..Not in the least bit Pynchonic -- space

[Keith Davis]

Wahunhsplaading??
On Feb 5, 2012 10:43 PM, "David Morris" <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/f36fcc3d/attachment.html>