..Not in the least bit Pynchonic -- space

[Keith Davis]

A nicely incoherent response seems appropriate.
On Feb 5, 2012 10:44 PM, "Keith Davis" <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/b070a0a9/attachment.html>