Thanks, I agree 100%!Originally posted by Digit
probably Plato.
All geometric figures are in your head. Outside, close enough is good enough.
Interesting. Why is this?Originally posted by Digit
probably Plato.
All geometric figures are in your head.
Well, no. We cannot create a perfect circle large or small. I'm pretty sure that no particles on any level are a "perfect" geometric shape (excluding their exact shape being called a "geometric shape")Originally posted by brum
well, maybe on a large scale, yes -- it is impossible to create a perfect circle (or any other geometric figure).
but what about on a small scale? on the atomic or subatomic scale?
Ah yes. Some particles are believed to be a point. No dimension. No problem.Originally posted by Decker
Well, no. We cannot create a perfect circle large or small. I'm pretty sure that no particles on any level are a "perfect" geometric shape (excluding their exact shape being called a "geometric shape")
Anything viewed from far enough away is a "point", 'no dimension' means 'NO existence' otherwise it is "one dimensional" which is the infinite/infinity (unprovable!)...as for a perfect circle, well historically speaking......Originally posted by kishtik
Ah yes. Some particles are believed to be a point. No dimension. No problem.
"No dimension" doesn't mean no existance. It only means no volume. For example leptons are believed to be dimensionless. But they have mass, spin and charge. I know this seems nonsense but the truth is this. Our experiment tools aren't perfect so we find 0.000000001 of a micron for an electron's diameter. But in theory, they're dimensionless as I said.Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Anything viewed from far enough away is a "point", 'no dimension' means 'NO existence' otherwise it is "one dimensional" which is the infinite/infinity (unprovable!)...as for a perfect circle, well historically speaking......
Sorta what I was trying to point out, Sorta, just in less words...(As I already knew that...)Originally posted by kishtik
"No dimension" doesn't mean no existance. It only means no volume. For example leptons are believed to be dimensionless. But they have mass, spin and charge. I know this seems nonsense but the truth is this. Our experiment tools aren't perfect so we find 0.000000001 of a micron for an electron's diameter. But in theory, they're dimensionless as I said.
But at early periods of 20th century, protons were believed to be very small (there were sense at that time). Later, they discovered that protons weren't that small. They were made up by quarks which is now believed to be a point particle. Perhaps the same will occur for leptons. No one knows.
I could be wrong, and I probably am, but I thought that Ions and a few other things were naturally circles do to gravity?Originally posted by Decker
Well, no. We cannot create a perfect circle large or small. I'm pretty sure that no particles on any level are a "perfect" geometric shape (excluding their exact shape being called a "geometric shape")
Actually I think that expression is something more along the lines of "Only Crazy people can draw perfect circles" probably cause only a 'crazy' person would believe they could, or had, or knew what a perfect circle looked like...Originally posted by ranyart
SImple request here, I read some years ago that a perfect circle cannot be drawn freehand?..or does not exist?
I cannot remember who said it, I belive it has some ancient meaning?
Can anyone point me in a relevant direction?..ie who said it?
Interesting, If gravity is constant, then the center of mass of something would complete a perfect circle right.?JonF said:I could be wrong, and I probably am, but I thought that Ions and a few other things were naturally circles do to gravity?
Hmm good point, and it translates us to other, er, plane of reality. It seems that even "with the eyes of the mind" a perfect triangle is easier to drawn that a perfect circle. This is because the continuously forward process of a straight line seems easier than the continuously curved process of a circle.Zorodius said:By the same token, can you find a perfect triangle? A perfect line? A perfect plane? I don't think so. Any shape is "perfect" only as an abstract concept,
huh? i get the circle thing, but the numbers theory[tex]\neq[/tex] me understanding what you're talking about.It has to do with the act of abstraction.
You cannot draw a perfect circle because you do not have a pen with zero size. You imagine the perfect circle and you can work with that.
When it comes time to put it outside, you draw the new circle or figure.
In the same sense, there are no numbers. There are only symbols of numbers, but that does not prevent us from working with them as if there were numbers.