..Not in the least bit Pynchonic -- space

[Keith Davis]

Hunh?
On Feb 5, 2012 10:31 PM, "David Morris" <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> Whaa?
>
> On Friday, February 3, 2012, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> > I once tried to explain to a physics professor trying to "help" us
> imagine extra dimensions that his( in my mind demeaningly cute and
> time-wasting) use of a transition from 2 D space to 3D space was not
> helpful to me because the concept of 2D space was  more of a journey away
> from reality/experience/known perceptual frameworks than the concept of a 5
> dimensional matrix.   Does anyone else find this schematic of explanation
> tiresome and ridiculous. First, it isn't as though the universe started as
> an expansion of Euclidean geometry,  second, it all presupposes motionless
> points in motionless space  and generally imaginary things that don't act
> like real things, and 3rd it's all very chicken and eggy: what is the
> meaning of a point or singularity or one dimensionality without a larger
> dimensional conceptual framework?
> > On Feb 1, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Michael Bailey wrote:
> >
> >> what I would like to do is a nice natural-language exposition but
> >> frankly I'm not up to it.
> >>
> >> There was a fellow named Monty who used to show up here once in awhile
> >> who surely could, and I bet Dave Monroe could if he wanted to.
> >>
> >> I can tell you what your question makes me think:
> >> a) projective geometry (which figures in Pynchon, of course, with the
> >> eigenvalues) - when you look at a diagram of 3-dimensional space the
> >> diagram is flat, but if it's cunningly wrought it gives a sense of
> >> depth.
> >>
> >> b) when you look at a diagram of the bowling balls on the plastic
> >> sheets representing gravitation, that artist has abandoned the quest
> >> for that particular illusion in favor of showing an illusion of the
> >> gravitational effect on a space which is represented as a plane
> >> although it really has at least one more dimension than that!
> >>
> >> c) and of course the diagram is limited in size whereas space itself,
> >> as Douglas Adams said, is actually really really big
> >>
> >> d) the other part of your question, about the orbits and all, is
> >> something I too wish I had a feel for.  I think it would be a matter
> >> of doing the chapter questions in a good astronomy text and preferably
> >> also talking extensively (and by talking, I mean listening) w/somebody
> >> who knows it really well...
> >> like, right now, I have a pretty good feel for where I am in local
> >> space, but almost none for my position and velocity in a larger cosmic
> >> framework...
> >>
> >>
> >> Bled Welder wrote:
> >>> I suppose I could go onto a science-l whatever, but that sounds like a
> >>> hassle and you people seem to might be able to answer this question
> that
> >>> bugs me: okay getting beyond the thing that Einstein was wrong, it'll
> be
> >>> happening any day now, what is space?
> >>>
> >>> More specifickly, whenever I see examples of it, space is on a flat
> plane,
> >>> then objects do their little push into the "fabric" of it --and case!
> >>> everything is on the same frikkin plane.
> >>>
> >>> Is everything on the same frikkin plane, indenting?  I don't even know
> if
> >>> the Moon circles on the same plane as Earth does the sun.  Are all
> planets
> >>> in the same orbital format?  You know what I mean here?      b
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120205/651c8030/attachment.html>