This just in: Most Objects In Universe Flat

Quote from: JackBlack on July 16, 2022, 03:36:05 PM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 16, 2022, 04:36:04 AM

An object can be 2 different shapes in 3D space if there are different frames of reference. If a cosmic ray had conciousness, they would not agree the Earth is spherical.

If it was smart enough, and knew enough, it would agree that in Earth's rest frame Earth is roughly spherical.

Or maybe to them and the reality of their existence, moving close to the speed of light is the default and the way in which they view the universe is what's normal. We are judging what is normal on our bias from our reference frame.

Maybe if they were smart enough they would agree if they could slow down the shape would be spherical,sure. But to them, that shape is what would be weird. Just like to us, moving at near light speed, the Earth shape at that reference is weird.

Like I said, I chose the obtuse way of looking at this, specifically for this site. I'm not writing a paper seeking a high distinction score

It's an interesting philosophical discussion, it just has no bearing on reality.  If aliens moving at near light speed thought the Earth and every object they encountered was flat, they would simply be be wrong. Their inability to understand the nature of the universe around them in no way affects us, or the Earth.

It doesn't at all invalidate the statement that objects can't both be a sphere and a flat disk at the same time. Earth either has an edge, or it doesn't. It can't be both just because you look from another angle. Squishing, stretching or squinting at it doesn't change that.

It can be a sphere and a flat disk at the same time if the dimensions experienced are in different dimensions.
But it can not be  a flat disk and a sphere to the same dimension at the same time

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 16, 2022, 04:21:39 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 16, 2022, 03:36:05 PM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 16, 2022, 04:36:04 AM

An object can be 2 different shapes in 3D space if there are different frames of reference. If a cosmic ray had conciousness, they would not agree the Earth is spherical.

If it was smart enough, and knew enough, it would agree that in Earth's rest frame Earth is roughly spherical.

Or maybe to them and the reality of their existence, moving close to the speed of light is the default and the way in which they view the universe is what's normal. We are judging what is normal on our bias from our reference frame.

Maybe if they were smart enough they would agree if they could slow down the shape would be spherical,sure. But to them, that shape is what would be weird. Just like to us, moving at near light speed, the Earth shape at that reference is weird.

Like I said, I chose the obtuse way of looking at this, specifically for this site. I'm not writing a paper seeking a high distinction score

It's an interesting philosophical discussion, it just has no bearing on our reality.  If aliens moving at near light speed thought the Earth and every object they encountered was flat, they would simply be be wrong. Their inability to understand the nature of the universe around them in no way affects us, or the Earth.

It doesn't at all invalidate the statement that objects can't both be a sphere and a flat disk at the same time. Earth either has an edge, or it doesn't. It can't be both just because you look from another angle. Squishing, stretching or squinting at it doesn't change that.

We are affected by observer bias. If a universe existed but has no observers, it still exists.

Likewise anything that by its nature sees the universe through the lens of 99.9% light speed, what they observe is their reality.

For us mere humans, the Earth is spherical. For a cosmic ray particle, how they see and how they could tangibly interact with the Earth is NOT spherical. From their POV, the diameter is the same (~12000km). It's depth however is only a few dozen metres thick at most

2 different points of view. 2 different ways that you can interact with the same object. Who is to say our relatively slow movement is the default and not the speed of light. For the speed of light, the depth of the universe is 0. Just like the moment of the 'big bang'. What happened then was the dimension of time

At the speed of light, time is N/A. It doesn't invalidate the nature of that reality

We are affected by observer bias. If a universe existed but has no observers, it still exists.

Prove it. 

Likewise anything that by its nature sees the universe through the lens of 99.9% light speed, what they observe is their reality.

No, that's simply their perception of reality. How you think doesn't change reality. Color blind people see the world differently but it doesn't change the fact that color does indeed exist, and they are still able to measure it using instruments.

For us mere humans, the Earth is spherical. For a cosmic ray particle, how they see and how they could tangibly interact with the Earth is NOT spherical. From their POV, the diameter is the same (~12000km). It's depth however is only a few dozen metres thick at most

2 different points of view. 2 different ways that you can interact with the same object. Who is to say our relatively slow movement is the default and not the speed of light. For the speed of light, the depth of the universe is 0. Just like the moment of the 'big bang'. What happened then was the dimension of time

Again, aliens moving at near light speed wouldn't see the Earth as a disk, they would see it as a very flat sphere.  Flat spheres are not disks, even very flat spheres do not have edges, they have a continuous surface.  An alien orbiting the Earth at the speed of light would very clearly recognize it was a sphere as they mapped it.

You can't just transform a sphere into a disk by looking at it. That's not how geometry works.

At the speed of light, time is N/A. It doesn't invalidate the nature of that reality

Nothing with mass moves at the speed of light so no aliens will be at light speed, time will still pass, even if very slowly.  Unless you want to imagine intelligent photons.  But the smallest intelligent particles known are the self aware AI electrons created by the Trisolarans and even they can't unfold a photon.

Or maybe to them and the reality of their existence, moving close to the speed of light is the default and the way in which they view the universe is what's normal.

All speed is relative.
Your hypothetical sentient cosmic ray could see itself at rest, with the universe moving around it, and ideally understand that motion is relative.
It could see another cosmic ray particle travelling beside it at the same direction, at the same speed, and see how it looks.
It could also see another cosmic ray particle travelling in the exact opposite direction, and plenty of other directions.

This means it should understand the idea of different frames of reference and rest frames.
And this means it should understand the idea of considering Earth from Earth's rest frame.
And for them, it is Earth moving at close to the speed of light.

If you want to be obtuse, do it properly.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around these 'flat spheres' JJA goes on about. How do you string those 2 words together?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around these 'flat spheres' JJA goes on about. How do you string those 2 words together?

I'd expect turbo or Tom Bishop not to understand what a flattened sphere is, but we both know you're smarter than that.

"A spheroid, or ellipsoid, is a sphere flattened at the poles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/map/projections/spheroids-and-spheres.htm

Quote from: JackBlack on July 16, 2022, 03:36:05 PM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 16, 2022, 04:36:04 AM

An object can be 2 different shapes in 3D space if there are different frames of reference. If a cosmic ray had conciousness, they would not agree the Earth is spherical.

If it was smart enough, and knew enough, it would agree that in Earth's rest frame Earth is roughly spherical.

Or maybe to them and the reality of their existence, moving close to the speed of light is the default and the way in which they view the universe is what's normal. We are judging what is normal on our bias from our reference frame.

Maybe if they were smart enough they would agree if they could slow down the shape would be spherical,sure. But to them, that shape is what would be weird. Just like to us, moving at near light speed, the Earth shape at that reference is weird.

Like I said, I chose the obtuse way of looking at this, specifically for this site. I'm not writing a paper seeking a high distinction score

How on earth do you think, in all honesty, you can hope to know how a particle moving at a pretty high percentage the speed of light with a diameter, I’m told, of 2x10 -14 M perceives it’s environment.
In an other post elsewhere you proclaimed masterbation was an important activity  for males. I think you should stick to that. Trying to know and understand what subatomic particles get up to is way beyond even you.
 

I'm still trying to wrap my head around these 'flat spheres' JJA goes on about. How do you string those 2 words together?

A flattened sphere which is topologically equivalent to a sphere which is still fundamentally distinct from a disc.

For a FE, you should be able to see all the continents from one side.
For a RE, you can't.
The cosmic ray particle will experience RE, where it can't see all the continents from one side.

A sphere is a sphere. Not a spheroid. Not an ellipsoid. Not a 'looks like'. It is completely perfect in every direction.

A flattened sphere is a shitty description. Just call it what it is, not some lazy, condescending way to people you think don't know what a spheroid is

Why not call rectangles 'flattened squares'?

A sphere is a sphere. Not a spheroid. Not an ellipsoid. Not a 'looks like'. It is completely perfect in every direction.

A flattened sphere is a shitty description. Just call it what it is, not some lazy, condescending way to people you think don't know what a spheroid is

If you are going to go down that path you may as well start out by saying Earth isn't a sphere, because it isn't perfect.

If you ignore that minor imperfection, then "flattened sphere" is a great description, because it is a sphere that is apparently flattened due to relativistic effects.

A sphere is a sphere. Not a spheroid. Not an ellipsoid. Not a 'looks like'. It is completely perfect in every direction.

A flattened sphere is a shitty description. Just call it what it is, not some lazy, condescending way to people you think don't know what a spheroid is

Why not call rectangles 'flattened squares'?

"Flattening is a measure of the compression of a circle or sphere along a diameter to form an ellipse or an ellipsoid " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flattening

Geometry is full of statements like flattening or stretching things.  You're the only one thinking that using "flattened square" is some kind of crime against humanity.

Better tell NIST!

"The rhomboidal (flattened square) tiles" - https://www.nist.gov/image/17pml038photonic-chip-instagramjpg

Also send angry emails to anyone working with flattened square-antiprism geometry.

Speaking of interesting hills to die on, you picked an odd one here.

How many times have you personally JJA, looked at a rectangle and said 'that's a flattened square!'?

Elongated square

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 17, 2022, 02:32:25 PM

A sphere is a sphere. Not a spheroid. Not an ellipsoid. Not a 'looks like'. It is completely perfect in every direction.

A flattened sphere is a shitty description. Just call it what it is, not some lazy, condescending way to people you think don't know what a spheroid is

Why not call rectangles 'flattened squares'?

"Flattening is a measure of the compression of a circle or sphere along a diameter to form an ellipse or an ellipsoid " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flattening

Geometry is full of statements like flattening or stretching things.  You're the only one thinking that using "flattened square" is some kind of crime against humanity.

Better tell NIST!

"The rhomboidal (flattened square) tiles" - https://www.nist.gov/image/17pml038photonic-chip-instagramjpg

Also send angry emails to anyone working with flattened square-antiprism geometry.

Speaking of interesting hills to die on, you picked an odd one here.

I see them as more squares which have been pushed over.

How many times have you personally JJA, looked at a rectangle and said 'that's a flattened square!'?

But what is the origin of them?
If they were drawn as rectangles, I see no reason to call them flattened squares, unless I was talking to someone that didn't know what a rectangle was.

Tell me, how many times have you seen someone in the street refer to a football as a prolate spheroid?
These are terms beyond basic math classes which most people wouldn't know. Calling it a flattened or elongated sphere can help with the description of the shape.
Most people know what a rectangle is.

Well it's about time people added spheroid and ellipsoid to their vocabulary. Saying something 'looks like' when it has an actual descriptive word is dumb

To continually parrot 'the Earth looks like a sphere' is just dumb everyone that listens to it down.

A sphere is a sphere is a sphere. You can not have a 'flat sphere'. That's not a sphere any more. Just call it what it is. I know that won't suit the argument that's been trying to pushed - the same object being 2 different shapes in 3 dimensions. But just be honest. Different observers can view and interact with the same object differently.

Well it's about time people added spheroid and ellipsoid to their vocabulary. Saying something 'looks like' when it has an actual descriptive word is dumb

To continually parrot 'the Earth looks like a sphere' is just dumb everyone that listens to it down.

A sphere is a sphere is a sphere. You can not have a 'flat sphere'. That's not a sphere any more. Just call it what it is. I know that won't suit the argument that's been trying to pushed - the same object being 2 different shapes in 3 dimensions. But just be honest. Different observers can view and interact with the same object differently.

But Earth isn't a spheroid either.
It is closer to a geoid, and even that isn't correct.

The shape is far too complex for a simple word to describe it.
So instead we focus on what it is approximately, and a sphere works quite well for that.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 17, 2022, 05:02:27 PM

Well it's about time people added spheroid and ellipsoid to their vocabulary. Saying something 'looks like' when it has an actual descriptive word is dumb

To continually parrot 'the Earth looks like a sphere' is just dumb everyone that listens to it down.

A sphere is a sphere is a sphere. You can not have a 'flat sphere'. That's not a sphere any more. Just call it what it is. I know that won't suit the argument that's been trying to pushed - the same object being 2 different shapes in 3 dimensions. But just be honest. Different observers can view and interact with the same object differently.

But Earth isn't a spheroid either.
It is closer to a geoid, and even that isn't correct.

The shape is far too complex for a simple word to describe it.
So instead we focus on what it is approximately, and a sphere works quite well for that.

Well you go your way, I go mine. I'm not fussed and make no apology. When my kids ask questions like 'why is the sky blue?' I tell them exactly why. Even if they can't comprehend everything. It's better than filling their mind with bullshit

One guy at work (I know I've said this before), in his 40s would tell you it's a reflection of the ocean. Maybe his parents didn't know or maybe they did and thought giving him a bullshit answer he could grasp was cute. Except easy answers never led him to question the nature of everything. He was as dumb as dogshit.

People don't give children enough credit. They think giving bullshit answers is how you start them off. My kid at 3 knew more about science, the solar system and the universe than this guy at his 40s. He also knows that the sun is white and why our sky looks blue and why our sun looks yellow and time dilation the faster you go or approach something with a huge mass (eg a black hole). No bullshit in his head

A rectangle is not a squished square. He knows all the shapes. He knows numbers that go beyond the 'trillion' everyone seems to stop remembering after. And Pluto IS A PLANET! LOL

I don't fill his head with nonsense. 'Daddy what's this shape?' 'oh that's a flat square'

Anyway, you all do you.

And Pluto IS A PLANET! LOL

If Pluto is a planet, what is Eris?

Well you go your way, I go mine. I'm not fussed and make no apology.

Tell me, how do you describe the shape of Earth?

When my kids ask questions like 'why is the sky blue?' I tell them exactly why. Even if they can't comprehend everything. It's better than filling their mind with bullshit

Good thing you aren't a teacher then, because your students wouldn't learn anything, and if they did, they probably wouldn't be able to function in the real world.

People don't give children enough credit. They think giving bullshit answers is how you start them off.

I never suggested to give them BS, I suggested giving them approximations.
There is a very big difference.
Saying Earth is roughly a sphere, is an approximation, not BS.

My kid at 3 knew

Sure it did. It totally isn't your fantasy.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 18, 2022, 01:09:49 AM

And Pluto IS A PLANET! LOL

If Pluto is a planet, what is Eris?

F&#k Eris. It wasn't even known when I was a kid. Nah, I don't care that much really - but I made a point to also tell them about Ceres, Makemake, Haumea and Sedna, cause why not? They go along with the agreed consensus but Pluto is NOT FORGOTTEN!

The scientists saw a planet or 2 after Pluto and thought 'how are we going to remember all of these?!' So came up with a solution to make it easier for them. Let's face it, they were perfectly happy to count Pluto among the others until Eris and Makemake came along.....

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 18, 2022, 01:09:49 AM

Well you go your way, I go mine. I'm not fussed and make no apology.

Tell me, how do you describe the shape of Earth?

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 18, 2022, 01:09:49 AM

When my kids ask questions like 'why is the sky blue?' I tell them exactly why. Even if they can't comprehend everything. It's better than filling their mind with bullshit

Good thing you aren't a teacher then, because your students wouldn't learn anything, and if they did, they probably wouldn't be able to function in the real world.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 18, 2022, 01:09:49 AM

People don't give children enough credit. They think giving bullshit answers is how you start them off.

I never suggested to give them BS, I suggested giving them approximations.
There is a very big difference.
Saying Earth is roughly a sphere, is an approximation, not BS.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on July 18, 2022, 01:09:49 AM

My kid at 3 knew

Sure it did. It totally isn't your fantasy.

Care factor of your opinions are zero. Sorry mate I tried to find an F about it but I couldn't find one. Your entire existence on this forum is to be argumentative. You've never posted anything in support of anyone else. Ever. You only exist to be an antagonist. So you'll forgive if I can't pretend to spend time on your posts anymore

The scientists saw a planet or 2 after Pluto and thought 'how are we going to remember all of these?!' So came up with a solution to make it easier for them. Let's face it, they were perfectly happy to count Pluto among the others until Eris and Makemake came along.....

It is like they realised that due to how many there were it would be more appropriate to give it a better classification.

Care factor of your opinions are zero. Sorry mate I tried to find an F about it but I couldn't find one.

I understand, it is hard for people like you to have any concern for anyone else.

You've never posted anything in support of anyone else. Ever. You only exist to be an antagonist.

You not seeing things doesn't mean it isn't real.
And you are one to talk. What have you been doing in this thread? Intentionally antagonising people.

So you'll forgive if I can't pretend to spend time on your posts anymore

Yet here you are, spending time on my post.

A sphere is a sphere is a sphere. You can not have a 'flat sphere'.

"Flattening is a measure of the compression of a circle or sphere along a diameter to form an ellipse or an ellipsoid " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flattening

Since you seemed to have missed this this first time around.  Sorry, you're just flat out wrong here.

Reality doesn't care about your warped perceptions. This isn't the Matrix.

F&#k Eris. It wasn't even known when I was a kid. Nah, I don't care that much really - but I made a point to also tell them about Ceres, Makemake, Haumea and Sedna, cause why not? They go along with the agreed consensus but Pluto is NOT FORGOTTEN!

You have a opportunity to teach your kids that science is a process, and not a bunch of facts.

I can have long arguments disagreeing with JackBlack about all kinds of things, but if we agree that science is a process, and not static facts, then there is always chance that we can evolve our thinking.

How many times have you personally JJA, looked at a rectangle and said 'that's a flattened square!'?

A square is a rectangle, a specific rectangle, but a rectangle nontheless.  All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

A square is a rectangle, a specific rectangle, but a rectangle nontheless.  All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

A rectangle is a quadrilateral, a specific quadrilateral, but a quadrilateral nontheless.  All rectangles are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are rectangles.

A rectangle is a quadrilateral, a specific quadrilateral, but a quadrilateral nontheless.  All rectangles are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are rectangles.

A quadrilateral is a polygon, a specific polygon, but a polygon nontheless.  All quadrilaterals are polygons, but not all polygons are quadrilaterals.

A quadrilateral is a polygon, a specific polygon, but a polygon nontheless.  All quadrilaterals are polygons, but not all polygons are quadrilaterals.

A polygon is a 2-dimentional figure on a plane, a specific 2-dimentional figure on a plane, but a 2-dimentional figure on a plane nontheless. All polygons are 2-dimentional figure on a planes, but not all 2-dimentional figure on a planes are polygons.

Is a warpped flat surface

Like a sail or a flag

Considered on plane?

JohDn math