To Math gurus

**mlewis** · Dec 6th, 2001, 03:07 PM

OK I know this is a simplified definition of "parallel" but two parallel things never intersect, or they are always overlapping, right?

Therefore a parallel universe should never OR always intersect our own.

Because of that, a parallel universe would either be exactly like ours, and thus we wouldn't know the difference; OR a parallel universe would have NOTHING in common with our own.

Comments?

jim mcnamara · Dec 6th, 2001, 03:48 PM

You're trying to confuse the Playfair (Euclid's Fourth) axiom with an n-dimensional universe. That's not "Playfair" (it's actually the name of a mathematician). I never thought I'd be given the chance to make a joke (however poor) out of it. It applies to plane geometry.

There are three versions of the axiom above:
1. parallel lines never converge or diverge
2. parallel lines converge - this is what happens on the surface of a sphere: meridian lines, eg.
3. Riemannian version - they diverge.

Changing this one thing creates entirely new geometries, each of which has broad application.
A triangle has n degrees as the sum of it's angles
With #1 n = 180
With #2 n = 270
With #3 n <180

None of which applies to cosmology very directly. At least as far as I can see. According to current 'string theory' the unverse is made up from a lot of dimensions - probably around 18.

**mlewis** · Dec 6th, 2001, 04:34 PM

I am aware of the mathematical applications of the term "parallel" as well as the dozens of geometries that are derived from modifying its basic meaning.

However, the my post above assumes one important thing: that universes can be represented in planar space. In other words, they can be thought of as a function:

Property of Universe(x) = some property of the universe

For two universii to intersect therefore, they would share properties, including basic laws of physics, what kind of matter exists in them (e.g. people

) etc.

If two universii represented by a planar functions are parallel, then by the definition of parallel curves, they will always remain the same distance apart (which means that can also always remain 0 distance apart and thus always overlap) and therefore they share no or all of their properties.

Make sense?

You may also want to check out this thread

**Guv** · Dec 7th, 2001, 12:45 AM

This thread suggests some fascinating subject matter.

It is not clear that parallel in the context of parallel universes has the same meaning as parallel in ordinary geometry.

The concept seems to be trying to describe two or more 3D spaces embedded in a higher order (say 4D) space. This seems analoguous to describing two or more 2D spaces embedded in a 3D space.

If you consider 2D surfaces in a 3D space, you can talk about the surfaces of spheres, cones, cylinders, tori, planes, et cetera. Such surfaces can intersect eachother, and a point can move along a curved (or straight) line from one such surface to another.

Note that the intersection of two 2D spaces (surfaces) can be a 1D space (curve). I guess that the intersection of two 3D spaces can be a 2D space (surface).

At any rate, if you assume so called parallel universes, why assume that they cannot intersect? Why assume that nothing can travel from one 3D space to another? If nothing else, such assumptions prevent the writing of some good SciFi.

BTW: There are 2D spaces (surfaces) that cannot be embedded in an ordinary Flat 3D space. The Klein Bottle is an example of a surface which cannot be embedded in a Flat 3D space. This is analogous to the fact that some 1D surfaces (curves) cannot be embedded in a plane. Helix and corkscrew shapes are examples of such curves.

**simonm** · Dec 7th, 2001, 08:17 AM

Because of that, a parallel universe would either be exactly like ours, and thus we wouldn't know the difference; OR a parallel universe would have NOTHING in common with our own.

In parellel universe theories I have heard about, there are an infinite number of them.

There are universes containing every physical possibility. i.e. If something is physically possible, there will be a unvierse, somewhere, that contains it. The more likely it is to occur, the higher proportion of universes that will contain it.

There are universes that are almost identical in every way ranging to universes that are completely different from ours.

**STT** · Dec 7th, 2001, 04:45 PM

in Gaussian geometry, I believe, two paralell lines can converge...

I believe that paralell universes are only created when somebody travels back in time in his frame of reference.. thus the actions that he or she does at that new time has no effect on the initial time.. so a paralell universe is formed where that person's new life was formed from a result of time travel and his initial life...

**STT** · Dec 7th, 2001, 04:56 PM

in Gaussian geometry, I believe, two paralell lines can converge...

I believe that paralell universes are only created when somebody travels back in time in his frame of reference.. thus the actions that he or she does at that new time has no effect on the initial time.. so a paralell universe is formed where that person's new life was formed from a result of time travel and his initial life...

**mlewis** · Dec 7th, 2001, 06:35 PM

Which means that as far as we know, ours is the only universe

**Guv** · Dec 7th, 2001, 11:21 PM

There are some Posts here which imply that the poster believes in the reality of parallel universes. Worse yet, the beliefs seem to relate to SciFi concepts.

I hope that nobody at this forum really believes in such nonsense.

The existence of other universes seems to be an open question at this point in our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature, but some variations on this concept are obviously nonsense.

While other universes might exist, the notion of parallel universes coming into existence to avoid time machine paradoxes is wonderful SciFi and absolute nonsense in any version of reality. Also silly is the notion that parallel universes are created due to Quantum events.

The Wheeler-Everett Many Worlds view of Quantum Theory is believed by many brilliant people who never heard of Occam’s Razor. Many other brilliant people believe it is bull poop invented by diseased minds. It is an incredible leap of faith in nonsense to believe that a quantum event involving an almost infinitesimal amount of energy could cause the entire universe to duplicate itself so that both possible outcomes can be realized, one in each universe.

The existence of intelligent people so baffled by Quantum weirdness that they are willing to accept the Many Worlds view is sorry evidence that intelligence is no defense against various forms of neurotic behavior and totally irrational beliefs. When I first read about the Many Worlds interpretation of QT, I stopped being amazed at those who believed in ghosts, ESP, the Bermuda Triangle, ancient astronauts, alien abductions, and articles in the National Enquirer.

**STT** · Dec 8th, 2001, 12:29 PM

Believing that a paralell universes are created when a person makes a choice is crazy, but me saying that one can form from time travel is not.. time travel is possible, its just improbable. The idea of paralell universes in my earlioer post did not come from a time paradox from a Sci-Fi movie, but modern science. Some things today we believe are crazy, but int he future those things that we initially believed were crazy, are actually very true and possible... Look at the people thousands of years ago, they believed that it was impossible to reach the moon and ideas that said it was possible to reach the moon were crazy.. will, guess what?? we reached to moon.. And those stars that you see in the night sky that are light years away, are closer than you think.

**Guv** · Dec 8th, 2001, 07:28 PM

The following is a fallacious argument that does not provide any reason for believing some current idea not backed up by some semblance of evidence.

Look at the people thousands of years ago, they believed that it was impossible to reach the moon and ideas that said it was possible to reach the moon were crazy.. will, guess what?? we reached to moon..

If you cannot back up a belief with any better argument, forget it.

Fallacious arguments can be used to support almost anything. Those who use fallacious arguments deserve to have their ideas dismissed without further consideration.

**STT** · Dec 8th, 2001, 07:34 PM

Guv, people back then did believe that it was impossible to go to the moon, read it in a history book... and the reason your saying my posts are fallacious is b/c you DO NOT want to believe them, but you know the arguement I made is true...

**NotLKH** · Dec 9th, 2001, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by STT
Guv, people back then did believe that it was impossible to go to the moon, read it in a history book... and the reason your saying my posts are fallacious is b/c you DO NOT want to believe them, but you know the arguement I made is true...

Wait a minute, you actually BELEIVE we made it to the MOON?
Don't you know that was {and still is} a Hoax perpetrated by the Gov't?

**mlewis** · Dec 9th, 2001, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by NotLKH

Wait a minute, you actually BELEIVE we made it to the MOON?
Don't you know that was {and still is} a Hoax perpetrated by the Gov't?

Do YOU?

**STT** · Dec 9th, 2001, 02:19 PM

excuse my language, but that is a bunch of bull ****!

go to this cite and read:

http://www.bestofcolumbus.com/braeunig/space/hoax.htm

_____________
No Guv, I will not take you off my signature!

**mlewis** · Dec 9th, 2001, 03:25 PM

WOW Thats a cool article!

**NotLKH** · Dec 9th, 2001, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by STT
excuse my language, but that is a bunch of bull ****!

What an Amazing Coincidence!
The Author of the Cited web page, a Mr. ROBERT A. BRAEUNIG, Cites his Employer, { here } ,
as being Ulliman Schutte Construction, LLC , and its very evident what THEY specialize in!
****, indeed!

{I wonder if they have an opening for me!

}

-Lou

**Guv** · Dec 9th, 2001, 08:59 PM

STT and others: A fallacious argument is a fallacious argument. Quoting a true statement that is irrelevant to the argument at hand is not evidence.

Yes it is true that people had silly beliefs in the past. However, their erroneous beliefs are not evidence for anything but their ignorance of modern science. It is not even evidence of stupidity on their part, only ignorance.

I believe there is a planet orbiting Sirius which is the exact twin of the Earth. It even includes somebody exactly like me.

Do not tell me this is a foolish idea. 2000 years ago people believed you would fall off the edge of the world if you sailed too far on the ocean. Obviously, they were wrong. Since they turned out to be wrong, anybody who disagrees with me now is likely to be wrong, and I have a good reason to believe in my twin Earth.

Not only that I believe that someday we will be able to travel from here to a place 12 billion light years away in less that a second. Remember that 200 years ago, they thought that talking to somebody 1000 miles away was impossible. Now we have radio & telephone which allows you to talk to people 12,000 miles away. See how foolish those people were only 200 years ago. Therefore, I am being very reasonable in expecting the future to allow 12 billion light years to be traversed in less that a second. Piece of cake in another 300-500 years.

What a wonderful way to make belief in anything reasonable. Just point to some foolish belief held in the past and claim that it is evidence in favor of your belief in some bit of nonsense.

If that argument does not work, try the fallacious ad hominem argument. Find some statement made by Adolf Hitler and say it must be false because he was such a ba***rd. A better version of this argument is to find something you can say bad about the person you disagree with and claim that is evidence against his point of view on an entirely different subject.

**mlewis** · Dec 9th, 2001, 09:53 PM

I gotta hear this; why is there a parallel earth?!

**STT** · Dec 9th, 2001, 09:58 PM

I do believe that one day we will be able to travel billions of light years in less than a second... i also believe that time travel is possible, it is possible to travel into other dimensions, i belive in quantum teleportation, being at 2 places at the same time, i believe in prepetual machines, I believe that that paralell universes are created when traveling back in times, and i believe we will find a unified theory that explains the nature of the universe in the near future..

I believe that anything is possible once you leave behind doubt, unbelief, and distrust.
BTW: like my signature?

_______________
No Guv, I will not take you off my signature!

**STT** · Dec 9th, 2001, 10:05 PM

And my post was relevant to the subject: you said that believing that paralell universes arecreated when traveling back in time was insane, so i used an example of ppl back then believing it was impossible to reach the moon.
Which means today, Guv, you say its impossible for paralell universes to create by time travel, but in the future it will be as possible as driving from New Jersey to New York.
Which just shows my arguement: everything we believe that is impossible, will be possible in the future...

**kedaman** · Dec 10th, 2001, 01:33 AM

What's the point in thinking that you can travel at lightspeed in a couple of centuries, when you don't get a chance to do that yourself. Even if you could do that within two next decenii, whats the use of believing in it? Two words: it's pointless.

If you want to predict something for practical purposes, say how long you can stay on your comp before you have to leave without missing the bus, then there's of course value in information how far it is to the bus depot, how fast you can run, and what time it etc, but does that require you to believe that the buss actually comes in time? No you assume it does for practical purposes.

**Guv** · Dec 11th, 2001, 12:51 AM

STT: You are hopeless at present. The following indicates that there is no limit to what you believe is possible.[quote]I do believe that one day we will be able to travel billions of light years in less than a second... i also believe that time travel is possible, it is possible to travel into other dimensions, i belive in quantum teleportation, being at 2 places at the same time, i believe in prepetual machines, I believe that that paralell universes are created when traveling back in times, and i believe we will find a unified theory that explains the nature of the universe in the near future..

I believe that anything is possible once you leave behind doubt, unbelief, and distrust. [/B]You are probably willing to believe that an irresistable force and an immovable object can exist in the same universe. Why not? You use fallacisous arguments to support your beliefs, why worry about laws of logic and paradoxical statements?

**mlewis** · Dec 11th, 2001, 09:05 AM

Since you like weird logic and pitifully invalid arguments:

Tell me if this is true or false:

This Statement Is False.

**STT** · Dec 11th, 2001, 09:34 AM

Guv, the word impossible does not exist. Whoever made that word is an idiot. Anything is possible in the universe, it just takes some time and belief for it to happen. The problem with you Guv is your bound to the rules of physics.. sure you know a lot about the subject, but your unbelief is topping you to extend all your knowledge. All the leading physicists have a lot of knowledge about physics (of course), but the one thing that you have is belief. This belief lets their minds soar and thus they are able to think of new ideas that at first seem impossible to be porven, but once you examine and investigate the sybject more, it is very very possible...

**simonm** · Dec 11th, 2001, 09:42 AM

STT

the word impossible does not exist. Whoever made that word is an idiot. Anything is possible in the universe, it just takes some time and belief for it to happen.

OK, if anything's possible given time and belief, how long would it take you to find the factors of a prime number (besides the number itself and one)?

If the point you make is that many of the things we now think of as being impossible may turn out, one day, to be possible, then that's fair enough.

To suggest that anything is possible is much more of a bold statement.

**Guv** · Dec 11th, 2001, 04:43 PM

STT: Your belief that anything is possible is equivalent to a religious faith.

I apologize for arguing with you on such a belief. While I happen to be an atheist, I hardly ever argue against a belief in god, although an illogical proof that he exists often tempts me into pointing out where it is fallacious.

I never argue with beliefs based on faith and nothing else other than fallacious arguments. You have faith in your belef that nothing is impossible.

It is not right for me to deny such a belief.

**STT** · Dec 11th, 2001, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by simonm
STT

OK, if anything's possible given time and belief, how long would it take you to find the factors of a prime number (besides the number itself and one)?

If the point you make is that many of the things we now think of as being impossible may turn out, one day, to be possible, then that's fair enough.

To suggest that anything is possible is much more of a bold statement.

the factors of a prime number, well in the future a new mathematics might be formed where you can find the factors of a prime number. As a matter of fact, the leading quantum gravity theories require an entire new mathematics.. so u never know, that potential new mathematics might allow factors of a prime number...

and Guv, I really admire all your knowledge about physics, but in what way are u calling my points fallacious? in me misleading people or...?

BTW: i believe in God is b/c his paterns is evident in the world around us and b/c His prophets and Holy Books show great proof that He exists.. (but lets not start a religous debate, this is a math forum)

**mlewis** · Dec 11th, 2001, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by STT

the factors of a prime number, well in the future a new mathematics might be formed where you can find the factors of a prime number

What the heck!?!?!

The DEFINITION of a prime number is a number which has no factors except itself and one. THEREFORE by the very DEFINITION you cannot have factors of a prime number other than 1 and the number itself!

**STT** · Dec 11th, 2001, 05:24 PM

a new mathematics means new defenitions...

**mlewis** · Dec 11th, 2001, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by STT
a new mathematics means new defenitions...

A new mathematics would not redefine that!

You are a stubborn fool! You don't even understand definitions!

That's like deciding that in the year 2004, we will change the meaning of half the words in English! IT DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY!

**STT** · Dec 11th, 2001, 06:18 PM

stupid arse, read carefully!

I said anything is possible, so if thgis new mathematics wanted to change defnitions, then a new defnition for prime numbers will be established! And what I was really trying to say is that this new math will disprove some of our notions about today's math and will state that you can find the factors of a rpime number with solid, concrete proof!

mlewis, next time read and analyze closely before you start people names b/c if you want a name calling contest, then we can have one.

**mlewis** · Dec 11th, 2001, 06:49 PM

I understand your arguments...that's not the point.

The point is, it would be stupid to change the definition of something just because its convenient. Mathematics defnitions are rigorously tested and well proven. They do not just get changed because someone gets a new idea.

Beleive that it would happen if you like, if you are that deluded, then I seriously pity you.

**Guv** · Dec 11th, 2001, 09:08 PM

Stt: There are various fallacious arguments used so often that logicians have given them names. I do not know the name of the one you are guilty of, but it might be called a non sequiter argument.

At any rate, the idea behind this particular fallacious argument is to make a valid (or true) statment which is irrelevant to the subject matter being discussed and then attempt to use it to support or reject a point of view.

You (and many others) often state that somebody had a stupid idea in the past (a possibly true statement) and use it to support a current point of view.

Statments like people once said that man will never fly are evidence that certain people in the past were ignorant concerning what might be discovered in the future. Such statements are not evidence of much else.

Consider that when some people were saying that man would never fly, others (Da Vinci, for example) were drawing what they thought were plausible flying machines. While many people thought the world was flat 1000 years ago, there were Greeks about 2000 or more years ago that knew (or thought) it was a sphere, and calculated its diameter fairly accurately. People like Da Vinci and those ancient Greeks might be evidence that some past opinions were pretty good, suggesting that some current opinion is also pretty good. This latter is also a fallacious argument: It happens to be somewhat the reverse of the one you favor.

As far as I am concerned, references to what people believed in the past makes me ignore the opinion of the person using such an argument.

Another argument that is fallacious and likely to result in my making nasty remarks is the when I was young and foolish argument. This one starts by saying that when I was a child (or before I learned . . . ), I believed in your idea, but now . . .

That argument is an insult, since it is a subtle way of calling a person a stupid child or an uneducated jerk.

Another one is If you had an open mind, . . . This is a subtle way of saying If you were as smart as I am . . .

That is another insulting argument.

When a person uses fallacious arguments, he shows that he is either a cunning disreputable scam artist (Id est, a politician) or is ignorant of how to think logically, or perhaps both.

**NotLKH** · Dec 11th, 2001, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by STT
I said anything is possible!

Cool!
So you admit that the Hoax that the Gov't perpretated on us about sending Men to the Moon is NOT BULL****.

After all, its not Impossible

**simonm** · Dec 12th, 2001, 04:57 AM

STT

I said anything is possible, so if thgis new mathematics wanted to change defnitions, then a new defnition for prime numbers will be established!

Well if they changed the definition of a prime number, it would no longer be a prime number. (Obviously, I'm talking about interger factors here).

Mathematics defnitions are rigorously tested and well proven.

Hmmm...That's not quite true. One should point out that the last attempt to prove the consistancy of the axioms of mathematics ended up in prooving that such a proof was impossible to come by (i.e. Godel's incompleteness theorem).

**STT** · Dec 12th, 2001, 09:36 AM

It is possible for the moon landing to be a hoax, but it would be very unlikely for it to be one...

All I am saying is anything is possible, I did not say that they will change the defnition of a prime number, I just said it is POSSIBLE for it to happen. We think that the shortest dsitance between two points is a line, right? thats a well proven defnition in Eucdilan (have no idea how to spell that) geometry, but the defnition changes in Gaussian Geometry and thr shortest distance between two points is not a line, so anything is possible!

**Guv** · Dec 12th, 2001, 08:13 PM

Stt: First off your assertion that anything is possible is silly and does not deserve a rebuttal.

Next, consider your following remark.

We think that the shortest dsitance between two points is a line, right? thats a well proven defnition in Eucdilan (have no idea how to spell that) geometry, but the defnition changes in Gaussian Geometry and thr shortest distance between two points is not a line, so anything is possible!

Gaussian geometry deals with curved surfaces like spheres, pseudo spheres, tori (Plural of torus?), cylinders, hyperbolic saddle surfaces, et cetera. When constrained to stay on a curved surface, the shortest distance between two points is usually not a straight line. The shortest distance between two point is still a straight line if leaving the surface is allowed. BTW: there are some curved surfaces on which Euclidean straight lines are the shortest distances between certain pairs of point.

Making a valid statement on an unrelated subject, does not constitute the beginnings of a proof. It is a fallacious argument. I realize that I have been using words with more than one syllable, and sentences with more than 3-6 words, but how difficult is it to understand my descriptions of this type of fallacious argument.

Now you are using non sequitur arguments but not bothering to make valid irrelevant statements (note your erroneous view of Gaussian geometry).

Once again, to claim that something is possible, one is expected to present valid arguments relating to the subject at hand. For fairly complex issues, formal proofs based on mathematical logic are not possible, but some level of intellectual integrity should be required.

Among other issues, this started off with your belief in the possibility of time travel and parallel universes. Few, if any, of the statements you have made are relevant to these concepts. Most of your statements do not relate to the issues you are discussing.

Science fiction style time travel is too ridiculous to discuss. Parallel universes have some merit, although the Wheeler-Everett theories (used to explain QT) are almost too silly to discuss. Actually, the only reason to consider the W-E parallel universe theory is the credentials of the people who seem to believe it. No matter how silly an idea is, it deserves some consideration if brilliant people propose it.

If you want to convince somebody of your belief in a parallel universe, talk about the possible source of energy and matter required for such a universe. Talk about how a incredible number of 3D spaces can be embedded in the same 4D space. Perhaps discuss 2D spaces embedded in a 3D space, and point out an analogy with 3D spaces embedded in a 4D space. Perhaps mention some of the theories about vacuum energy and how some believe it gave rise to our Big Bang Universe.

So far you have stated that you believe in time travel, parallel universes, and other SciFi concepts. To support your beliefs you use fallacious arguments and call me (perhaps others) stupid for not agreeing with you. If it bothers you that I do not believe your pet theories, perhaps you should ask your mommy to scold me for upsetting you.

Thread: To Math gurus

Thread Tools

Display

To Math gurus

The not so obvious uselessness of beliefs

STT: Please tell me if this is true or false

Posting Permissions