**** it. Imma retype it.
Your first point is a false equivalence between things that are based in actually explainable, somewhat scientific things that can be calculated vs shit that blatantly contradicts science for the sake of it.
Your second points don't work because you misunderstand me. 2D grids and 3D grids cannot overlap and retain the same meanings.
Any point that exists or travels on a 3D axis exists within 3 dimensions by necessity. (20,0,0) It is true that traveling in one direction only requires the use of one dimension. However, if both line X3D and Line X2D were to have traveled the same distance with the same "direction", there'd Be a crucial and inherent difference between the two.
Line 2DX: (20,0)
Line 3DX: (20,0,0)
See? What I am trying to demonstrate here is that the 3D line by definition always has some form of a 3D coordination, which is that extra 0 left at the origin point. These lines or points or whatever inherently exist on the all coordinates of the axis they inhabit, 2D, 1D, etc. There is no evidence that the reverse or opposite can be true. The nature of grids REQUIRE the position of a specific point on a graph be determined— (X, Y, Z), all have to be filled in. 0. It's not an empty value, but the origin, the center, the start, the point before it has moved. Etc. Any number in these axis is fulfilling the requirement to have a whatever dimensional position, and having a dimensional position in this context is the same as existing On all axis of the graph specified.
If the Z in (X, Y, Z) was not calculated or was not at all a number— whatever you would use to say that the number for all intents and purposes doesn't exist in this context— it WOULD NOT be able to be placed as a part of the 3D grid, being an unknown at the very least, and being not possible truthfully as it NEEDS to be on all of the Axis by definition in order to be a 3D thing, and if a 3D line doesn't exist on all 3 Axis, it cannot be plotted on the graph for its lack of 3rd Axis specification. It could literally be anywhere on the 3D axis if it was a random variable, but for there to not BE a "Z" value in this context, it means that there is no place it exists on the 3rd Axis. Therefore, it cannot exist in the graph as a 3D thing, is indistinguishable from a 2D object because it is by definition and identity the same thing if it has 2D Axis covered but not the 3D one.
All 3D axis must have 3D things on them. By definition.
This goes for size as well, obviously, given the fact that all things that exist take up space on the dimensional axis it occupies, and things without the ability to inhabit each dimensional axis it is in cannot exist in that axis. Why? Our 3 axis aren't just 3 separate directions, they're circular and are applicable from any perspective and from 0 to 360 degrees— it's why we can't even see 2D objects from any perspective, because all 3D objects need to have depth from EVERY perspective, and 2D objects lack ANY depth inherently, and if they lack the ability to inhabit all 3 axis, just like in the example above, they cannot exist in the 3D space.
How can these two things be the same if one's very existence is totally different than the other by definition on top of every trait and function it has being completely different than the other?
Oh, but you think "this isn't speed, this is size or sides or whatever, right? What does every thing on a 3D chart HAVING to be 3D and not 2D possibly have to with the speed being different from each other?"
Let's ignore the fact that all measurements and distances made and traveled in this world by us are inherently 3D in nature since nothing that shows up in this world physically can only exist as a 2D thing (by what I explained previously) and nothing that does exist in this world as a 3D thing can be measured without it and it's traits being measured with respect to being 3D (just as the graphs above require 3D to be accounted for or the thing doesn't get coordinated on the graph, therefore it's not plotted on the graph, not put on the graph, and doesn't EXIST ON THE GRAPH), and no distances can be traveled without it being "depth" or 3D from some perspective (like I said with size using 3D all the time because of depth being from 0 to 360 degrees), a thing a 2D object lacks and cannot travel in.
When objects move in 3D space, just like before with size and points being plotted, that transition is only possible on a graph when all 3 of its axis are being plotted. The whole moral of this rant is that 3D objects or point or lines on a graph always have the 3rd Axis— always interact with the third axis, ALWAYS TAKE UP SPACE ON THE 3RD AXIS. Even if Line X traveled in one direction perfectly for however long up until they reached 20 units away from the origin point, all of that movement can only be recorded with respect to where it was in the other two directions. It can only go straight through the X-axis if it never moved from the spot it was in on the Y or Z axis. And having a Y or Z axis makes you inherently separate from things that only have a Y axis. Not just that. Having your Y and Z axis constantly checked and updated over and over again as you traveled from X 0 to X 20 means that your Y and Z axis positions were inherently taken into account and calculated as you traveled.
2D objects don't have that Z axis to be taken into account. The context and the area of where they stood in relation to which axis they inhabited or moved in are completely and inherently different. You can't compare their speeds then, if their movements aren't even the same kind of movement. You'd be comparing fictional apples to real life oranges, or trying to speak a fake language to a real person of a different real language.
3D travel, distance, and speed are not the same in their contexts and positioning. From the perspective of a 3D axis, and by the standards of the 3D axis, no movement would have been possible for the 2D axis, as not only do they not have positions in 3D axis and will never have them in order to continuously travel in the same way, because everything requires the other axis to be used and coordinated, but...
The best way I can say it is there wouldn't be a "path" for the 2D thing to walk on. Because, as an object's 3D position Z needs to be accounted for and needs to exist in order for it to be on a 3D graph/grid/axis (making it a 3D object but nvm that), so in order for a 2D thing to even move under the same rules, definitions, nature, and mechanics that a 3D thing does (which needs to happen not just because speed is a 3D thing by what I have demonstrated earlier, but because definitions need to be the same in order to be considered the same in this context), it would have to have a 3D presence, exist on a 3D axis, have its position on a 3D axis be constantly accounted for. In other words? It needs to do the impossible. 2D things by definition do not have 3D position or axis or presences.
The point is, if we applied the rules of a 3D grid and axis to 2D objects, which are inherently exclusive— that all movement, size, and position on a 3D grid has to be accounted for in terms of (X, Y, Z), then 2D movement isn't even movement and isn't even possible. To say that they have the same speed when they aren't even real to each other and do not function the same enough to even be compared is to ignore that they are not the same thing...
So yes. While distance can be narrowed down to 1 dimension, distance in different axis means different things, in the simplest terms, because being in those axis requires certain definitions to exclude the other types of distances that are themselves exclusive to those different dimensional axis. They require reference points and positions that are not accessible to the lower dimensions and are not applicable or attainable by objects that exist on those Lower dimensions and those standards of the lower dimensions make those objects not accessible to the higher dimensions because of the rules that they follow.
Hm. I suppose I could've just said that just because you go forward in the same axis doesn't mean your forwards across dimensions were the same? But that doesn't tell you anything important.
And i'll Say this...?
Just because they both sound like speed— something moving the same type of units over the same or less about of time doesn't make their types of "speed" comparable. They work completely differently, to the point where one isn't even possible on the level of the other, they aren't the same "type" of speed, with completely different "types" of movements to achieve that speed too? Nah.
To us, 2D movement and speed is neither of those things and (or even because) those two things don't exist to us in the way they go about it.
