0d Lines and Circles

[Arising_uk]

Go on Google,

No, you made the claim post up a link.

I can't copy and paste on my iPad.... .

Then we can add technologically incompetent to your list of incompetencies, so much for the 'genius' IQ.

you do know what Google is right?

Sure do and look forward to you posting a google link of a professor of Physics saying nowadays that 'atoms are 99.99% empty'.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is the paradox, there is 0 width between the two lines. The lines are of 0 width and the space between them are 0 width.

What 'paradox'? If there is no width between the lines then you have one line and if the lines are of zero width you have no lines.

Not if a line is composed of infinite 0d points, which is the definition. You can have a line superposition on top of another line with fundamentally void between them.

Line A has no width. Same with line B. Line C as the space between the two lines can be worthless as well.

And show me empirically a one dimensional object. ...

My point I'd have thought?

Are you saying logic is subject to a 1d form?

Flat land. A circle on its side is effectively flat. ...

Have you've read Flatland?

Yeah, read below:

evidence of this:

1. All lines in projecting from a 0d point project back to a 0d point. A point as 0d is always the same.

2. Take a standard clock with hands. Put a light on top of the seconds hand. Turn the clock on its side. The light, while moving innate circular motion on the clock, is actually going backwards and forwards linearly. All circular movements and forms, on there side, are linear.

3. 2d circles stacked on 2d circles, when viewed from the side as 1d lines, would appear as a the OP.

You've obviously not read it.
A circle in Flatland is still a circle, try using a turtle.

Yes it is still a circle in the standard sense. It is also a line if inverted to its side like the clock example. A line between two points necessitates circularity as it ends at the same point it begins.

A 3d circle (sphere you mean) ...

Not seen a disc then?

Wow....are you dumb. A disc is both 3d and 2d...it is an area bound by a circle at minimum. The disc as 3d is a circle with thickness...but if you stack lines, and each line is a circle, from a 2d perspective (because it is viewed was a line) a series of lines is still a series of cycles.

If

○= |

Then

○○○○ = ||||

draw 2 dimensionally is a series of circles in circles.

No, it's a series of arcs.

Ha, no....

|||| would be observed as ⊙ where • would be another circle with a circle inside of it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Go on Google,

No, you made the claim post up a link.

Google it yourself: "Are atoms 99.99... percent empty?"

It's not like you spend time with your kids anyhow, I mean they will probably be swinging machetes at eachother in a few years .

I can't copy and paste on my iPad.... .

Then we can add technologically incompetent to your list of incompetencies, so much for the 'genius' IQ.

Awww....someone is gwumpy....

you do know what Google is right?

Sure do and look forward to you posting a google link of a professor of Physics saying nowadays that 'atoms are 99.99% empty'.

Who is technologically incompetent now?

[Arising_uk]

Google it yourself: "Are atoms 99.99... percent empty?"

It's not like you spend time with your kids anyhow, I mean they will probably be swinging machetes at eachother in a few years .

Well having read your views on women and relationships I think I can safely assume there will be no little johndoes running around shooting their schoolmates.

Awww....someone is gwumpy....

No idea why you think this? I was just observing that for someone who claims to have a 'genius' level IQ you show a marked technological incompetency if you can't copy and paste a link from an iPad, my five year old can do it.

Who is technologically incompetent now?

I thought we'd established this? You are.

Still waiting for this link from you showing a Physics professor claiming that 'atoms are 99.9% empty'. It's time to leave the 50's johndoe.

[Arising_uk]

Not if a line is composed of infinite 0d points, which is the definition. You can have a line superposition on top of another line with fundamentally void between them.

Line A has no width. Same with line B. Line C as the space between the two lines can be worthless as well.

So are you trying to refute the idea that there are 0d points in reality with your example? No idea why as a 0d point is a contradiction in terms in the first place.

If not then logic still applies whether you try to apply terms from Physics or not, so if you lay two 0d lines of the 'same length' on top of each other you'll just have one 0d line.

Are you saying logic is subject to a 1d form?

No idea what your point is here but if there were such a thing as a '1d form'(whatever the hell this is supposed to be?) then it'll be subject to Logic as logic arises from there being things or states of affairs.

Flat land. A circle on its side is effectively flat. ...

Have you've read Flatland?

Yeah, read below:

That just shows that you haven't.

Wow....are you dumb. A disc is both 3d and 2d...it is an area bound by a circle at minimum. The disc as 3d is a circle with thickness...but if you stack lines, and each line is a circle, from a 2d perspective (because it is viewed was a line) a series of lines is still a series of cycles. ...

And you are mental? A disc is 3d, other than on paper there are no 2d objects in our reality.

But I think I get that you are trying to talk about what a 3d object would be like to a flatlander and you are still wrong(you really need to read the book rather than just quoting titles) as yes a 3d disc if intersecting flatland would be 'seen' as a straight line or a point(depending upon when it was encountered and what angle it intersects) and if it kept moving through it would be experienced as first a point then an increasing in length line and then a decreasing in length line until it goes back to a point and vanishes.

If

○= |

Then

○○○○ = ||||

Well for sure if you embed a disc in flatland vertically they'd experience a line but if you put it in horizontally?

draw 2 dimensionally is a series of circles in circles.

No, it's a series of arcs.

Ha, no....

Muhahaha, yes. A 2d representation of a sphere is a circle inscribed with arcs, alternatively you can just shade a circle.

|||| would be observed as ⊙ where • would be another circle with a circle inside of it.

You appear incapable of following the train of your own thoughts, are you talking about discs or spheres now?

A sphere passing through Flatland would appear as a point first then an increasing circle(if the flatlander can get around it in time otherwise an increasing arc) and then a decreasing circle or arc until it becomes a point again and then vanishes. A disc would be as I described above.

[Eodnhoj7]

Google it yourself: "Are atoms 99.99... percent empty?"

It's not like you spend time with your kids anyhow, I mean they will probably be swinging machetes at eachother in a few years .

Well having read your views on women and relationships I think I can safely assume there will be no little johndoes running around shooting their schoolmates.

Awww....someone is gwumpy....

No idea why you think this? I was just observing that for someone who claims to have a 'genius' level IQ you show a marked technological incompetency if you can't copy and paste a link from an iPad, my five year old can do it.

Who is technologically incompetent now?

I thought we'd established this? You are.

Still waiting for this link from you showing a Physics professor claiming that 'atoms are 99.9% empty'. It's time to leave the 50's johndoe.

I didn't read it, except for a quick glance....I saw the length of the response and new I just hit a nervd.

Aww... looks like I hit a soft spot...rather spend time online with people who you claim are loons, than with your kids....

99.999 percent of atoms are empty space...the remaining quantum fields have no dimension and are point particles in nature...there is no volume, hence it is formless and empty.

Google it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not if a line is composed of infinite 0d points, which is the definition. You can have a line superposition on top of another line with fundamentally void between them.

Line A has no width. Same with line B. Line C as the space between the two lines can be worthless as well.

So are you trying to refute the idea that there are 0d points in reality with your example? No idea why as a 0d point is a contradiction in terms in the first place.

Wow...are you dumb. Look at my other response...I said the atoms are empty because they are full of point particles which have no dimension. No dimension=formless.

The lines, as projected 0d points, fit on top of eachother if their is 0d space between them as th the lines...if they have no width can stack on top of eachother without width.

If not then logic still applies whether you try to apply terms from Physics or not, so if you lay two 0d lines of the 'same length' on top of each other you'll just have one 0d line.

No, the two lines exist in one position no different than schroedingers cat.

Are you saying logic is subject to a 1d form?

No idea what your point is here but if there were such a thing as a '1d form'(whatever the hell this is supposed to be?) then it'll be subject to Logic as logic arises from there being things or states of affairs.

I said give me an empirical example of 1 dimensionality.

Flat land. A circle on its side is effectively flat. ...

Have you've read Flatland?

Yeah, read below:

That just shows that you haven't.

Wow....are you dumb. A disc is both 3d and 2d...it is an area bound by a circle at minimum. The disc as 3d is a circle with thickness...but if you stack lines, and each line is a circle, from a 2d perspective (because it is viewed was a line) a series of lines is still a series of cycles. ...

And you are mental? A disc is 3d, other than on paper there are no 2d objects in our reality.

Look at all 3d objects are changing 2d objects thread. Also look at the 2d universe theory proposed by physics.

But I think I get that you are trying to talk about what a 3d object would be like to a flatlander and you are still wrong(you really need to read the book rather than just quoting titles) as yes a 3d disc if intersecting flatland would be 'seen' as a straight line or a point(depending upon when it was encountered and what angle it intersects) and if it kept moving through it would be experienced as first a point then an increasing in length line and then a decreasing in length line until it goes back to a point and vanishes.

If

○= |

Then

○○○○ = ||||

Well for sure if you embed a disc in flatland vertically they'd experience a line but if you put it in horizontally?

That is my point, the line necessitates a sideways circle just by its project from its origin (0d point) back to its origin (0d point). And look up a picture of a disc...it is a 2d draw.
It only changes from 2d to 3d when you change then angle of the observation but even then it is still a succession of 2d images.

draw 2 dimensionally is a series of circles in circles.

No, it's a series of arcs.

Ha, no....

Muhahaha, yes. A 2d representation of a sphere is a circle inscribed with arcs, alternatively you can just shade a circle.

Still no, a 2d sphere is infinite circles inside of infinite circles. The arc or "line" is still a circle from another angle as the 2d image is changed into another 2d image.

3 dimensionality is changing 2d images.

|||| would be observed as ⊙ where • would be another circle with a circle inside of it.

You appear incapable of following the train of your own thoughts, are you talking about discs or spheres now?

a disc is a 2d entity, where its width is a series changes in 2d images. The same forms a sphere. The lines where each | = ○ when on its side, necessitates a ring inside as ring when ||||| is change into ⊙ (where the center dot represents a circle).



A sphere passing through Flatland would appear as a point first then an increasing circle(if the flatlander can get around it in time otherwise an increasing arc) and then a decreasing circle or arc until it becomes a point again and then vanishes. A disc would be as I described above.

actually it would be a point then and expanding circle with the circle continually expanding then contracting again to a point.

Or it can be observed as a simple dot, expanding into a line in both directions and then back to a dot.

That is the problem, flat land assumed 2d is limited to one angle but there are infinite 2d ways of looking at a flat reality. That is why flat land is a story.

Draw me a 3d image without putting it in 2 dimensions...you can't. All images are 2d, then exist as 3d dimensions when they change.