..Not in the least bit Pynchonic -- space

[David Morris]

Splaa?

On Sunday, February 5, 2012, 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 bu?.
>>> 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/20120205/7b156d69/attachment.html>