# Why a 2-D World is BUNK.

Discussion in 'Math' started by SplitInfinity, Apr 24, 2013.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### SplitInfinity Thread Starter Member

Mar 3, 2013
369
9
In a few past conversations I think on another board...I was presented with the ideas based upon...Flatland...a book written by Edwin A. Abbott.

A few people started telling me how we would be able to veiw 2-D objects or constructs in our Universal Space/Time from infront...inback...but if veiwed from the side it would not exist.

Now this is sheer Fantasy.

Fist of all a 2-D OBJECT cannot exist as for the Matter and Energy to exist that makes up an object there must be more than 4 Dimensonal States and most likely a minimum 10 or 11-D.

Also I had issue with such statements as one said to me..."Look at this." He showed me a representation of a 5-D object. He also stated that 2-D was taking a pen and drawing a figure or line.

I explained to him that just the fact that you are able to draw on a piece of paper shows that the paper is made up of matter and thus has more than 4-D as well as the ink that is being written upon the paper.

I then told him that I had teachers and one Professor who held up a picture of what they said was a representation of a 5-D object...as well as a 6-D, 7-D...etc. I argued this till I was blue in the face and told them that even though I was aware the drawing was simply ment to represent such multi-dimensional objects...it still was really not representing them as was their possible reality.

Such is the folly of using pen and paper to design a geometric figure and say...This is 5-D. When everything about what a 5-D object would be could not possibly exist in our Universal Reality and neither could the Matter we know and understand be constructed in such a fashion.

Split Infinity

2. ### Wendy Moderator

Mar 24, 2008
20,772
2,540
Uh, I think the term is analogy. The true answer is we are not sure how many dimensions we currently exist in, the evidence it not yet in. Like I said in the other thread, too many theories, too little practical evidence.

3. ### WBahn Moderator

Mar 31, 2012
18,085
4,917
You say that you were aware that the drawing was simply a representation but then proceed to make it evident that you don't understand the concept involved in something being a representation.

When you draw an isometric drawing of a part, say a rectanguar solid, it is a 2-D representation of a 3-D object. The fact that it is a representation means that it is NOT the part being represented and does not have or capture all of the characteristics of the part. It is intended only to REPRESENT those characteristics of the part that are salient to the purpose of the representation.

Interestingly enough, just this past weekend my five year old daughter demonstrated that she grasped this concept. She draw a picture and showed it to me and there was a red animal in it. I asked her what the animal was and she said it was a cat. I then asked her if the cat's fur was soft and fuffy. She stared at the drawing for a few seconds and then looked at me real serious and said, in her oh-so-cute lecture-mode way, "Papa, it's just a drawing. You can only see the cat's color."

4. ### studiot AAC Fanatic!

Nov 9, 2007
5,005
515
Think again.

DerStrom8 likes this.
5. ### amilton542 Active Member

Nov 13, 2010
494
64
Insert a plane straight through a sphere's origin. Let's say we live on this plane. Then one will see this sphere as circle.

How could you detect the sphere's there?

If I'm honest, the conjecture of x-dimensions that might exist has never interested me because even if they did it would be impossible to find.

6. ### WBahn Moderator

Mar 31, 2012
18,085
4,917
You would have to try to detect it indirectly. If the plane of your existence was fixed so as to contain the sphere's origin, you wouldn't be able to detect it. But if this wasn't fixed, then you might see the circuit changing size with time. You would then take lots of data and search for an explanation that is simple. Thus you eventually formulate a hypothesis that you were observing the 2-D manifestation of a 3-D object as it passed through your 2-D world. You would support this claim by showing that a 3-D object described by this one single parameter and moving in 3-D space according to some very simple manner completely explains the observed variations in the circle.

7. ### Brownout Well-Known Member

Jan 10, 2012
2,375
998
It's those damn neo-cubists always trying to make a 2-d world. Who do they think their trying to fool? How can they believe they would pull off such a scandal? Something HAS to be done about this. Stop the madness!!!

8. ### DerStrom8 Well-Known Member

Feb 20, 2011
2,428
1,329
The first three dimensions refer to space, whereas the fourth dimension moves on to time. Your comment
is wrong. While I understand what you're trying to say, matter is not "made up" of time. Therefore it only consists of the first three dimensions. The fourth dimension only comes along when you introduce the thought that the line was drawn over a period of time. But the object itself has only three dimensions.

You might find the following video interesting:

Current theory states that there can be no more than ten dimensions, without getting into the idea of negative mass. So your comment,

is also wrong, or at least has no basis for discussion whatsoever.

You didn't even do any research before posting this crap, did you?

#12, shortbus and justtrying like this.
9. ### SplitInfinity Thread Starter Member

Mar 3, 2013
369
9
Well...Bill...we do know that 4-D is not enough Space/Time Dimensionality to allow Quanta such as Photons and Electrons...etc...to act as both Particle and Wave.

5-D is not enough to allow two or more Functions for Electrons or Photons as a single isolated Electron has been found to have two or more simultanious functions.

Then we have the issues of Dark Energy and Dark Matter which cannot be described in 6-D and perhaps not even be possible to describe in 10 or 11-D as this might be Divergent Universal State Bleed Over...but who knows?

What I am trying to say in this topic is any current representation of a Dimensional State of 5-D or > than 5-D is far fro the reality of such things.

The representations themselves are similar to using the word FORCE to describe Gravitic Effect.

Split Infinity

10. ### SplitInfinity Thread Starter Member

Mar 3, 2013
369
9
I can see you are not quite grasping what I am trying to explain. Sure...a person could draw a Stick Figure to represent a person using a circle for a head...a line for a spine or chest or back...lines with smaller little lines at the ends to represent arms, legs, fingers and toes...etc.

What I am refering to is using a pen and paper and drawing some figures and saying...this represents 2-D...or drawing a more complex design and saying...This represents a 5-D Object.

The kid drawing a Stick Figure of Mom and Dad and a small one for themselves is about a Billion times closer in that representation to the kids family than using the same figures drawn and saying this represents 2-D objects or a 2-D Universe.

Since Photons or Light cannot be reflected off a 2-D object or even exist within a 2-D Universe...nevermind the fact that Matter and Energy cannot exist 2 Dimensionally....the Kids picture of stick people at least show us a representation based within REALITY.

Split Infinity

11. ### Kermit2 AAC Fanatic!

Feb 5, 2010
3,847
963

DerStrom8 likes this.
12. ### SplitInfinity Thread Starter Member

Mar 3, 2013
369
9
Actually...the vast majority of what you state here is completely wrong.

Matter is comprised of Protons and most of the time...Neutrons which have Electron Orbital Fields with the Quanta known as Electrons existing as both Particle and Wave.

Right there it shows Matter is comprised of Particles of Mass as well as Particle/Wave Forms of Energy. Thus Matter shows itself...just to START...as existing in at least 4-D...but even that is wrong and not enough dimensionality as everything Protons and Neutrons are comprised of are Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Quarks, Gluons, Leptons, Mesons...etc...where in some cases such as Quarks are blinking in and out of Universal Reality at will between a numerical minimum and maximum plus other realities such as Quantum Chromodynamics, Higgs-Bosons responsible for giving Protons and Neutrons Mass...Photons and Electrons Frequency...Photons ability to have Momentum and a host of other abilities that exceed 3-D REALITY.

Your statement that an object only has 3 Dimensional States is incorrect as the definition of an OBJECT as a NOUN...is a material thing that can be SEEN AND TOUCHED.

To be able to touch something it the Electron Orbital Fields surrounding the Atomic Nuleus' of any part of your body must be effected by the Electron Orbital Fields surrounding the Atomic Nucleus' of other Atoms. Thus when my finger TOUCHES the keys as I type this the Electron Orbital Fields repell each other as the Nucleus' of the Atoms making up my fingers and the keys never come into contact.

Seeing as a condition to define and object would seem a bit old fashion but still...the Light or Photons that are repelled by the Atoms or Orbital fields of...are detected by my eyes and my optic nerve...thus be it by sight or touch there is MORE THAN 3-DIMENSIONAL STATES existing that make up and define and object as well as allow that object to be touched or seen.

Also...4-D with the first 3-D relugated to the OBJECT as you have defined it so...and 1 more or the 4th-D representing TIME...is not enough Dimensionality for Protons, Neutrons, Electrons and all the Quantum Particle/Wave Forms that comprise what is in an Atomic Nucleus to even exist.

Split Infinity

13. ### SplitInfinity Thread Starter Member

Mar 3, 2013
369
9
I am told I am a Likable Guy...especially after some get to know me.

Split Infinity

14. ### SplitInfinity Thread Starter Member

Mar 3, 2013
369
9
As I have said...you cannot observe ANYTHING that would be 2-D as #1. A 2-D object cannot exist. #2. Light cannot reflect off ANYTHING that would be 2-D...plus there exists nothing that would be 2-D. #3. There is no such thing as a 3-D Object...3 dimensional states is not enough dimensions for matter or energy to exist. #4. The is no such thing as 3-D Space...and Space/Time exists geometrically in our Universal Reality as greater than 5-D.

Split Infinity

15. ### SplitInfinity Thread Starter Member

Mar 3, 2013
369
9
My point was that I get irritated as well as think it is folly when some Professor holds up this Geometric Construct and say's...HEY! This is a 5-D Object. Or they hold another up and say...6-D...7-D...etc!

But the one thing I have heard over and over again is the foolish statment and Class Participation deductive explaination of what one would see looking from different angles of perspective at a 2-D Object.

A 2-D Object cannot exist...PERIOD!

Split Infinity

16. ### SplitInfinity Thread Starter Member

Mar 3, 2013
369
9
Also...one more thing to add in reply to Derstrom....TIME is a necessity for Matter and Energy to exist. If there is no time...there is no movement...if there is no movement...there cannot exist Electron Orbital Fields...if these don't exist...neither can anything else.

Although Time is seen and experienced as Linear by us...in a Multiversal System Time would be Non-Linear. Still...without movement thus no time...there can neither be action and reaction or cause and effect.

The Quantum Particle/Wave Forms that comprise every aspect of an ATOM owe part of their existance to TIME. Thus...any existing Particle or Quanta has as part of it's Space/Time dimensionality and interconnectivity to it...intrinsic to TIME or 4-D as it is commonly known.

Still...any Particle in existance cannot exist within only 3 or 4 Geometric Dimensional States.

Split Infinity

17. ### justtrying Active Member

Mar 9, 2011
329
396
Actually... you might want to support your statements. As Bill already said, there are a lot of theories out there and it would be interesting to debate them in an intellectual manner.

In response to your original post, I loved the exercises of that type when I took my non-euclidean geometry - "what would the world a 5D rock look like to a 3D? (or something along those lines)"

p.s. "Time is an illusion, created by mankind to hide reality"

18. ### SplitInfinity Thread Starter Member

Mar 3, 2013
369
9
Here is the thing...such exercise in thought as far as what would the world od a 5-D rock...look like to a world of 3-D is an exercise in Futility.

Usually people will ask...OK...what would a 5-D Object look like in our world of 3-D Objects?

Thing is...our world does NOT HAVE ANY 3-D OBJECTS! Such statements are used to define and calculate say...the Area of a Box that is 1 meter high, 2 meters long and 2 meters wide. Thus we calculate 4 cubic meters by multiplying 2x2x1=4 Cubic Meters.

BUT...the reality is that the area within this box is NOT 4 Cubic Meters due to the Space/Time Warping of Gravity. This is the ONE CONCEPT that most people have the hardest time trying to understand.

When I drop an Apple from 2 meters above sea level on Earth...NO FORCE IS EFFECTING THE APPLE. Nothing is pushing or pulling the apple. There is no EM Fields...No Chemical reaction for propulsion...no Kinetic Transfer of any Particle of Mass impacting....the apple just...FALLS.

The reason...unlike anything that is FORCED into motion....Gravity is warping thus changing the actual Space/Time Dimensionality between the Apple at 2 Meters above sea level and the ground.

Thus rather than the apple being Forced directionally thus obtaining a rate of motion guaged and calculated by Distance Traveled in an amount of time and Force=Mass X Acceleration or if velocity is constant...F=MV.

When I drop the apple from 2 meters above sea level...the Apple is EXISTING AT VARYING POINTS OF POSITION DEPENDENT UPON PASSED LINEAR TIME. The Space/Time between the apple and the ground is what is changing...NOT the location of the apple between the 2 meter level and ground.

So when people start talking about 3-D and 5-D objects...not only is the matter and energy that comprises these objects existing at a greater dimensional state than 5-D....comparisons as are mentioned in the quoted post are not really possible unless we use a False System of Comparison.

Split Infinity

Mar 9, 2011
329
396
20. ### SplitInfinity Thread Starter Member

Mar 3, 2013
369
9
Another point to note is that our Universal Space/Time Dimensionality exists in a way that every single dimensional state is connected, associated and governed to varying degrees of extent by every other dimensional state.

If this was not so then Gravity would not exist as Gravity being an Expression of One Dimensionality thus Space/Time Geometry...is shown to be created by the existance of Matter and specifically the Higgs-Boson allowing Protons and Neutrons to have mass.

Now if we understood the UFT or Unified Field Theory we would be able to generate the appropriate amount of energy necessary to create Gravitic Effect at whatever level of effect we chose.

Now such Gravitic Effect is the dimensionality of our Space/Time and all that is in it be it matter or energy being warped in line and to a lessor degree of One Dimensionality.

This shows us that One Dimensionality is interconnected and governed to an extent to all other dimensional states existing and vice versa.

But here is the thing...in our Universal Reality and Space/Time Geometry we can't have a 2-Dimensional Object nor can exist a 3, 4...etc...Dimensional object up to whatever is the actual Universal Dimensionality that exists. So if our Universal Reality was 10 Dimensional States....an OBJECT and the Quantum Particle/Wave Forms that completely comprise it...would have to exist in a 10 Dimensional State.

But as far as 2-D...Not in our Universal Reality and we certainly couldn't see something that by it's very nature would not allow light to reflect off it nor could it be made of Matter or Energy that exists in our Universe.

Split Infinity