Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 413 (481708)
09-12-2008 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by cavediver
09-12-2008 3:48 AM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
cavediver writes:
Buz, are you saying that Einstein and the last 100 year's worth of phsyicists are wrong? Yes or no?
Your question is too broad for a yes or no answer. Einstein and physicists covers a whole lot of material. I'm sure I'd agree to much of both and reject some of both.
Perhaps for the purpose of this thread it would be interesting to know whether Einstein and 100 years of physicists have identified the properties of space which allows for space to be curved.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by cavediver, posted 09-12-2008 3:48 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 09-12-2008 9:20 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 413 (481710)
09-12-2008 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by lyx2no
09-12-2008 8:35 AM


Re: Outside My Pay Grade
lyx2no writes:
What in blue blazes are you talking about?
In a total eclypse of the sun by the moon, around the circumference of the moon there is a ring of light rays emanating from the sun. My question pertained to whether these rays would have any effect on the light rays of the stars relative to Eddington's observation.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by lyx2no, posted 09-12-2008 8:35 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by lyx2no, posted 09-12-2008 8:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 101 by kuresu, posted 09-12-2008 2:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 93 of 413 (481713)
09-12-2008 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
09-12-2008 8:47 AM


Re: Outside My Pay Grade
My question pertained to whether these rays would have any effect on the light rays of the stars relative to Eddington's observation.
They made the observation harder, but they had no directional effect of any kind, no. Cross two laser beams; is there any effect whatsoever? It's an experiment you can do at home.

Kindly
When 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2008 8:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 413 (481720)
09-12-2008 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by PaulK
09-12-2008 1:22 AM


Re: Purpose Of Thread Clarified And Updated Relative To Responses
PaulK writes:
You are going to have to put in a lot of explanation before that question becomes something more than an excuse for rejecting GR. Why would space even need "properties that allow it to be curved" ? What sort of properties allow it to be flat ?
Amd if space cannot curve why is GR, which states that it does, so successful ?
Why shouldn't space need properties allowing for it to be curved? Is this about science or fantasy? What exempts space from needful known properties to understand it or make conclusions relative to it?
I'm debating a hypothesis that space has only the properties of unbounded infinite existence and area in which everything else in the universe exists. I'm alleging that it has no other properties. You're alleging that it does. Unless you people can identify the properties of space which allow for it's curvature, the Buzsaw space hypothesis remains unrefuted and yours remains in question.
PaulK writes:
And under the hypothesis we are considering a straight line in our three-dimensional space does come around and join at its ends. If your bar is straight why doesn't it follow a straight line ?
I keep asking and you either don't reply or babble bullshit which obviously has no bearing on the question.
Because the dimensions of an absolute straight and not bended line allow for it to curve and the three dimensions of an absolute straight not bended bar do not allow for it to curve.
My 3D model relates more to your real 3D universe than your mainline science line model which is not three dimensional. Your mainline science model, therefore is bogus and skews the debate to accommodate the majority POV, IMO.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2008 1:22 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by lyx2no, posted 09-12-2008 11:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 11:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2008 1:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 95 of 413 (481725)
09-12-2008 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
09-12-2008 8:41 AM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
Your question is too broad for a yes or no answer.
Fair point.
Einstein and physicists covers a whole lot of material. I'm sure I'd agree to much of both and reject some of both.
And on what basis would you agree or reject it? Whether it made sense to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2008 8:41 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2008 11:37 AM cavediver has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 96 of 413 (481745)
09-12-2008 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
09-12-2008 9:14 AM


Debating, My Eye
I'm debating a hypothesis that space has only the properties of unbounded infinite existence and area in which everything else in the universe exists.
No you're not. You're asserting it at best. You've not added one new bit of commentary to it this entire thread. All you've got is "What property of space allow for it to curve?" The answer is "bendability". Let's now argue about that not being a real word. At least that would give another dimension to your "debate".

Kindly
When 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2008 9:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 97 of 413 (481746)
09-12-2008 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
09-12-2008 9:14 AM


Re: Purpose Of Thread Clarified And Updated Relative To Responses
I'm debating a hypothesis that space has only the properties of unbounded infinite existence and area in which everything else in the universe exists. I'm alleging that it has no other properties.
Well if we followed your definition of space the GPS system would be a big mess because we would not be able to calculate or allow for the effects of curvature. That minor but practical consequence alone suggests that your hypothesis is wrong.
Unless you people can identify the properties of space which allow for it's curvature
The properties that allow for it's curvature? What does that even mean? What could be a possible answer? It's colour? It's plasticity? The wieght of space? It's geometry? It's favorite flavour of cheesecake? What do you mean? Can you give an example of the sort of answer you are looking for?
Curvature is a property of space. Your question is like asking what property of a circle allows it to be circular.
the Buzsaw space hypothesis remains unrefuted and yours remains in question
Curved spacetime works in every practical, calculable, predictable and observational scientific sense. Your kindergarten cosmology model does not. So obvioulsy you must be right...............?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2008 9:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 413 (481748)
09-12-2008 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by cavediver
09-12-2008 9:20 AM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
cavediver writes:
And on what basis would you agree or reject it? Whether it made sense to you?
Relative to the topic, on the basis of science. Until science identifies the property of space which allows for it to be curved, I see it as unscientific to base theory on unsubstantiated premise.
I also see it as dishonest and unscientific to apply a model using a different dimension than the universe, to which the model allegedly applies.
I regard the Buzsaw 3D space/bar model as more realistic, applicable and scientific. This is one of the problems I have with aspects of relativity where some of it undermines realism, logic and sense.
Perhaps it has identified such a property, but so far I haven't seen it posted here in this thread. Can you cite such a message here?
Humanistic secularistic mainline science begins with the singularity relative to BBT and skews it's space view to accommodate that theory. The only way this is possible for them is to resort to the 2D model such as the balloon's surface, geometric lines, mysterious aspects of QM, relativity etc.
Even the guru of physics, Richard Feynman, admits that some aspects of QM are mysterious to him, but of course, the mysterious is totally taboo for ID creationists.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 09-12-2008 9:20 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 09-12-2008 12:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 99 of 413 (481761)
09-12-2008 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Buzsaw
09-12-2008 11:37 AM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
Thank you for your answer, Buz. Here are the answers to your questions.
Until science identifies the property of space which allows for it to be curved
Einstein revealed these properties with General Relativity - and space has many more properties than just those that give rise to curvature. It has electromagnetic properties, it has weak force properties, it has strong force properties, it has curavture properties - these are the ones that we know of for definite. It also has dark energy properties, which I can make a good guess at, but we are not sure yet. That's a lot of properties for you to claim that space has none
As with just about all aspects of fundemental physics, these properties only have mathematical descriptions. This essentially menas that each point in space is essntially a collection of numbers. Some of these numbers will relate to the E/M field at that point, the strong force at that point, the curavture at that point. Think of how each point in the atmosphere has numbers associated with it, in terms of temperature, pressure, wind direction, etc.
I see it as unscientific to base theory on unsubstantiated premise.
Oh Buz, if you don't think that space has these properties, then you had better explain how they have led to the two most accurate predictions ever made about our Universe. They are substantiated beyond the demands of the most skeptical scientist. Just not beyond the demands of your casual, ill-infomed layman. I think we'll just have to learn to live with that
Have you never heard of the permitivity of free space? The permeability of free space? You seem to be dismissing not just relativity but all of electromagnetic theory as well!
I also see it as dishonest and unscientific to apply a model using a different dimension than the universe, to which the model allegedly applies.
Buz, we work in three and four dimensions, and theoretically in five dimensions, ten dimensions, eleven dimensions, and even twenty six dimensions. We sometimes use simplistic 2d pictures and analogies in an attempt to describe the physics to those who would not understand it otherwise. You cannot possibly think that these children's balloon analogies have anything to do with our actual work, can you???
his is one of the problems I have with aspects of relativity where some of it undermines realism, logic and sense.
Why do you regard your own sense of realism, logic and sense as trumping that of everyone who actually works in the field? Are you really trying to tell me that tens of thousands of phsycists, including me, have a great deal less sense and logic than you? Your pride is quite astounding Buz. I think Someone will have quite a bit to say about that one day...
Humanistic secularistic mainline science begins with the singularity relative to BBT and skews it's space view to accommodate that theory.
Given that General Relativity was formulated in 1915, and the Big Bang Theory was proposed in 1931 by a Romanm Catholic priest, can you explain your point again? As it stands, it has more errors than words
The only way this is possible for them is to resort to the 2D model such as the balloon's surface, geometric lines, mysterious aspects of QM, relativity etc.
It does not involve any 2d models, other than when we try to explain this to children and the less informed. It doesn't actually involve any quantum mechanics in its pure relativistic sense, which is what we are discussing in this thread. And we are not "resorting" to relativity - this IS relativity - one of the two most successfully tested theories ever developed.
Is it possible for you to be more wrong about a subject?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2008 11:37 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2008 11:09 PM cavediver has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 100 of 413 (481770)
09-12-2008 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
09-12-2008 9:14 AM


Re: Purpose Of Thread Clarified And Updated Relative To Responses
quote:
Why shouldn't space need properties allowing for it to be curved? Is this about science or fantasy? What exempts space from needful known properties to understand it or make conclusions relative to it?
The fact is that if we are to always explain one property in terms of another which "allows" it we will end up with an infinite regress. Obviously science does not require any such thing.
quote:
I'm debating a hypothesis that space has only the properties of unbounded infinite existence and area in which everything else in the universe exists. I'm alleging that it has no other properties. You're alleging that it does. Unless you people can identify the properties of space which allow for it's curvature, the Buzsaw space hypothesis remains unrefuted and yours remains in question.
You assert that space has the property of being unable to curve. And you can't explain it. Therefore your own hypothesis is equally "in danger".
And even more obviously your claim is based on a total rejection of science. To real science General Relativity's demonstrated accuracy as a description of our macroscopic universe guarantees its acceptance unless and until a better theory comes along. Your hypothesis is not even a potential contender, lacking all the mathematical details that would even allow it to attempt to compete. And since the curvature of space is an essential part of the mathematics of General Relativity accepting General Relativity means accepting that space does curve.
I know that you think it terribly unfair that science puts detailed successful predictions ahead of your personal likes and dislikes, but the fact is that it does - and for good reason.
quote:
Because the dimensions of an absolute straight and not bended line allow for it to curve and the three dimensions of an absolute straight not bended bar do not allow for it to curve.
I am trying to make sense of your objection. It seems that you are asserting that a three-dimensional object is free to move OUT of our three-dimensional space, and indeed must do so (unlike a straight line, for some reason). SInce I see no evidence that it is even possible for the bar to depart our space please explain why you are so certain that it must occur.
quote:
My 3D model relates more to your real 3D universe than your mainline science line model which is not three dimensional. Your mainline science model, therefore is bogus and skews the debate to accommodate the majority POV, IMO.
By which you mean, that in your opinion it is unfair that science does not consider your unsupported opinion to be on a par with solid evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2008 9:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 101 of 413 (481785)
09-12-2008 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
09-12-2008 8:47 AM


Re: Outside My Pay Grade
This kind of statement proves exactly what I said about myself earlier in the thread.
You are not qualified to discuss this stuff. You don't even know enough to realize you're so, so wrong.
Seriously, quit while you're behind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2008 8:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 102 of 413 (481797)
09-12-2008 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
09-11-2008 8:38 PM


Re: Purpose Of Thread Clarified And Updated Relative To Responses
Buz writes:
That's two of you, my antagonists, now who admit to having insufficient knowledge to evaluate who's POV is valid.
It appears that we're narrowing the qualified opponents to intelligently counter my POVs down somewhat. I'm beginning to see why we're not getting some substantive answers to my arguments.
Buz writes:
Perhaps it's good for the physicists and savvy on the cosmos to be confronted by the laity with logical things like this.
Some have admitted that my POV on this topic would make sense to the man/woman on the street, some of who are watching. Perhaps as well, this is a good read so as for the street folk to have an advocate in here taking the heat for them and evaluate whether some of what they think can be defended.
I must say, Buz old bean, you've truly outdone yourself in this thread. My compliments.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 09-11-2008 8:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 413 (481837)
09-12-2008 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by cavediver
09-12-2008 12:55 PM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
cavediver writes:
It has electromagnetic properties, it has weak force properties, it has strong force properties, it has curvature properties - these are the ones that we know of for definite. It also has dark energy properties, which I can make a good guess at, but we are not sure yet. That's a lot of properties for you to claim that space has none
The Buzsaw Hypothesis of space is that it's only property is unbounded infinite existing area in which all matter, forces and energy exist
1. Forces are not a property of space. They are forces existing in space. That the forces, electromagnetism and dark energy exist in space does not make them properties of space. Electromagnetism is no more a property of space than are radio waves, light rays or heat waves, etc. They all exist in space.
2. I know that this is contrary to conventional science but that's how I see it and I'm not alone on that.
3. I do not deny that curvature of something is observed. PaulK says mass curves space. I say mass, forces and energy are curved in the unbounded static space/area of the universe. Imo, it is the forces, gravity, electromagnetism etc operational which affect mass, one or more of these applied to things existing in the universe which are observed as being curved and not space perse.
cavediver writes:
As with just about all aspects of fundamental physics, these properties only have mathematical descriptions. This essentially means that each point in space is essentially a collection of numbers. Some of these numbers will relate to the E/M field at that point, the strong force at that point, the curvature at that point. Think of how each point in the atmosphere has numbers associated with it, in terms of temperature, pressure, wind direction, etc.
All I can say is that if it's the numbers which allow for stuff like causing the two ends of a 3D absolute straight non bended bar to connect themselves without bending and other miracle mystery claims like that, count me out on learning about that.
cavediver writes:
Oh Buz, if you don't think that space has these properties, then you had better explain how they have led to the two most accurate predictions ever made about our Universe. They are substantiated beyond the demands of the most skeptical scientist. Just not beyond the demands of your casual, ill-informed layman. I think we'll just have to learn to live with that
Imo, time will show many of those predictions to become falsified.
cavediver writes:
Have you never heard of the permitivity of free space? The permeability of free space? You seem to be dismissing not just relativity but all of electromagnetic theory as well!
In simple lay terms I would call it a perfect vacuum such as would be the case if the Buzsaw hypothetical universe (unbounded static infinite space universe) consisted of only space/area and containing nothing. How am I doing?
cavediver writes:
Buz, we work in three and four dimensions, and theoretically in five dimensions, ten dimensions, eleven dimensions, and even twenty six dimensions. We sometimes use simplistic 2d pictures and analogies in an attempt to describe the physics to those who would not understand it otherwise. You cannot possibly think that these children's balloon analogies have anything to do with our actual work, can you???
No, but it has a whole lot to do with what conventional science is claiming and teaching. It also has a whole lot to do with most of the BB and science debates here at EvC and other science fora.
It's dishonest, deceptive and bogus science to use it with the public at large, deceiving the public at large to the point that they consider mavericks like me to be totally kooky when we call you people on the fallacy. Since the universe has three basic observed spatial dimensions, imo, only 3D models should be applied to explain the universe and not bogus models such as geometric lines, 2D balloon surfaces, etc.
cavediver writes:
Why do you regard your own sense of realism, logic and sense as trumping that of everyone who actually works in the field? Are you really trying to tell me that tens of thousands of phsycists, including me, have a great deal less sense and logic than you? Your pride is quite astounding Buz. I think Someone will have quite a bit to say about that one day...
I have great respect for much of what you scientists do and know. I learn from you and debating in threads like this, believe it or not. I've needed to update and fine tune my argument relative to what I've learned in this thread and in research relative to the debate.
I can accept what does not become nonsensical, illogical and imo, utterly impossible, magical and mystical such as the 3D bar connect thing. I know it can't happen and no amount of complicated scientific jargon is going to ever make me believe the two ends of my bar will connect without bending.
cavediver writes:
Given that General Relativity was formulated in 1915, and the Big Bang Theory was proposed in 1931 by a Romanm Catholic priest, can you explain your point again? As it stands, it has more errors than words
You've got me there. Perhaps then, a misapplication of GR to BB??
cavediver writes:
Is it possible for you to be more wrong about a subject?
Yes. I could be persuaded that the two ends of an absolute straight not bended 3D bar could be connected without the bar ever being bent.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 09-12-2008 12:55 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by lyx2no, posted 09-12-2008 11:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2008 5:42 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 09-13-2008 6:22 AM Buzsaw has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 104 of 413 (481841)
09-12-2008 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Buzsaw
09-12-2008 11:09 PM


A Breakthrough
. connect without bending.
No longer is a force bending the bar: A small light shines.

Kindly
When 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2008 11:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 105 of 413 (481852)
09-13-2008 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Buzsaw
09-12-2008 11:09 PM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
The heart of the matter is that you refuse to admit that you are wrong. When people try to help you by explaining the reality you accuse them of "obfuscation" and "dishonesty". You just can't accept that our intuitive ideas cannot be safely extended beyond the everyday environment where they work (or in some cases don't work).
quote:
I can accept what does not become nonsensical, illogical and imo, utterly impossible, magical and mystical such as the 3D bar connect thing.
But you will invent something at least equally "nonsensical, illogical and imo, utterly impossible, magical and mystical" rather than admit that you could be wrong. The whole idea of an iron bar defying space which you invented is - to someone who actually understands the ideas - even worse than the ideas you made it up to reject. There's no consistency in your thinking other than the fixed idea that you are right.
If you are honest you have to admit that you were making "arguments" that even you didn't understand in places. That isn't debating in good faith.
I know, you'll dismiss all this as Paul being "mean" again. But it's all true and obvious to anyone who reviews this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2008 11:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 09-13-2008 3:29 PM PaulK has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024