So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

The unanswered question remains; what properties of space render space capable of connecting the two ends of an absolute straight unbended bar?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

The bar is straight in space but the property of space of interest is that the space itself is bent. "Straight" is defined within this space.I think Buz, you'll just have to nod and take it at that. The math of GR is beyond me (I tried) and I'm sure just as beyond you. If you want details then ask cavediver for them.

On the scale of the Universe "straight" is a relative term just as "level" is on the scale of any significant portion of a planet's surface. (In the case of the Earth, more then about five acres or about 150 linear meters.) Nonobservant people tend to believe that a level line is also straight. And if one pays extra-special attention one can observer that a straight line isn't straight either. You need to expand your understanding of the meaning of straight.To directly answer your question, again: Space is curved. For a line to be straight it must follow the curve.AbE: Sorry, NN, didn't see you there.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo and style.Edited by lyx2no, : Bad day

---

KindlyWhen I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel . everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?

What?? Your model of absolute straight is the curvature of the earth?? Your silly earth/level analogy is ludicrous. Just because something is level for a few or a few hundred feet doesn't mean it works on astronomical scales. An absolute straight unbended bar 10,000 miles long resting on one point of the surface of the earth would have two opposite ends extending out into the atmosphere.lyx2no, if you really want to know, your bogus model doest cut the mustard.Man, can you imagine what you people would do to any of us of the minority persuasion if we used these nonsensical, unreal and false arguments to substantiate our points? Edited by Buzsaw, : add embolding

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

1. But the absolute straight bar allegedly capable of having space connect it's two ends is not a property of space. That space allegedly is bent does not address what property of space is capable of connecting the two ends of an absolute straight bar.2. We've debated this before. Cavediver and all of the other physicist pros and buffs were here, yet my argument remains unrefuted. That space curves is the only answer we get, yet the question remains; what property of space is capable of connecting the absolute straight bar's two ends?The unrefuted Buzsaw answer remains: THERE ARE NONE.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

The analogy lyx2no gives is very apt Buz. As expected you just don't get it.Lets say you construct a fence and use a very, very, very good level that is about 20 feet long. You check each 20 foot length and determine that is is dead level within the error bars that you can measure (hell, let's make that error zero for this example). You keep doing this for miles and miles and miles. At all points the fence is absolutely dead level but at some point it will be at right angles to where you started.The way we define level is something like "at right angles to the local gravity field". But the "down directions" defined by this are not parallel.We define straight within the space around us in an analogous way. Something is perfectly straight but if the space isn't "flat" then our intuition doesn't count. This just shows how far away from having any clue at all you are. lyx2no was using level on the surface of the earth in his example as an analogy for straight in spacetime. You switched level with straight which totally wrecks the analogy. The reason you did this is because you don't understand it at all. And you never, ever will.Buz, you are simply wrong on this. I think you'd look less silly if you just realized that and got real quiet on the subject.

Oh jeez not this again Buz...... Yes it does. That is your problem. The bar is straight. In curved space. In what other way could it be straight if not in space whatever shape that space may be? Maybe a better question would be what property you think the bar has that will allow it to not follow the path of curved space?Your problem is that you are thinking of a bent bar in the sense of superman or somebody bending a straight bar by making on side longer than the other (think about it!)A straight bar in curved spacetime has the two sides of the bar exactly the same length by any method of measurement made within that space. There are. The problem is that you don't understand them and don't really want to undestand them.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Buzz, when you plot a logarithmic function on a logarithmic scale, it is a straight line. On a linear scale it is a curved line, but the function is the same.A straight bar in curved space would still be straight in space, but it would be curving around from the reference of outside of space.You're calling this bar "not absolutely straight" but you measure the straight-ness in regards to the space it occupies. Since it is space, itself, that is bent and not the bar, then the bar is striaght by any worthwhile definition even though it curves back onto itself.You're just saying: "Nuh-uh, that's not a straight bar!" but you don't really have a basis for the claim. It s straight by any definition that anyone cares about. That you want to make up your own word just so you can claim irrefutability is rather lame, IMHO.

Space isn't "allegedly" bent, it is bent as shown by GR. The curvature of space. The bar exists in space, space is curved, ergo an infinitly long straight bar would meet up with itself if streched across the entirety of space. "Straight" is defined within the universe, there is no measurement of straightness that exists independent of the universe. Just because you don't understand the refutation of your arguement doesn't mean that your arguement stands.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

I

quote:

---

PaulK, if you understand how space has the ability to reconnect the two ends of an absolute straight bar without bending the bar, perhaps it's time for a new thread on just that one alleged property of space so that you can explain to the www what property of space allows for this to happen.

---

As several other people have informed you, the property in question is the curvature. In the scenario under discussion our space is curved in a higher dimension, such that a straight line in our three-dimensional space would eventually meet itself. For the hypothetical bar to fail to meet at the end would require it to either depart from that straight line (i.e. to be curved in our space) or for it to somehow leave our three-dimensional space, which would really be magic.

You people are all obfuscating my model by the word, level which does not apply to my model. My straight bar model does not have to be level. It has to be absolute straight and totally unbended. Such a model exists. You have no existing model for (abe: the) argument which you need to refute my model and my argument. Your model, be it a fence on the surface of a sphere or a anything else level with the circular 2D surface of the earth does not refute my argument. Yours is a two dimensional one in a three dimensional universe. My model works in a three dimensional universe which is reality. My model which makes my point needn't be level to anything. It can be perpendicular to the earth's surface, for that matter.My model has no properties capable of ever having it's ends meet outside of bending.This whole debate is whether space has the property of curvature. The Buzsaw Hypothesis relative to space is that there are no observable properties of space, space's only properties being that it is boundless area in which all forces, energy and matter exist. If anything existing in the universe's space is observable it is energy, matter, force, light, i.e. anything detectable or observable.That's my hypothesis, folks. Take it or deny it, but sorry; even if space were curvable, that in itself is never ever going to be capable of joining the ends of an absolute straight unbended bar, no matter how many billion miles long you extend it.Until someone identifies the property of space capable of joining a 10000 mile long straight unbended bar, nobody is going to convince Buzsaw that space is capable of curving an unbended absolute straight bar zillions of miles long without bending the bar.Whether my model is a hundred ft, 10000 miles or fifty billion miles long, it's properties do not including bending which it must do for it's ends to join.I don't know what planet you people are coming from, but Buzsaw is from the world of reality where distance does not change the meaning and properties of things straight, unbendable and curvature. It appears your sophisticated QM and relativity training has propelled your thinking into a mindset of fantasy. Edited by Buzsaw, : change a word as noted in context

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Yes, Buz... you, in your dotage, have got this completely sussed and all of us phsycists, cosmologists, relativists, etc, from Einstein to Hawking, to lowly old cavediver, haven't a clue. I know, Buz, you've told us before...

Dude calm down. You will give yourself an aneurysm The world of reality disagrees. Tested, experimentally verified, predcited phenomenon. Trumps limited human perception and even so-called common-sense everytime. Truth is often stranger than fiction eh? Personally I like it that way. But you believe whatever you need to in order to avoid that aneurysm.

When your father told you about the birds and the bees did you go out into the barn and do anything to the chickens, or did you understand that analogy?

---

KindlyWhen I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel . everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?

It's been a week since I've posted to this thread as Percy, so I'm going to step in as moderator now.Expressing this in my own words, the topic of this thread is how a science based upon the Discovery Institute's wishes to abandon methodological naturalism would work.I am looking upon the diversion of this thread onto GR topics by someone who has been cautioned enumerable times about bollixing up science threads with sincere disappointment.Edited by Admin, : Add signature.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director