go into all that it is lacking....after reading it and took note of your words....describe a location...I decided to throw in my 6 points of position Geometry locator calculation for an object of which you do not know where it is in 3-D space...but if you know 6 points of position relative to that objects unknown location...you can find that objects location doing what I have stated so many times on this topic.

Instead of you just realizing that I was well aware of what YOU were talking about...you assumed I did not and still seem to be thinking this...but even if you now realize this...WHY IN GODS NAME DO YOU KEEP ON SKIRTING THE ISSUE AND MY QUESTION?

You can spend time until the end of your or my life but that is not going to change the fact your stated method WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FIND THE LOCATION OF THE INVISIBLE OBJECT IN THE BOX! LOL!

Split Infinity

I am just curious... if this is the only possible way to locate the position of objects, how did mankind ever figure out the locations of anything off of the earth?

For example, the Earth's moon? We didn't have 6 other objects of known position to draw lines that intersect at the moon's position, so how could that ever be known?

In other words, how could this procedure ever be started? And ask yourself, how we know that Alpha Centauri is about 4.37 light years from our sun?

I am only saying that if you have no other information...no radar...no line of sight...no ability to detect anything....BUT you do know the positions of 6 points of location relative to an object in 3-D Space...even if you cannot see that object and this 3-D space could be Outer Space or in a BOX or perhaps a ROCK at the bottom of the sea....using those 6 objects or points of position....you can find out EXACTLY where that point or object or ROCK will be.

Sam here seems to think...and I have been telling him all along...that I am arguing with his coordinate system...I am not. I am talking about something very specific...which using his stated coordinate system...IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO LOCATE what I have been describing as an INVISIBLE OBJECT IN THAT BOX.

Split Infinity

Share on other sites

oops !

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Share on other sites

Sam...you are continuously changing and modifying your replies to my question and especially to the BOX QUESTION...every time I have shown both you and the membership that YOU REFUSE to come to terms with the reality

Just because you put a box around something doesn't mean you know where it is, any location of your six points can be proven to be an extension of mere extension of using 3 different axis.

So rather than admit this to be the reality you instead skirt the issue by neither saying...Your right...I can't find the object using my stated method

Or you can take high school math and learn about graphs.

I CAN locate the object using my method.

And I "can" find a location using simple triangulation, doesn't mean I always will. Any line you draw in your 6 coordinate system is merely using 3 dimensional coordinates already defined, it is the only way they can accurately describe 3D objects in three dimensional space.

Now regardless that this statement is very lacking as far as the definition of what a Dimension is...so I won't even bother to go into all that it is lacking....after reading it and took note of your words....describe a location...I decided to throw in my 6 points of position Geometry locator calculation for an object of which you do not know where it is in 3-D space...but if you know 6 points of position relative to that objects unknown location...you can find that objects location doing what I have stated so many times on this topic.

A big problem with your scenario is "how do you know those 6 positions in the first place"? If you can randomly assume some distance in your six point system why can't I assume some random distance to get exact numbers using simple triangulation?

You can spend time until the end of your or my life but that is not going to change the fact your stated method WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FIND THE LOCATION OF THE INVISIBLE OBJECT IN THE BOX! LOL!

As I stated before your method does not substitute 3-D topology, it uses 3 different axis twice. On to of all of that, I placed a box around a pebble. Find the location of it. You can't? Well make up a distance then. But wait, if you make up a distance how do you know your results are right?

Edited by SamBridge
Share on other sites

I am only saying that if you have no other information...no radar...no line of sight...no ability to detect anything....BUT you do know the positions of 6 points of location relative to an object in 3-D Space

1) that is not what you started out saying. You were using phrases like "only possible way", and insisting that you needed 6 pieces of data to location a point in space.

2) just how often does it happen that you don't know the location of a certain object, but you do know the locations of 6 other objects, 3 pairs of which just happen to be co-linear with the unknown object? Your method certainly can work, I just don't see how it is very practical at all. The chances of just having 3 pairs of co-linear objects is going to be incredibly rare, and if this is a region of space you don't know something as basic as distances, I think that the chances of knowing the distances of the surround objects is also unlikely.

Share on other sites

1) that is not what you started out saying. You were using phrases like "only possible way", and insisting that you needed 6 pieces of data to location a point in space.

2) just how often does it happen that you don't know the location of a certain object, but you do know the locations of 6 other objects, 3 pairs of which just happen to be co-linear with the unknown object? Your method certainly can work, I just don't see how it is very practical at all. The chances of just having 3 pairs of co-linear objects is going to be incredibly rare, and if this is a region of space you don't know something as basic as distances, I think that the chances of knowing the distances of the surround objects is also unlikely.

If my statements of only way possible seemed conflicting then that is my fault.

They are specific to what I posted above.

As for knowing 6 points known and relative to another object or body...there are many examples of how this is used.

One example would be if you take 6 the positions of 6 stars where all 6 are being effected by the Gravitational Effect of an invisible Black Hole which is hidden among dust and hot gasses which do not allow X-Ray or Infra-Red scopes to locate it's exact position...by using this Geometry it's position can be located.

This is also used to find sunken Ocean Buoys and other items.

Split Infinity

Just because you put a box around something doesn't mean you know where it is, any location of your six points can be proven to be an extension of mere extension of using 3 different axis.

Or you can take high school math and learn about graphs.

And I "can" find a location using simple triangulation, doesn't mean I always will. Any line you draw in your 6 coordinate system is merely using 3 dimensional coordinates already defined, it is the only way they can accurately describe 3D objects in three dimensional space.

A big problem with your scenario is "how do you know those 6 positions in the first place"? If you can randomly assume some distance in your six point system why can't I assume some random distance to get exact numbers using simple triangulation?

As I stated before your method does not substitute 3-D topology, it uses 3 different axis twice. On to of all of that, I placed a box around a pebble. Find the location of it. You can't? Well make up a distance then. But wait, if you make up a distance how do you know your results are right?

Sam...you could end this whole debate right now by simply showing me...and site exact details...of how you are going to use find that invisible object using your method.

You have done everything...BUT.

Split Infinity....p.s...Sorry Mikey! LOL! I will dedicate the rest of my posts to your topics namesake!

The main reason for using the 6 point thing is if you were in a Spacecraft and needed to find a system where there would be a planet you needed to get to.

Now the planet and the star it orbits would be either too small to locate or perhaps buried within a dense star cluster of nebula. But if you took the position of six bright stars which you can see and you are aware that these stars are located around this star system you needed to travel to.

By drawing straight lines through 3 pairs of stars so three lines that intersect each other...where they intersect would be the location of the star system you need to go to.

Since if you are traveling from all sorts of vectors and from different sectors of space other than Earths...just by knowing say...6 stars in or around Orion where lies the Horse head Nebula...which the star and planet you are trying to get to is located and not visible...being able to use 6 stars points of position to determine where you need to go is a must.

Split Infinity

Share on other sites

If my statements

Split Infinity

---------------------------Sono assente per 14 giorni -----------------------

senoir Ariva Derce

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Share on other sites

---------------------------Sono assente per 14 giorni -----------------------

senoir Ariva Derce

For those of you who do not know...Mikey is off to ITALIA! YUM! Everything tastes good in Italy!

I am going to try very hard to meet up with him as I will be leaving soon to go on Tour and as I now know that I WILL be doing some European Shows...I will very much like to enjoy a few glasses of wine and some...ONLY IN ITALIA...found meals...unless you have a Hard Core Italian Grandma that like to cook! LOL!

As Mikes topic is about EVERYTHING...I would definitely say that EVERYTHING includes the infinitely different people and foods and tastes, sounds and smells that we have existing in our world today.

Our Brains and all our sensory input into them are just as varied and just as complex as any cosmological construct and given that perhaps it is possible for a person to understand that despite all the differences and infinite possibilities among even people and cultures...there always seems to be a common understanding that anyone can associate themselves with. In my case it is sitting down with some good people and having a meal and drinks.

Perhaps there is a common connection among the cosmological infinites as well.

Split Infinity

Share on other sites

One example would be if you take 6 the positions of 6 stars where all 6 are being effected by the Gravitational Effect of an invisible Black Hole which is hidden among dust and hot gasses which do not allow X-Ray or Infra-Red scopes to locate it's exact position...by using this Geometry it's position can be located.

But the chances of those stars being arranged so that they can form a cube or box is astronomical.

Sam...you could end this whole debate right now by simply showing me...and site exact details...of how you are going to use find that invisible object using your method.

Once again, take high school math, even algebra one, learn what Cartesian coordinates are. I don't need to know the exact location of something in order for 3 different axis of 3 dimensional space to exist, as I said before and showed in the picture I posted, any object can be described with points of some kind of x,y,z coordinates, it doesn't matter if you know what the numbers are, all that matters is you acknowledge they are some relative distance along each axis. After you do that, you may or may no be able to find the location of another object. Compared to your method, this is a lot simpler because I can find how far away the moon is merely using one distance and two angles on Earth as I showed before, whereas you require 6 points. Your 6 points in no way substitute the existence of 3-D axis in 3-D space. As I showed in a picture in an earlier post, they are merely extensions of it.

Edited by SamBridge
Share on other sites

One example would be if you take 6 the positions of 6 stars where all 6 are being effected by the Gravitational Effect of an invisible Black Hole which is hidden among dust and hot gasses which do not allow X-Ray or Infra-Red scopes to locate it's exact position...by using this Geometry it's position can be located.

This is also used to find sunken Ocean Buoys and other items.

If this is really how it is being done, can you please provide a citation for it? I am interested to read more if it is out there.
Share on other sites

Let me see if I can defuse the situation between Split Infinity and SamBridge. First, I think you should both realise you are using the word 'locate' in different ways. Split Infinity is using the word to mean search and find while SamBridge is using the word to mean indicate a point on a map. This has caused most of the confusion. It is fact that in order to say where an object is only takes 3 points, the x,y and z IF you already have a map laid out with an x,y,z co-ordinate system. Split is wanting to find an object that does not AS YET have such a map but one that needs to be constructed from data.

Now, all the data Split Infinity has is some known points, with known positions relative to an unknown position. At this point I need to know what this relative position is to the known points. If you are saying I know the direction AND distance to the unknown object from a point, then I only need ONE point to determine the unknown object's position in relation to the known point. It stands to reason I already know MY position relative to the known object and can plot a course then to the unknown point.

If I only know the direction of the unknown object from a known point, then I will need TWO objects to find the unknown object's position. Wherever the lines cross is where the unknown object lies and by using EITHER of the two known positions can direct a course to the unknown object.

If I only know the unknown objects distance I will need THREE known objects position relative to the unknown object. This time, instead of drawing a line I must draw a sphere around each of the three known objects. Where all three spheres intersect with each other will be the location of the unknown object, and once more using any of the three known objects location can set a course to the unknown object.

Irregardless of which situation is true, after I have found the unknown object's location a map will have to be drawn at which point it WILL be indicated by x,y,z co-ordinates. This map can then use my position, one of the known objects' position or even the newly found unknown object's position as 0,0,0 and I will be able to set course to travel where I want within the boundaries of that map.

I hope this clears up what has been a fun read And now......The Larch.

Share on other sites

Let me see if I can defuse the situation between Split Infinity and SamBridge. First, I think you should both realise you are using the word 'locate' in different ways. Split Infinity is using the word to mean search and find while SamBridge is using the word to mean indicate a point on a map. This has caused most of the confusion. It is fact that in order to say where an object is only takes 3 points, the x,y and z IF you already have a map laid out with an x,y,z co-ordinate system. Split is wanting to find an object that does not AS YET have such a map but one that needs to be constructed from data.

Now, all the data Split Infinity has is some known points, with known positions relative to an unknown position. At this point I need to know what this relative position is to the known points. If you are saying I know the direction AND distance to the unknown object from a point, then I only need ONE point to determine the unknown object's position in relation to the known point. It stands to reason I already know MY position relative to the known object and can plot a course then to the unknown point.

If I only know the direction of the unknown object from a known point, then I will need TWO objects to find the unknown object's position. Wherever the lines cross is where the unknown object lies and by using EITHER of the two known positions can direct a course to the unknown object.

If I only know the unknown objects distance I will need THREE known objects position relative to the unknown object. This time, instead of drawing a line I must draw a sphere around each of the three known objects. Where all three spheres intersect with each other will be the location of the unknown object, and once more using any of the three known objects location can set a course to the unknown object.

Irregardless of which situation is true, after I have found the unknown object's location a map will have to be drawn at which point it WILL be indicated by x,y,z co-ordinates. This map can then use my position, one of the known objects' position or even the newly found unknown object's position as 0,0,0 and I will be able to set course to travel where I want within the boundaries of that map.

I hope this clears up what has been a fun read And now......The Larch.

The problem is in a way between knowing and existing. Just because I cannot locate an object doesn't mean 3-dimensional space doesn't exist, which is where the problem seems to lie, the only way possible to locate an object in 3-D space is using 3 dimensions, which split's method does, but he refuses to acknowledge it most likely because he thinks it is some sort of personal attack on what he thinks is his idea.

Share on other sites

The problem is in a way between knowing and existing. Just because I cannot locate an object doesn't mean 3-dimensional space doesn't exist, which is where the problem seems to lie, the only way possible to locate an object in 3-D space is using 3 dimensions, which split's method does, but he refuses to acknowledge it most likely because he thinks it is some sort of personal attack on what he thinks is his idea.

Sam...I have been saying over and over again EXACTLY what ogr8 has been saying.

I am very aware of what you have been talking about and I am am not disputing what you have been saying as far as using a 3 axis coordinate system.

I am also aware that by drawing 3 sets of lines...one line between 2 points....3 times...each line must describe and detail one of the three needed axis'.

This is why I have posted several times that there is a MISUNDERSTANDING as far as to application of 3 axis points and 6 points of known relative position to locate an invisible object within 3-D space.

It does not matter if the invisible object is any Geometric shape that has a 3-D Volume. This 6 point system would be used in this manner I will now detail.

You are in a Spacecraft in interstellar space in a different sector of space than Earths sector. You need to travel to a Star System that is located in the constellation of Orion and this Star is hidden in the Horse Head Nebula.

You have no way to detect this star from where you are but....a Geometric Navigational System has been pre-calculated for ever Star System you might want to travel to in advance.

Since it is well known that depending upon where you are in the Galaxy....your ability to detect a specific star will depend upon Line of Sight...and since you cannot see this star you have documented 6 Stars of sufficient Magnitude relative in distance and vector to this star.

So even though you cannot see or detect this star hidden by the Nebula...you CAN SEE and detect such stars as Capella, Betelgeuse, Aldebaran, Pollux, Rigel and Procyon. When 3 lines are drawn using 3 pairs of these 6 stars...at the point where all three lines cross will be this hidden star that you need to travel to...and by using your crafts position as the 7th point drawing a straight line from it to the intersection of these 3 lines will plot a course to this hidden star.

Now this 6 point of position system can be used for any Star and has already been identified by NASA as a method that future Interstellar Travelers would use to locate a hidden celestial body.

Now we had been having what I considered to be a good debate and conversation prior to all this and I even thanked you for this. Then as we began to discuss this...as I presented it to you in a good natured statement just to see if you might know what I was talking about...and what I had EXPECTED of you was a reply to me such as..."You only need three coordinates...why are you talking about 6 points?

Instead what I got was an almost hostile reply which eventually degraded down to such statements as I now quote from your above post..."Once again, take high school math, even algebra one, learn what Cartesian coordinates are."...end quote.

If you had just been a bit civil and asked me what I was talking about or trying to explain...I would have just done so right at the beginning...but even after I DID EXPLAIN...you continued to make such rude replies and you still are.

Sam...just because you cannot come to terms with the reality that we are talking about two different applications of the same thing...does not mean that I and other do not understand this as is detailed from both my replies to you as well as the post above from ogr8.

If I were you I think I would not make assumptions about the knowledge base of another person as you are doing so to me with such statements as the one I have just quoted.

You do know what they say about a person who assumes? LOL!

Split Infinity

Share on other sites

I am very aware of what you have been talking about and I am am not disputing what you have been saying as far as using a 3 axis coordinate system.

If that were true you would not be debating with me.

I am also aware that by drawing 3 sets of lines...one line between 2 points....3 times...each line must describe and detail one of the three needed axis'.

Not necessarily, only if they are all perpendicular to each other they may describe 3 axis from a specific relative location, but we almost made progress there, amazing.

This is why I have posted several times that there is a MISUNDERSTANDING as far as to application of 3 axis points and 6 points of known relative position to locate an invisible object within 3-D space.

It does not "need" to be used, it simply "can" be used. The fact that bignose was unaware of your method should at least make you stop and think. Furthermore, if I know enough information to place 6 points around an object to my specification, then I likely have enough information to find the object using simple triangulation.

You are in a Spacecraft in interstellar space in a different sector of space than Earths sector. You need to travel to a Star System that is located in the constellation of Orion and this Star is hidden in the Horse Head Nebula.

You have no way to detect this star from where you are but....a Geometric Navigational System has been pre-calculated for ever Star System you might want to travel to in advance.

Since it is well known that depending upon where you are in the Galaxy....your ability to detect a specific star will depend upon Line of Sight...and since you cannot see this star you have documented 6 Stars of sufficient Magnitude relative in distance and vector to this star.

If I wonder off in space to the point where I have no idea where you are, no method can tell you how far away from Earth unless have have at least some information already relating to it's location. However, if you know your displacement from Earth, you may be able to possibly find your location by creating a sphere from earth with a radius equal to the displacement to see what star systems lie exactly on the boundary of that sphere. Since it's unlikely more than one will touch the boundary given the vastness of space, you can figure out where you are with actually just one piece of information.

So even though you cannot see or detect this star hidden by the Nebula...you CAN SEE and detect such stars as Capella, Betelgeuse, Aldebaran, Pollux, Rigel and Procyon. When 3 lines are drawn using 3 pairs of these 6 stars...at the point where all three lines cross will be this hidden star that you need to travel to...and by using your crafts position as the 7th point drawing a straight line from it to the intersection of these 3 lines will plot a course to this hidden star.

Now this 6 point of position system can be used for any Star and has already been identified by NASA as a method that future Interstellar Travelers would use to locate a hidden celestial body.

Now we had been having what I considered to be a good debate and conversation prior to all this and I even thanked you for this. Then as we began to discuss this...as I presented it to you in a good natured statement just to see if you might know what I was talking about...and what I had EXPECTED of you was a reply to me such as..."You only need three coordinates...why are you talking about 6 points?

You do not necessarily need 6 points to find the location. If I know the exact locations of Betelgeuse and many other stars and can estimate the position of the said star visually, I can use triangulation to find the actual distance to the specific position. Nasa has most certainly not used 6 point box and astronomers could not have possibly had the information for 6 points originaly to find stars in the first place. They look at other stars near and use "standard candles" or supernova to calculate the brightness of a star and use spectrometry to see what star class it is, and therefore how far away it is based on it's brightness. You don't even need triangulation for that, all you need to know is that a star is in the same galaxy as the standard candle and you can roughly estimate it's distance. To find the exact location would require more triangulation.

Now we had been having what I considered to be a good debate and conversation prior to all this and I even thanked you for this. Then as we began to discuss this...as I presented it to you in a good natured statement just to see if you might know what I was talking about...and what I had EXPECTED of you was a reply to me such as..."You only need three coordinates...why are you talking about 6 points?

Instead what I got was an almost hostile reply which eventually degraded down to such statements as I now quote from your above post..."Once again, take high school math, even algebra one, learn what Cartesian coordinates are."...end quote.

If you had just been a bit civil and asked me what I was talking about or trying to explain...I would have just done so right at the beginning...but even after I DID EXPLAIN...you continued to make such rude replies and you still are.

Once again the hostility card despite no hostile action against you, it's getting rather old. You most definitely did not present your idea in a good nature nor did you remain civil seeming.

If I were you I think I would not make assumptions about the knowledge base of another person as you are doing so to me with such statements as the one I have just quoted.

You do know what they say about a person who assumes? LOL!

As I recommended before, if I were you I would seriously take some higher math classes and stop trying to say differently than what you said in your original arguments to manipulate your current context to hide the flaws I pointed out in those past arguments. You did not demonstrate any awareness as far as I can tell that 3 dimensional coordinates are the basis for any 3 dimensional calculation in 3-D space and that you can describe any relative location in space as being a relative distance along the 3 dimensional axis in the form of variables and relationships between them regardless of if you know the exact positon.

Edited by SamBridge
Share on other sites

If that were true you would not be debating with me.

Not necessarily, only if they are all perpendicular to each other they may describe 3 axis from a specific relative location, but we almost made progress there, amazing.

It does not "need" to be used, it simply "can" be used. The fact that bignose was unaware of your method should at least make you stop and think. Furthermore, if I know enough information to place 6 points around an object to my specification, then I likely have enough information to find the object using simple triangulation.

If I wonder off in space to the point where I have no idea where you are, no method can tell you how far away from Earth unless have have at least some information already relating to it's location. However, if you know your displacement from Earth, you may be able to possibly find your location by creating a sphere from earth with a radius equal to the displacement to see what star systems lie exactly on the boundary of that sphere. Since it's unlikely more than one will touch the boundary given the vastness of space, you can figure out where you are with actually just one piece of information.

You do not necessarily need 6 points to find the location. If I know the exact locations of Betelgeuse and many other stars and can estimate the position of the said star visually, I can use triangulation to find the actual distance to the specific position. Nasa has most certainly not used 6 point box and astronomers could not have possibly had the information for 6 points originaly to find stars in the first place. They look at other stars near and use "standard candles" or supernova to calculate the brightness of a star and use spectrometry to see what star class it is, and therefore how far away it is based on it's brightness. You don't even need triangulation for that, all you need to know is that a star is in the same galaxy as the standard candle and you can roughly estimate it's distance. To find the exact location would require more triangulation.

Once again the hostility card despite no hostile action against you, it's getting rather old. You most definitely did not present your idea in a good nature nor did you remain civil seeming.

As I recommended before, if I were you I would seriously take some higher math classes and stop trying to say differently than what you said in your original arguments to manipulate your current context to hide the flaws I pointed out in those past arguments. You did not demonstrate any awareness as far as I can tell that 3 dimensional coordinates are the basis for any 3 dimensional calculation in 3-D space and that you can describe any relative location in space as being a relative distance along the 3 dimensional axis in the form of variables and relationships between them regardless of if you know the exact positon.

OK....you are at an unknown distance from the hidden star....you can see 6 stars I have named but as of yet you do not know their distance. You do know the distances and vectors of each star to the hidden star as well as the distances of each of these stars to each other.

Now detail...exactly what you would do to plot a course to this hidden star using the least amount of possible calculations as possible.

Split Infinity.

There is a big difference between TALKING about how something could be done and actually DETAILING OUT how you would do it.

We are all still waiting Sam.

Split Infinity

Share on other sites

OK....you are at an unknown distance from the hidden star....you can see 6 stars I have named but as of yet you do not know their distance. You do know the distances and vectors of each star to the hidden star as well as the distances of each of these stars to each other.

Now detail...exactly what you would do to plot a course to this hidden star using the least amount of possible calculations as possible.

Split Infinity.

I use a similar method as before, I calculate a distance based on brightness and use sohcahtoa. With your method the only information I could obtain would be the location of the hidden star relative to any star within the cluster, not relative to your space craft without any further information.

There is a big difference between TALKING about how something could be done and actually DETAILING OUT how you would do it.

We are all still waiting Sam.

How about you go talk to an astronomer and actually ask them how they do it?

Edited by SamBridge
Share on other sites

I use a similar method as before, I calculate a distance based on brightness and use sohcahtoa. With your method the only information I could obtain would be the location of the hidden star relative to any star within the cluster, not relative to your space craft. Even if six lines were drawn.

How about you go talk to an astronomer and actually ask them how they do it?

No Sam...using those 6 points of position and by imply drawing three lines connecting three pairs of stars...at the crossing point of all three lines would be the location of the hidden star...and then all I need to do is draw a straight line to that point from my craft.

As to your astronomer statement...Well...LET'S ALL GIVE HIM A BIG HAND FOLKS!

I will take that statement as you saying...UNCLE!

Split Infinity....p.s...Sam...if you could have detailed it...you would have...you didn't.

Share on other sites

No Sam...using those 6 points of position and by imply drawing three lines connecting three pairs of stars...at the crossing point of all three lines would be the location of the hidden star...and then all I need to do is draw a straight line to that point from my craft.

So you're going to take an astronomical chance to bet that the cross sections of the lines of the stars happen to intersect where hidden star is? That's hardly reliable, I can't believe I thought it was anything more than that. On top of all of that, the intersecting lines will only give you information about the position of the star relative to any star in the system, it will not tell you anything about the distance of the ship.

As to your astronomer statement...Well...LET'S ALL GIVE HIM A BIG HAND FOLKS!

I will take that statement as you saying...UNCLE!

Oh, this must be that "civil tone" I heard you bragging about so much.

Split Infinity....p.s...Sam...if you could have detailed it...you would have...you didn't.

I didn't answer because I already walked through a method which you clearly ignored. I worked out a solution, now it's your turn.

Edited by SamBridge