Flatland was totally wrong about infinitely thin planes | GEOMETRY: Dimensions, Hypercubes and Hyperspheres, Polytopes, SpaceTime Curvature, etc | Sacred Geometry Web | Forum
Welcome ~ Ask questions. Answer questions. Share your insights. Learn something new this year.
Sacred Geometry Web Forum uses advanced email subscription technology to promote dialog between you and your audience.
Receive an email when anyone replies to you, and reply back to the Forum if you choose
just by clicking the reply button in your normal email program. It couldn’t be easier.
Connect your dot to the other dots and see what new pictures emerge in this field of possibilities …
~ Membership is FREE. Click below to Join ~
“Flatland – a Romance of Many Dimensions” by Edwin Abbott is a quite famous and influential little book about understanding the fourth spacial dimension. Yet it makes a mistake that is found almsot everywhere that the analogy to a 2D person trying to conceptualize a 3D universe is used.
A 2D world is INFINITELY thin.
This means that it is not only thinner than our atoms, quarks, planck units – it is INFINITELY thin.Therefore there is ZERO possibility of a 3D creature interacting with a 2D world.
It is conceivable that a 2D creature might see cross sections of some planck unit spheres as we passed through its universe, but if these spheres are zero dimensional singularities as suggested by Nassim Haramein
then the chances of a ZERO dimensional universe intersecting them for more than an infinitesimal amount of time as the 3D object passed through the plane are infinitesimally small.
and watch a popluarizations of it here
Most Users Ever Online: 29
Currently Browsing this Page:
Ginger Spirit: 19
White Crow: 2
Peter S: 2
Guest Posters: 3
Newest Members:BurihelmFredo, JugamiKnonsenal, socialtraffic, hab0068, Dovidrig, gmalangolind, eimsleytish, aaleiglandtamek, yhoolyandy, tsimentalbert
Administrators: NaradaDas: 38, Ike: 2