My Dimension Challenge

[morse86]

 

[Occams Barber]

Amen! Thank you!

I give God the credit though.

Humility and self-effacement are two of your more endearing characteristics AV.

On this occasion however, I think we can be pretty sure that God didn't think this one up. The kudos is yours - you deserve it.
OB

 

[AV1611VET]

EXCELLENT! Thank you for sharing it!

 

[SelfSim]

Depends on your reason for putting yourself in the situation of having to provide an answer to the question in the first place, I suppose.

An honest 'I don't know' is probably the answer enquiring minds are seeking .. you can't rule out the possibility the question is aimed at probing your honesty (and thus your credibility).

But let me ask you this:

Knowing that there are eleven dimensions of space ... or even thinking there may be ... why would someone ask how all the animals fit aboard the Ark?

Easy:
- no one knows that in the first place .. Thinking it makes the question therefore hypothetical. Animals and Arks can be described in three dimensions (maybe four, including time also) .. so the hypothesised extra dimensions are unnecessary (moot) as far as providing a testable explanation.

A more potent question:

Knowing (or suspecting) there are more than three dimensions of space, wouldn't it be disingenuous to say x,y, or z couldn't fit aboard the Ark?

Not after the above implied objective test (in 3+1 dimensions) has been carried out.
(The answer will probably be in the negative depending on the assumed test conditions of that exercise).

 

[SelfSim]

I didn't get past the first 7 seconds ... 'Intelligence' doesn't imply believing in 'the Big Bang' or 'Evolution' (including education in the latter) .. no matter what his generalisations of 'what people will claim'.

 

[sjastro]

Yes .. I suppose the Doctor's phone booth is the vital key(?)

A few years ago I had the experience of being in a TARDIS; I found it disappointing and claustrophobic.

 

[sjastro]

I'm not sure, to be honest.

But for those who swear by the town clock that three dimensions aren't, I would like to introduce them to what string theory can do for them.

Which one is that the 26, 10 or 11 dimensional versions?
Here is a brief science lesson.
You may have heard of the inverse square law of gravity which is proportional to 1/r².
This applies to 3D space.
For higher dimensional space n > 3 the gravitational law is proportional to 1/rⁿ⁻¹.
This is a big problem to sting theorists because centuries of testing have always found the 1/r² law to be the case indicating space is 3D.
To get around this problem these extra dimensions if they exist must be extremely small or compactified.
It doesn't help your Ark one iota.

 

[AV1611VET]

To get around this problem these extra dimensions if they exist must be extremely small or compactified.

I'll leave that up to scientists to figure out.

 

[Kylie]

Is this that thing where you are talking about height, length, width and breadth again?

 

[SelfSim]

Which one is that the 26, 10 or 11 dimensional versions?
Here is a brief science lesson.
You may have heard of the inverse square law of gravity which is proportional to 1/r².
This applies to 3D space.
For higher dimensional space n > 3 the gravitational law is proportional to 1/rⁿ⁻¹.
This is a big problem to sting theorists because centuries of testing have always found the 1/r² law to be the case indicating space is 3D.
To get around this problem these extra dimensions if they exist must be extremely small or compactified.
It doesn't help your Ark one iota.

.. and if those extra dimensions must be extremely small or compactified, (ie: in order to get around the problem), they also can't be applied (or relevant) to macroscopic objects such as animals or arks! Animals and arks cannot be treated as quantum mechanical objects, eh?
(Here we go again ... )

 

[SelfSim]

I'll leave that up to scientists to figure out.

Then you can also 'leave it up to the scientists' to dismiss your idea under their rationale, (whilst ignoring yours), yes?

 

[sjastro]

.. and if those extra dimensions must be extremely small or compactified, (ie: in order to get around the problem), they also can't be applied (or relevant) to macroscopic objects such as animals or arks! Animals and arks cannot be treated as quantum mechanical objects, eh?
(Here we go again ... )

This goes even beyond quantum mechanical scales of sub atomic particles.
The compactified dimensions are at the Planck scale of 10⁻³⁵ m.
Even an electron is too large (Compton wavelength 2.246 x 10⁻¹² m) at the Planck scale.

 

[Strathos]

The whole premise is approaching this entire matter from a fundamentally flawed angle. The issue is not and has never been whether God could make the flood and ark function as you believed they did, but rather, whether He would.

Having studied God's creation, in my opinion, He wouldn't.

 

[SelfSim]

This goes even beyond quantum mechanical scales of sub atomic particles.
The compactified dimensions are at the Planck scale of 10⁻³⁵ m.
Even an electron is too large (Compton wavelength 2.246 x 10⁻⁻¹² m) at the Planck scale.

So we're saying large extra dimensions is caput then(?)
.. Interesting ... (moreso than AV1611VET's attempts, anyway).

 

[SelfSim]

The whole premise is approaching this entire matter from a fundamentally flawed angle. The issue is not and has never been whether God could make the flood and ark function as you believed they did, but rather, whether He would.

Having studied God's creation, in my opinion, He wouldn't.

Extraordinary!
How is this one gonna be resolved then?

 

[Strathos]

Extraordinary!
How is this one gonna be resolved then?

Expect a lot of waffling about how embedding billions of years of detailed history into nature that never actually happened doesn't count as deception for some reason.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this that thing where you are talking about height, length, width and breadth again?

Yes, but string theory adds seven more to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

The whole premise is approaching this entire matter from a fundamentally flawed angle. The issue is not and has never been whether God could make the flood and ark function as you believed they did, but rather, whether He would.

Having studied God's creation, in my opinion, He wouldn't.

And of course, that's your choice to believe that.

But by believing that, you have to relegate the Ark to myth status, else how could all those animals fit into it?

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, but string theory adds seven more to them.

... and those are irrelevant when it comes to the packing density limits of normal animals inside your ark.

 

[AV1611VET]

.. and if those extra dimensions must be extremely small or compactified, (ie: in order to get around the problem), they also can't be applied (or relevant) to macroscopic objects such as animals or arks! Animals and arks cannot be treated as quantum mechanical objects, eh?
(Here we go again ... )

Which realm has more space to move about? a one dimensional one, or a two dimensional one?

Which realm has more space to move about? a two dimensional one, or a three dimensional one?

Which realm has more space to move about? a three dimensional one, or a four dimensional one?

Which takes up more space? a square or a cube? a cube or a tesseract? a tesseract or a ...?