St37One (August 30, 2008 at 12:52 am)

People often forget that psudoscience is much older than the real deal, merely because most of the confusing and misleading imitations that we encounter are retrospective, rather than prophetic.

St37One (August 30, 2008 at 12:08 am)

If you respect novelty for the sake of novelty, then you ought to look up bistromathics.

St37One (August 30, 2008 at 12:06 am)

Im sorry but you are incorrect, because there is no singe "old" way of thinking, and this is not a "new" way of thinking at all.It is a comment regardless of whether you agree with it or not, but if you think that it was reduntant, then you are plainly and simply wrong.BTW, don't run too far with the idea that novelty trumps truth and accuracy.

socratesrock (August 29, 2008 at 11:23 pm)

You're looking at a project which calls itself "a new of thinking about time and space" and complaining that it's not the old way of thinking? How is that even a comment???

St37One (August 29, 2008 at 11:18 pm)

This is nonsense.I say this not out of a lack of imagination, but out of a thourough familiarization on the differences between scientific and psuedoscientific conjecture.

10thdim (August 29, 2008 at 8:07 pm)

But the 2D observer is still stuck in his 2D plane. So the words "up" and "down" are meaningless and beyond a 2D flatlander's ability to perceive. In the same way, we can't "see" in the directions of time or reverse time, we can only see the 3D "now" that we are embedded within.Since this is just a thought experiment, you have to remember that we're imagining the ant to be 2D, so saying "it assumes a 3D state" is breaking the rules of the mental game we're playing in the example.Rob

10thdim (August 29, 2008 at 8:00 pm)

Absolutely right! I talk about this in my video blog "What Would a Flatlander Really See", where I show what the one-eyed jack character should really have looked like to have a functioning eye. You can find that here on YouTube. You might also enjoy another vlog called "What Would a Linelander Really See".Thanks for writing!Rob

baetores (August 29, 2008 at 7:57 pm)

It would be more logic if another dimension would be not of the same "unit" (volt, meter, seconds) but a transition into a different one. Like matter turning into energy, or time turning into colour or spiritual turning into physical or something like that.

baetores (August 29, 2008 at 7:55 pm)

The ant does not mysteriously walk from one place to another. As soon as you curb the newspaper and if the ant has a certain size, the ant itself would assume a three-dimensional state of being. An observer would still look at it as if it is part of the 2D world and would see the connection between the edges as well. Ergo: The ant would not disappear in the perception of a 2D observer.

baetores (August 29, 2008 at 7:50 pm)

The eye of the flatlander doesn't see anything. It should be right in front and not behind the nose :-)