Post by **Gio** » 16 Apr 2020, 11:15

@ricky miller, IMHO we were actually making a progress while we kept the subject of 4D vs 3D, but then someone decided to go back to 3D vs 2D so... let them have it!

TLDR; The earth cannot possibly "be" a sphere, round, flat, or any other shape you can possibly even think of right now: All these models are subjective and flawed simplifications. Shapes are and always will be perspective-bound and there is much more than one possible perspective out there.

There is another possibility yet to be discussed regarding this subject: Maybe the shape is somewhat like the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle in quatum mechanics. Basically, whenever you look at the earth, you are looking from a given perspective, which means that the earth is

forced to assume either 2D or 3D aspects depending on the measurements being taken

by you. The earth seems flat on ground level and it seems round on the distance, but are any of these shapes a real final answer? See below.

Let us now consider this the question: if the earth seems flat on ground level and seems round on the distance, and if we stick to these notions, aren't we just trying to define it's shape

based on the observer?

If we know that the earth is at the very least 4D (since spacetime distortion is proved and

earth is thus affecting the spacetime, around and in itself, in an unseeable way) but we also know that we cannot even currently imagine it's true 4D shape, does the true shape of the earth really even exists? or rather:

does the shape even exists without an observer?

Think about it: we know that when we look at a planet, light reaching our eyes had it's path distorted by the planets mass/gravity. Therefore, we know by conclusion that the planets actual shape is NOT as we see it. But

is an actual shape not just a creation of our brains?

When you program a game, you assign properties to the objects in such a way that upon rendering, they are represented in a 3D space. But do these properties form a 3D space

without the actual rendering? We can certainly program objects with more than 4 dimensions, we just cannot renderize them unless we find a way to drop them into a 3D (or 2D) representation. But the objects can exist in 4D in our programming regardless of the observers and whats more: they can interact with each other in 4D. However,

accurate representations of them cannot be made. So if the object is actually 4D and we do simplify it to a 3D form, and them even further simplify it to a slideshow of 2D frames (like an animation), does that mean that the object IS 3D and nothing more? NO! And the same should probably apply to earth: it is NOT simply 3D.

There is no such a thing as a 4D shape. Shapes are

observer dependant and as far as we can tell from known human observers, this means that

shapes are at most 3D. And if the "shape" of the earth can be (and IS actually) affected by more than 3 dimensions, then we reach a problem here:

no shape can accomodate the earth in it's full glory.

Spoiler When we consider how 3D can be thought as a set of infinite 2D images in the same way that 2D is a set of infinite lines, then

4D can also be thought as a set of infinite 3D "shapes". How such a set of shapes could work for a perfect "4D sphere" is something that can be seen in the video below:

THE PROBLEM is that many of the candidate characteristics for a possible fourth dimension of the earth are NOT "round" or even smooth at all: THE MASS/GRAVITY FIELD IS NOT SMOOTH AS THE GEOID SHOWS AND IF TIME IS YOUR CANDIDATE FOURTH DIMENSION

THE EARTH PERFORMS BOTH AN ELLIPSOID MOVEMENT AROUND THE SUN AND A ROTATIONAL MOVEMENT AROUND ITSELF which means that if the different positions through time are superimposed you would get at the very least a bizrrely imperfect elipsoid torus or other hollow-like varying form in which the spikes go up and down in varying ways. But if this is not enougth complication for you, don't forget this: positions are in fact all relative in the universe, which means that if it might look like this torus or hollow form when it's movements are shaped throught time as anchored to the sun,

it certainly doesn't look like so if your anchor is something like the center of the universe. IF this is the case, then the set of superimposed imagens would acquire a

totally and absurdely different shape: the solar system revolves around the galaxy, which revolves around an empty center of gravity in our galaxy cluster, which revolves around the virgo supercluster, which revolves around the Laniakea supercluster... Which perhaps ultimately makes some completely uninmaginable movement through the universe that... may take more time than the universe itself has and that is if we don't consider the fact that distant galaxies are so far away from us that space is being distorted more than the time it would take for the earth to reach... so that...

And also the whole universe is flat-like in fact, which means... wait, did you just read that

the universe is FLAT?

So if the shape of 4D earth is though as a superimposed set of 3D positions through spacetime then the shape is... flat?

Well only if the earth does go around every possible place in the universe when you consider the infinitude of time, because so far, considering the 4.5 billion years that the earth currently has, i doubt that the trajectory would have made something that we would consider as flat as the universe itself. So if the earth explodes or is consumed by the sun in a few billion years... i think the shape is not as if it had travelled to every possible place in the universe. but then....

Ok, this is enougth i know. If we cannot predict the future, we cannot shape the set of superimposed positions of the earth through time and therefore, with time as a fourth dimension, the set of shapes is impossible to visualize.

So now that we know for certain that earth

isn't "ultimately" round, but rather that

a very simplified representation of it that doesnt account for many of it's characteristics is. Let us discuss then something else that seems to be very important for this topic:

what the flat-earth (or even the round-earth) mentality actually is.

The flat-earth mentality

is the binding of a mind to a simplified concept. Thus, it is a denial of any other possible models, of any other possible views. It is the proposition of a single objective representation, perceivable by men (because men "must have the truth"), that would somehow be able to cancel other concurring representations. Now, this may apply to flat-earth views, but we must all open our eyes:

it can also apply equaly to 3D views, such as the round-earth prospect.

When we say the earth is 3D, what we are doing is also simplifying the matter based on OUR limited perceptions, even though we know already that there are many other material properties in the object that could very well make into new dimensions on a different perspective.

What people do when they propose a model (be it 2D, 3D or whatever) is to simplify the set of characteristics up to a point. It is the same thing we do when we project a map or a building. We take the variables that are most important (to us, obviously, because other variables can be more important for other scenarios!) and then use only these to build up a plan that can be represented in 2D or 3D depending on the scope of the object. As the projects scope changes, however, so does the importance of each variable, and this can go up to a point in which GPS system planning REQUIRED 4th dimension calculations to work. Thats right: An extant observable phenomena does require the earth to be thought of as a 4D object rather than a 3D one.

So if "shapes" cannot accomodate 4D, 5D or even higher dimensional objects, than it must be true that

Gio wrote: ↑13 Sep 2017, 17:43

Conclusion: The earth has no definitive shape. (Where is that option?)

Cheers!

[mention]ricky miller[/mention], IMHO we were actually making a progress while we kept the subject of 4D vs 3D, but then someone decided to go back to 3D vs 2D so... let them have it! :angel:

TLDR; The earth cannot possibly "be" a sphere, round, flat, or any other shape you can possibly even think of right now: All these models are subjective and flawed simplifications. Shapes are and always will be perspective-bound and there is much more than one possible perspective out there.

There is another possibility yet to be discussed regarding this subject: Maybe the shape is somewhat like the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle in quatum mechanics. Basically, whenever you look at the earth, you are looking from a given perspective, which means that the earth is [u]forced[/u] to assume either 2D or 3D aspects depending on the measurements being taken [u]by you[/u]. The earth seems flat on ground level and it seems round on the distance, but are any of these shapes a real final answer? See below.

[spoiler]Take the spacetime distortion caused by the earths mass/gravity, account for it on a 3D model and you get the Geoid, which is NOT round.

[img]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/4xK6QHdkGEPsidxoUqFzb1wqsXEbY27MoRKxvFVxs6xZdFpv8u-P3t4G15-IotgtVDiEIXnI72SI5VCO1FfpG8r1mcgIV1xld37UK35K3YQCIYOjgA8ildWVHKtlwXisDw=s412[/img]

That being said, the Geoid is NOT an accurate representation of the earth in 4D. That is so because a 3D model simply CANNOT represent a 4D object in it's true glory, so what we see above is actually a 3D object in which the 3 dimensions have been distorted by the fourth, rather than a complete 4 undistorted dimensions. This is something to keep in mind.[/spoiler]

:arrow: Let us now consider this the question: if the earth seems flat on ground level and seems round on the distance, and if we stick to these notions, aren't we just trying to define it's shape [u]based on the observer[/u]? :think:

If we know that the earth is at the very least 4D (since spacetime distortion is proved and [url=https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c04a569d84ea376c2703d4e2ead88ebf.webp]earth is thus affecting the spacetime, around and in itself, in an unseeable way[/url]) but we also know that we cannot even currently imagine it's true 4D shape, does the true shape of the earth really even exists? or rather: [u]does the shape even exists without an observer[/u]?

Think about it: we know that when we look at a planet, light reaching our eyes had it's path distorted by the planets mass/gravity. Therefore, we know by conclusion that the planets actual shape is NOT as we see it. But [u]is an actual shape not just a creation of our brains[/u]?

:arrow: When you program a game, you assign properties to the objects in such a way that upon rendering, they are represented in a 3D space. But do these properties form a 3D space [u]without[/u] the actual rendering? We can certainly program objects with more than 4 dimensions, we just cannot renderize them unless we find a way to drop them into a 3D (or 2D) representation. But the objects can exist in 4D in our programming regardless of the observers and whats more: they can interact with each other in 4D. However, [u]accurate representations of them cannot be made[/u]. So if the object is actually 4D and we do simplify it to a 3D form, and them even further simplify it to a slideshow of 2D frames (like an animation), does that mean that the object IS 3D and nothing more? NO! And the same should probably apply to earth: it is NOT simply 3D.

:arrow: There is no such a thing as a 4D shape. Shapes are [u]observer dependant[/u] and as far as we can tell from known human observers, this means that [u]shapes are at most 3D[/u]. And if the "shape" of the earth can be (and IS actually) affected by more than 3 dimensions, then we reach a problem here: [u]no shape can accomodate the earth in it's full glory[/u].

[spoiler] :arrow: When we consider how 3D can be thought as a set of infinite 2D images in the same way that 2D is a set of infinite lines, then [u]4D can also be thought as a set of infinite 3D "shapes"[/u]. How such a set of shapes could work for a perfect "4D sphere" is something that can be seen in the video below:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4ruHJFsb4g[/youtube]

:arrow: [u]THE PROBLEM is that many of the candidate characteristics for a possible fourth dimension of the earth are NOT "round" or even smooth at all[/u]: THE MASS/GRAVITY FIELD IS NOT SMOOTH AS THE GEOID SHOWS AND IF TIME IS YOUR CANDIDATE FOURTH DIMENSION [u]THE EARTH PERFORMS BOTH AN ELLIPSOID MOVEMENT AROUND THE SUN AND A ROTATIONAL MOVEMENT AROUND ITSELF[/u] which means that if the different positions through time are superimposed you would get at the very least a bizrrely imperfect elipsoid torus or other hollow-like varying form in which the spikes go up and down in varying ways. But if this is not enougth complication for you, don't forget this: positions are in fact all relative in the universe, which means that if it might look like this torus or hollow form when it's movements are shaped throught time as anchored to the sun, [u]it certainly doesn't look like so if your anchor is something like the center of the universe[/u]. IF this is the case, then the set of superimposed imagens would acquire a [u]totally and absurdely different shape[/u]: the solar system revolves around the galaxy, which revolves around an empty center of gravity in our galaxy cluster, which revolves around the virgo supercluster, which revolves around the Laniakea supercluster... Which perhaps ultimately makes some completely uninmaginable movement through the universe that... may take more time than the universe itself has and that is if we don't consider the fact that distant galaxies are so far away from us that space is being distorted more than the time it would take for the earth to reach... so that... [u]And also the whole universe is flat-like in fact[/u], which means... wait, did you just read that [url=https://www.space.com/34928-the-universe-is-flat-now-what.html]the universe is FLAT[/url]? :wtf:

So if the shape of 4D earth is though as a superimposed set of 3D positions through spacetime then the shape is... flat?

:arrow: Well only if the earth does go around every possible place in the universe when you consider the infinitude of time, because so far, considering the 4.5 billion years that the earth currently has, i doubt that the trajectory would have made something that we would consider as flat as the universe itself. So if the earth explodes or is consumed by the sun in a few billion years... i think the shape is not as if it had travelled to every possible place in the universe. but then.... [u]Ok, this is enougth i know[/u]. If we cannot predict the future, we cannot shape the set of superimposed positions of the earth through time and therefore, with time as a fourth dimension, the set of shapes is impossible to visualize. [/spoiler]

:arrow: So now that we know for certain that earth [u]isn't[/u] "ultimately" round, but rather that [u]a very simplified representation of it that doesnt account for many of it's characteristics is[/u]. Let us discuss then something else that seems to be very important for this topic: [u]what the flat-earth (or even the round-earth) mentality actually is[/u].

The flat-earth mentality [u]is the binding of a mind to a simplified concept[/u]. Thus, it is a denial of any other possible models, of any other possible views. It is the proposition of a single objective representation, perceivable by men (because men "must have the truth"), that would somehow be able to cancel other concurring representations. Now, this may apply to flat-earth views, but we must all open our eyes: [u]it can also apply equaly to 3D views, such as the round-earth prospect[/u].

:arrow: When we say the earth is 3D, what we are doing is also simplifying the matter based on OUR limited perceptions, even though we know already that there are many other material properties in the object that could very well make into new dimensions on a different perspective.

[img]https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/711x373/https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2016/11/sony-4d-focus-1.jpg?width=960[/img]

What people do when they propose a model (be it 2D, 3D or whatever) is to simplify the set of characteristics up to a point. It is the same thing we do when we project a map or a building. We take the variables that are most important (to us, obviously, because other variables can be more important for other scenarios!) and then use only these to build up a plan that can be represented in 2D or 3D depending on the scope of the object. As the projects scope changes, however, so does the importance of each variable, and this can go up to a point in which GPS system planning REQUIRED 4th dimension calculations to work. Thats right: An extant observable phenomena does require the earth to be thought of as a 4D object rather than a 3D one.

:arrow: So if "shapes" cannot accomodate 4D, 5D or even higher dimensional objects, than it must be true that

[quote=Gio post_id=170410 time=1505342601 user_id=89]Conclusion: The earth has no definitive shape. (Where is that option?) :think:

[/quote]

Cheers! :beer: