|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The infinite space of the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
IamJoseph writes: A straight line and a curve are fundamentally the same thing, only their trajectories are different; and these are interchangeable. I would say, the trajectories of a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. The problem lies in that my bar is not a ring/circle. It is like the axis of the planet whereas Lyx2no's, Cavediver's and Straggler's is a ring/circle. Mine is straight in all trajectoral dimensions. This is what I've continually described and they are trying to turn my straight bar into a ring/circle. No way can they make my straight bar rejoin itself. Neither the properties of space or the bar allow for it. Don't forget, IaJ, I'm debating for my static unbounded space universe and they are debating for their bounded space circular universe. They are doing the tricky dicky non-real thing of using a 2d spatial model for their 3d reality universe like their bogus (imo) 2d balloon model for their 3d (spatial) universe. I'm using the prime #1a and1b definition of straight pertaining to an uncurved straight bar whereas they are using a 2d #1b definition applying to a ring/circle such as Lyx2no's circular global wall. They're demeaning me about legitimatly arguing for my hypothesis, insisting that I must use their model. It's the typical one sided high horse attitude the majority POV folks sometimes apply in these debates when alternatives POVs are aired. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
They are doing the tricky dicky non-real thing of using a 2d spatial model for their 3d reality universe like their bogus (imo) 2d balloon model for their 3d (spatial) universe No Buz, we use 2d analogies and pictures for idiots like you who haven't a hope in hell in understandiong anything mroe complex - and in your case even these simpleton analogies just fly by several miles above your head. We work in the real four dimensions of space-time. Do you really think that real cosmology progresses by us thinking about ants on balloons??? Perhaps SG and I should just start discussing all of this in the real language of the subject - at least we wouldn't have to be bothered by such idiotic comments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Buzz, if I ask for a definition of straight, replying not-curved is not particularly helpful.
Look, I'm sorry, but as with ICANT, it is pointless trying to argue this with you. You know NOTHING about the subject yet you are deluded to the point of feeling adequately empowered to argue with experts. The points have been made sufficiently well and sufficiently clearly for everyone else reading this, so continuing is just a complete waste of everyone's time. If you don't get this now, you never will. To anyone else - if you have a question reagrding any of this, please feel free to ask.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Well, if it is your model being argued thats different. Forget everything I said earlier. My more informed response is: Sure, Buz, what ever you say. It's your model and you can give it any properties you want it to have. Except one: pertinence.
Edited by lyx2no, : Redundancy. Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In fact it is a property of space - it's curvature - that demands that the ends of the bar meet up. It follows a "straight" path right around the universe.
quote: And therefore your argument is no good since it assumes that space is not curved. In short your argument is circular since it tries to prove your model by stating what would occur if your model were correct. All you're doing is begging the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Buz
Whatever the overall topology of the universe may be are you suggesting that spacetime is not curved at all? You do know that the curvature of space time has been empirically verified don't you? You do know that satallite navigation systems, for example, actually rely on calculations that rely on general relativity. Calcultaions of the curvature of spacetime. If you are suggesting that space is not curved at all and that this mysterious dimension defying steel bar of yours remains totally "straight" no matter what gravitational field it might be in - Then you have already been proven wrong and the topology of the universe as a whole becomes a moot point. Do you use GPS? Did you know that the clock of a satellite in orbit around the Earth actually goes faster than one at the Earth's surface? Without accounting for the relativistic effects of the spacetime curvature caused by the mass of Earth GPS would be horribly inaccurate. How does your straight bar fare in the curved spacetime it actually exists in?If the universe is indeed unbounded then ultimately same difference with your universal proportioned steel bar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
This depends what one's preamble is - a finite or infinite universe. If the former, fossils cannot have existed pre- or independent of this universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Trajecteries are inter-changeable. Take a soft clay circle and un-curve it to a straight line. And valla!
For some reason, a curved [circular/spiral] form is more condusive in nature, probably because of equal impacting forces such as gravity and other unseen forces, which impact equally from all directions. If one goes under-water and blows from the mouth - he will create a circular wave, even if he blows in a straight trajector, because of equally surrounding pressures. Dolphins do this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I see both gravity and all curves as effects, rather than forces in their own right.
Eg. Gravity is caused when a mass indents the space bed, creating waves. Its like a person jumping on a trampoline, which causes waves, and these waves can dislodge a glass of water standing on another part of the trampoline. Because there is a relationship between the mass and the waves created, we are able to make predictable [spacetime] measurements, which are not variable in the small picture, and thus appear as constants. The mysterious part is far from this immediate scenario. It is strange that the mass is always intergrated with the surrounding space, to result in space bodies with satelite moons and planets, which at all times become constant designs in the universe, such as solar systems and galaxies, in critical inter-dependent positions. It appears the space bodies like moons and planets have a sort of mind and understanding: a moon outside Jupiter is always oscilating to and fro from the host planet, at a critical manuvouring pace - with to close an orbit the moon gets sucked in; too far and it gets lost in space. It appears purposeful, though not in the same way of an organic life form. Such a construct requires a host of forces working in unison, and if it was only random - then we would see different non-uniform designs, instead of the stark uniformity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The mysterious part is far from this immediate scenario. It is strange that the mass is always intergrated with the surrounding space, to result in space bodies with satelite moons and planets, which at all times become constant designs in the universe, such as solar systems and galaxies, in critical inter-dependent positions "Constant designs". Just because somthing is effectively permanent in human time scales does not mean it is eternal. The lifetime of our solar system is finite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Cavediver writes: No Buz, we use 2d analogies and pictures for idiots like you who haven't a hope in hell in understandiong anything mroe complex - and in your case even these simpleton analogies just fly by several miles above your head. We work in the real four dimensions of space-time. Do you really think that real cosmology progresses by us thinking about ants on balloons??? Perhaps SG and I should just start discussing all of this in the real language of the subject - at least we wouldn't have to be bothered by such idiotic comments. Cavediver, in all due respect for your knowledge and education in science, you called for me to define straight which I did. Now you ignore the factual primary #1a/b definition and resort to insult and personal attack. I called for you to state the properties of space which render it capable of curving/bending a straight (all dimensional) bar (not a ring) and the properties of a straight bar (not a ring) which enables it to go full circle and rejoin itself. When are you going to refrain from personal attack and address my point/question? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Cavediver writes: Buzz, if I ask for a definition of straight, replying not-curved is not particularly helpful. It's definitely not helpful for your POV, but it's the bonafide definition of straight which supports my POV.
Cavediver writes: Look, I'm sorry, but as with ICANT, it is pointless trying to argue this with you. You know NOTHING about the subject yet you are deluded to the point of feeling adequately empowered to argue with experts. The points have been made sufficiently well and sufficiently clearly for everyone else reading this, so continuing is just a complete waste of everyone's time. If you don't get this now, you never will. Again with all due respect, you seem to have lost your way in logic and reality. No way does a straight bar (not ring) as it is observed physically have the properties to curve/bend to meet itself, whether it is miles long, millions of miles long or infinitely long. Again, I'm patiently waiting for you (abe: or any one else) to state the properties of space and of this bar (not ring) to rejoin itself.
Cavediver writes: To anyone else - if you have a question reagrding any of this, please feel free to ask. LOL. Dissenters need not bother. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add phrase BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: BuzWhatever the overall topology of the universe may be are you suggesting that spacetime is not curved at all? You do know that the curvature of space time has been empirically verified don't you? You do know that satallite navigation systems, for example, actually rely on calculations that rely on general relativity. Calcultaions of the curvature of spacetime. Whether it's curved or not, what you need to do is to state the properties of space/spacetime which enables it to bend/curve a straight (not circular) rigid bar into a circle and rejoin itself.You can apply math and QM til the cows come home but reality comes full circle to kick you're butt. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Again, what is the physical, real world method you would use to establish a baseline for "straightness".
Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Whether it's curved or not, what you need to do is to state the properties of space/spacetime which enables it to bend/curve a straight (not circular) rigid bar into a circle and rejoin itself. You can apply math and QM til the cows come home but reality comes full circle to kick you're butt. Actually the only butt that will get kicked with your flawed line of reasoning is your own.It is not just math and no-one has mentioned QM. I am talking about practical results. Practical results that the army depend upon and every sat nav system in the world would be useless without. Tested practical results based on the curvature of spacetime. You exist in curved spacetime. You. Now. As does any actual steel bar you may care to lay your hands on. By what seems to be your own dimensionally challenged view of perfect straightness (one that you are still unable to actually define as separate from space) there is no such thing as a perfectly straght steel bar.
Whether it's curved or not, what you need to do is to state the properties of space/spacetime which enables it to bend/curve a straight (not circular) rigid bar into a circle and rejoin itself.
The property of spacetime that does this is the curvature of spacetime.What does "straight" mean in this context if not devoid of directional deviation in space? Look at your window. Glass is pretty straight. It is also pretty inflexible. If somehow (heaven knows how in practise but just imagine the hypothetical scenario) spacetime around your window were to suddenly become distorted such that the there was extreme local curvature of space around your window what would your window look like? Do you think the glass would shatter into pieces because it does not look "straight" to you any more? 1) Which part of curved spacetime do you not understand?2) Do you accept that you exist in locally curved spacetime or do you deny even this? 3) What does "straight" mean in this context if not devoid of directional deviation in space? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024