Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
A Necker Cube? LOL. Try Again, Buddy.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Luis Hamburgh on May 10, 2002 01:28:39 UTC

Sorry Paul, but you're miles from understanding my model:

>>>"(The tesseract) happens to be the simplest and most straightforward, and yet accurate, way of doing so."

In other words, and the tesseract is the simplest model you know of.

The tesseract shows a 3 dimensional cube, and connects it with another, offset & identical 3 dimensional cube. It then attempts to indicate 4D perspective by moving one or both cubes through 2 dimensions. Nonsense. What you get is a very awkward manner of expressing the effect of the fourth spatial dimension.

It's much like representing a 3d cube by drawing a square, and connecting it with another, offest & identical square -- a very common way of drawing a cube, sure, but certainly not the best. The third dimension is much harder to perceive without perspective. HOWEVER, represent a cube on paper by drawing a square, and then connecting it to a similar, but not precisely equal cube (i.e., by acknowledging the resultant perspective), and you are showing the effect of a third spatial dimension.

>>>"Your method produces a degenerate case of a cube-within-a-cube tesseract."

LOL! Did you even read my description? There is no second cube in model.

>>>"Total non-sequitur. The 'curled up' theory has nothing to do with inflation."

Really? Nothing? Hmmm...

Okay, okay... I should not have used the term 'theory,' as I don't think there's any real theory just yet. And, if there is a theory (and not just some hypotheses) called "The Curled Up Theory," then I experienced another one of my cerebral flatulence episodes. Duh! But, no matter -- my knowledge of the ideas of others is not at issue here.

I'm speaking from my own model, of which I introduced a tidbit, and that we've already established you cannot fathom. Insult it all you want, but if you can't even grasp its simplest modicum your criticism of it is obviously a reflection of ignorance, and has no bearing on reality. Sorry, I don't have a nice, user-friendly website, packed with graphics, for the benefit of my descriptions. Frankly, I don't think anyone would be interested, and those who might be (like you) will just insult my ineptitude, anyway.

>>>"...the picture of your degenerate hypercube adds nothing."

Let me try again. Maybe you'll agree with the following:

(1) Here's a "necker cube":

(2) Here's a "tesseract":

(3) Here's a "hypercube," sometimes equated with the "tesseract":

Of these three, the "hypercube" is the best model out there, but still lacking in facilitating an understanding of a fourth spatial dimension.

A Necker cube? LOL! Sorry pal, but I really believe you're just a tad out of your visualization league here.


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins