And by "edge," you mean what is abrupt or broken, correct? No, of course not ... contingent upon the ball being perfectly spherical and smooth that is.
And by "edge," you mean what is abrupt or broken, correct? No, of course not ... contingent upon the ball being perfectly spherical and smooth that is.
It wouldn't have to be perfectly spherical or smooth. If you squeeze a beachball, would the 2-dimensional surface have an edge? Or does the surface of a golfball have an edge? What about Earth?
Actually, it just occurred to me, that any "two-dimensional" surface area that is curved is three-dimensional, because it occupies three dimensions. The only thing that is truly two-dimensional, is this imaginary 180 degree plane (width x depth x no height) that exists in our heads.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
...and, once again, Iacchus missed the point due to being mired in 3-dimensional rationality.
(180 degree plane?)
If you would only stop thinking about it in 3-dimensions. The surface is 2-dimensional despite the curve. And why do you have to add "imaginery" when you talk about 2-dimesnsional. Can you have a third dimension without the first and the second?
I'm thinking of a sphere within a cube, with actual substance within its volume. Where the cube is made up of three 180 degree planes (h x w x d) set at right angles.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Let me remind you again, that to map any point on the surface of a sphere, you need only two points: Latitude and longitude. That means the surface of a sphere is two dimensional.
Yet without any "substance" to be measured, for example, the substance contained within the volume of the balloon or the ball, the whole thing is just "imaginary."
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
I find it highly ironic that you are lecturing us on what is or isn't "imaginary".
Belz...
Fiend God
It's a representation, Iacchus.
Actually cube has 6 planes.
Nag, nag, nag ...
Provided of course, that there is no "texture" to it. Otherwise it just increases the "surface area."
Surface area isn't "substantial" enough?
Yes, but only three dimensions ... these being set at "right angles" in other words.
So what? You folks nitpick my representations all the time.
The surface area of "what?" ... Without the volume of "some thing," there is no surface area.
Last edited:
So what? You folks nitpick my representations all the time.
Because they are wrong. This is right.
It doesn't matter if you stretch the surface. We are talking about space-time here (Aren't we? I'm getting confused.). When the surface stretches the coordinate system does so also.
You are locked in 3-dimensional thinking. Stop that. There is no volume in 2-dimensional world. Are you saying that area of 2-dimensional world isn't "substantial" enough?