Time

Whatever.  Nevermind Robosteve agreed with me.

Quote from: MessiahOfFire on November 07, 2008, 04:41:24 AM

Quote from: Wendy on November 06, 2008, 02:20:29 AM

A perfect spehere has an infinite number of corners...

Man, I thought you where alright. But fuck. You better start turning some of those post counts into real intelligence.

He's using a polygon count limit approaching infinity to construct the sphere. The infinite 'corners', are the vertices of the polygons creating the sphere, and would parallel individual time lines extending from the beginning of time.

Thank you. I don't know how many times I've got to say this: Expressing yourself awkwardly doesn't make you wrong.

Quote from: Matrix on November 06, 2008, 11:29:59 AM

(apart from making a distinction between matter and information... tut tut!)

Couldn't it be possible, at least in theory, to transmit information without transmitting any matter at all?

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on November 06, 2008, 03:25:31 PM

The problem with a time machine is that there would be very few places in history that you could go to. For instance if i traveled backwards in time from any given point on the Earth, by the time I re-entered time, the Earth would be millions of miles away from me and I'd die in space. There would be very few points in history (if any) where the Earth would be in the same spacial location. Creating a time-machine is useless unless it's a time/space machine.

Basically you need a TARDIS

There is no absolute reference frame, so you can't unambiguously say where "here" will be at some point in the past or future.

Assuming you knew the rate of expansion of the universe, the rotation of the Earth, sun, galaxy and set your spacetime machine to go forward in time by one day and set it to follow the path set out by that spot on the Earth then presumably you could land in the same spot tomorrow, but if the calculations were off even slightly you could end up materialising in solid rock or, more likely, somewhere deep in space.

...not to mention the fact that the fabric of space you originated from would be more expanded than the space you were going to. It could be that the vacuum potentials were completely incompatible, causing you to explode in a shower of photons.  Hmm... possible mechanism for gamma ray bursters, anyone?

Causing you to explode in a shower of photons.

Now, this is new to me. Where did this come from? 

Either way, traveling through time isn't the hard part, traveling through time and space simultaneously is the tricky bit, unless of course you could tether yourself to a specific point in space and travel to any time since that portal was completed.

'Tethering' to a specific point in space seems implausible because the planet is not staying still relative to the space time fabric.
Hell, 'relative to space time' is a nonsensical thing to even say. 
Tethering to a mass would have to be achieved, and I can't even begin to imagine a mechanism allowing that.

'Tethering' to a specific point in space seems implausible because the planet is not staying still relative to the space time fabric.
Hell, 'relative to space time' is a nonsensical thing to even say. 
Tethering to a mass would have to be achieved, and I can't even begin to imagine a mechanism allowing that.

I think what he's suggesting is something like a device that allows you to travel through it to any other time at which that device has existed, where it existed at that moment in time. Then such a device could be placed at a particular point on Earth, and you would be tethered to that spot on Earth as you travelled through time.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 13, 2008, 06:25:24 PM

'Tethering' to a specific point in space seems implausible because the planet is not staying still relative to the space time fabric.
Hell, 'relative to space time' is a nonsensical thing to even say. 
Tethering to a mass would have to be achieved, and I can't even begin to imagine a mechanism allowing that.

I think what he's suggesting is something like a device that allows you to travel through it to any other time at which that device has existed, where it existed at that moment in time. Then such a device could be placed at a particular point on Earth, and you would be tethered to that spot on Earth as you travelled through time.

That's pretty much it. Instead of hurtling through spacetime stabbing largely in the dark as to where to land there would be a fixed point in space to travel to at different times.

The above theories might be sound, if there were a medium to travel through. There is no aquifer that can safely(if at all) contain anything. The only thing that might be able to transcend the energies of existence is ray of light that is not subject to any form of decay. Even then, how could anything but that ray travel with or inside that ray? Tether or no tether, you can't transcend time without something to transport the body that is to be transported. But, I can't disprove time travel as it may be possible to manufacture a substance that is exempt to the fundamental decay of all things.

Whatever.  Nevermind Robosteve agreed with me.

I was disagreeing with you because your explanation did not fix what he said at all.

I completely understood what he said and also disagreed.

The above theories might be sound, if there were a medium to travel through. There is no aquifer that can safely(if at all) contain anything. The only thing that might be able to transcend the energies of existence is ray of light that is not subject to any form of decay. Even then, how could anything but that ray travel with or inside that ray? Tether or no tether, you can't transcend time without something to transport the body that is to be transported. But, I can't disprove time travel as it may be possible to manufacture a substance that is exempt to the fundamental decay of all things.

Judging from this statement he believes time is some sort of thing we exist in, like a sea, and he thinks we are talking about going outside of it. Then he started talking about light. lulz.

I completely understood what he said and also disagreed.

Go on, then. Why can't a polyhedron with many sides approximate a sphere?

Go on, then. Why can't a polyhedron with many sides approximate a sphere?

He's using a polygon count limit approaching infinity to construct the sphere. The infinite 'corners', are the vertices of the polygons creating the sphere, and would parallel individual time lines extending from the beginning of time.

I think the confusion arose from implying that we needed a polyhedrons to build an approximation of a sphere. I'm sure you meant the overall shape was a polyhedron, but actually building the shape requires polygons.

We can at least say that a polyhedron is built up from different kinds of element or entity, each associated with a different number of dimensions:

Polyhedron: 3 dimensions - the body is bounded by the faces, and is usually the volume inside them.
Polygon: 2 dimensions - a face is a polygon bounded by a circuit of edges, and usually including the flat (plane) region inside the boundary. These polygonal faces together make up the polyhedral surface.
Edge: 1 dimension - An edge joins one vertex to another and one face to another, and is usually a line of some kind. The edges together make up the polyhedral skeleton.
Vertex: 0 dimensions - A vertex (plural vertices) is a corner point.
Nullity: -1 dimension - The nullity is a kind of non-entity required by abstract theories.

Building a 3D model out of 3D components seems like an irrelevant tangent to the discussion, and also should not be asserting a fallacy in building it out of 2D components.

Quote from: Robosteve on November 17, 2008, 12:09:36 AM

Go on, then. Why can't a polyhedron with many sides approximate a sphere?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 07, 2008, 09:30:51 AM

He's using a polygon count limit approaching infinity to construct the sphere. The infinite 'corners', are the vertices of the polygons creating the sphere, and would parallel individual time lines extending from the beginning of time.

I think the confusion arose from implying that we needed a polyhedrons to build an approximation of a sphere. I'm sure you meant the overall shape was a polyhedron, but actually building the shape requires polygons.

We can at least say that a polyhedron is built up from different kinds of element or entity, each associated with a different number of dimensions:

Polyhedron: 3 dimensions - the body is bounded by the faces, and is usually the volume inside them.
Polygon: 2 dimensions - a face is a polygon bounded by a circuit of edges, and usually including the flat (plane) region inside the boundary. These polygonal faces together make up the polyhedral surface.
Edge: 1 dimension - An edge joins one vertex to another and one face to another, and is usually a line of some kind. The edges together make up the polyhedral skeleton.
Vertex: 0 dimensions - A vertex (plural vertices) is a corner point.
Nullity: -1 dimension - The nullity is a kind of non-entity required by abstract theories.

Building a 3D model out of 3D components seems like an irrelevant tangent to the discussion, and also should not be asserting a fallacy in building it out of 2D components.

I know that. Raist said he disagreed with what I said, so I'm asking him why a polyhedron could not approximate a sphere.

It is my understanding that he disagreed with the notion of 'polyhedrons replacing polygons' as the shapes used to construct a sphere. In which case, what you said/implied is not truly representative of your position. ...That position being: 'a polyhedron with many sides approximate a sphere'. I see no reason to argue over the miscommunication. Disagreeing with a statement is not the same as disagreeing with a shared concept intended behind the statement. 

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 17, 2008, 05:41:46 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on November 17, 2008, 12:09:36 AM

Go on, then. Why can't a polyhedron with many sides approximate a sphere?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 07, 2008, 09:30:51 AM

He's using a polygon count limit approaching infinity to construct the sphere. The infinite 'corners', are the vertices of the polygons creating the sphere, and would parallel individual time lines extending from the beginning of time.

I think the confusion arose from implying that we needed a polyhedrons to build an approximation of a sphere. I'm sure you meant the overall shape was a polyhedron, but actually building the shape requires polygons.

We can at least say that a polyhedron is built up from different kinds of element or entity, each associated with a different number of dimensions:

Polyhedron: 3 dimensions - the body is bounded by the faces, and is usually the volume inside them.
Polygon: 2 dimensions - a face is a polygon bounded by a circuit of edges, and usually including the flat (plane) region inside the boundary. These polygonal faces together make up the polyhedral surface.
Edge: 1 dimension - An edge joins one vertex to another and one face to another, and is usually a line of some kind. The edges together make up the polyhedral skeleton.
Vertex: 0 dimensions - A vertex (plural vertices) is a corner point.
Nullity: -1 dimension - The nullity is a kind of non-entity required by abstract theories.

Building a 3D model out of 3D components seems like an irrelevant tangent to the discussion, and also should not be asserting a fallacy in building it out of 2D components.

I know that. Raist said he disagreed with what I said, so I'm asking him why a polyhedron could not approximate a sphere.

I'm asking you what that has to do with your post.

Quote from: Robosteve on November 17, 2008, 06:02:26 AM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 17, 2008, 05:41:46 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on November 17, 2008, 12:09:36 AM

Go on, then. Why can't a polyhedron with many sides approximate a sphere?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 07, 2008, 09:30:51 AM

He's using a polygon count limit approaching infinity to construct the sphere. The infinite 'corners', are the vertices of the polygons creating the sphere, and would parallel individual time lines extending from the beginning of time.

I think the confusion arose from implying that we needed a polyhedrons to build an approximation of a sphere. I'm sure you meant the overall shape was a polyhedron, but actually building the shape requires polygons.

We can at least say that a polyhedron is built up from different kinds of element or entity, each associated with a different number of dimensions:

Polyhedron: 3 dimensions - the body is bounded by the faces, and is usually the volume inside them.
Polygon: 2 dimensions - a face is a polygon bounded by a circuit of edges, and usually including the flat (plane) region inside the boundary. These polygonal faces together make up the polyhedral surface.
Edge: 1 dimension - An edge joins one vertex to another and one face to another, and is usually a line of some kind. The edges together make up the polyhedral skeleton.
Vertex: 0 dimensions - A vertex (plural vertices) is a corner point.
Nullity: -1 dimension - The nullity is a kind of non-entity required by abstract theories.

Building a 3D model out of 3D components seems like an irrelevant tangent to the discussion, and also should not be asserting a fallacy in building it out of 2D components.

I know that. Raist said he disagreed with what I said, so I'm asking him why a polyhedron could not approximate a sphere.

I'm asking you what that has to do with your post.

Dunno, but here's an example I made earlier:

The original debate was a sphere has infinite corners. Then someone said it could be made with polygons, then someone misinterpreted that into polyhedrons.

My problem this whole time is a sphere is simply all points equidistant from a central point. Look at the formula for a circle, then shhhhh.

My problem this whole time is a sphere is simply all points equidistant from a central point. Look at the formula for a circle, then shhhhh.

A circle is not a sphere.

Also, please unambiguously define a corner.

Quote from: Raist on November 17, 2008, 06:17:06 PM

My problem this whole time is a sphere is simply all points equidistant from a central point. Look at the formula for a circle, then shhhhh.

A circle is not a sphere.

Also, please unambiguously define a corner.

Lol slip of the tongue fail. lol. Replace one word with the other then an hero.

You used the word corner first, you define it. Please stop using words you do not know the definition for.

You used the word corner first, you define it. Please stop using words you do not know the definition for.

No I didn't.

Anyway, I would consider the definition of a corner to be any point on a function f(x) at which its derivative function f'(x) with respect to y is not equal to the limit lim_h→0 f(x+h). For the purposes of shapes with vertical sections, f'(x) may be considered to be ?∞ for those sections.

Quote from: Raist on November 17, 2008, 08:05:56 PM

You used the word corner first, you define it. Please stop using words you do not know the definition for.

No I didn't.

Anyway, I would consider the definition of a corner to be any point on a function f(x) at which its derivative function f'(x) with respect to y is not equal to the limit lim_h→0 f(x+h). For the purposes of shapes with vertical sections, f'(x) may be considered to be ?∞ for those sections.

So you're saying for any place where the derivative can't be found on an object. That doesn't describe every point on a circle.

So you're saying for any place where the derivative can't be found on an object. That doesn't describe every point on a circle.

Yes, something like that. I'm tired. And I know. I wasn't the one saying a circle had corners.

I think a sphere would have to have an infinite amount of corners.

Think about it.  A corner is any place where two lines at different angles converge.  So, doesn't it make more sense to say a sphere has an infinite number if these than that it has none?  None makes it sound like the sides never change direction at all, which is not the case.

It does have an infinite amount of corners, that much is obvious. It's whether or not you want to divide the line to showcase the angles.

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say from the beginning. Can we un-derail the thread now?

Why wouldn't time just be a line?

Why wouldn't time just be a line?

That's too simple.  Welcome to FES.   

Why wouldn't time just be a line?

It depends on if you believe in multiple time lines/time line variations. Multiple dimensions are required for multiple lines.