The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

Hello Buzsaw, glad I could help clear things up.I still don't understand why you can't see this? Why wouldn't a perfectly straight bar be unbended and yet meet up with itself again?I know this isn't logical, but who ever said this stuff is. Don't say you want to know what property of space allows the bar to meet up with itself and yet not bend. That is the same as asking why an apple tastes like an apple. That's how space works. This "space" we're talking about here is not the space as in everything beyond the atmosphere of the Earth. But more like the fabric of spacetime that makes up the entire Universe. Including the Earth and everything on it. This alone should tell you enough. I don;t pretend to know more then scientists in there particular field of study. If I don't understand something, I ask them questions about it. If I don't understand there answers, I'll ask more questions. If after a long talk I still don't understand it, I shrug, and continue on with my life. There is nothing wrong with not understanding this "higher physics" stuff. I don't understand how it works myself, however, I can imagine it happening. Logical or not, this does not matter. So, instead of accepting General Relativity on this fact, you rather say it's not true and make up your own theory, which I'm pretty sure you can't even begin to express in mathematical equations. I'm beginnig to see where people's frustrations are coming from. Did you just actually say you're not willing to learn? How can you be serious? If the math provide an answer as to how this is possible, then surely it is within you're interest to study them. Even if you don;t think it's correct, wouldn't learning what it actually says then help you in formulating a different equation that is closer to your ideas? (for so far as that is possible). Fruthermore, they are not "miracle mystery claims" as Cavediver has pointed out, within the math it is perfectly logical for this to happen, since you don't know what the math say, you can't critisize them. So you just shout "Nuh-uh!" and then claim you are right, even though you have no math, or anything else, to back it up. Since you have nothing to base this on, it os my oppininon you are simply wrong. So, you'd rather have we teach the actual math that goes with this? I've got a video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6uKZWnJLCM. Skip to about 6:25 he will show you an equation there. This is an actual equation physicists use. Do you think anyone except for these physicists (and some mathematicians) is able to understand what this thing says? That's why we use analogies to teach these things, the actual stuff is way to complicated to begin with, it would scare everybody off. As I've said in the beginning of this post, why is it so hard for you to understand that some things just don't make sense or are not logical?Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.Edited by Huntard, : Changed thread to post in last paragraph

---

I hunt for the truth

You need to copy and paste the specific statement context that I am wrong on and state why a 2D model does not obfuscate the reality of the 3D universe as per the context in which the statement was made rather than accusing me of dishonesty. Invented model? Admitting that I could be wrong? Utterly impossible? Dishonest?I am the one here inventing models, insisting I'm right and raising impossibilities?How about dishonest 2d model - 3d reality; our POV can't possibly be wrong; not bended 3d bars curving full circle without bending? Unlike some (ahem) I'm honest enough to admit things in places and learn from it so as to debate in good faith. Paul is being mean again. Same ole Paul.

---

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

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

not bended 3d bars curving full circle without bending?

---

Precisely. This is exactly what we're talking about. You cannot "common sense" your way through this. It seems crazy to think that a straight line could curve back upon itself, but that's exactly what happens.Let's start very slowly, one step at a time.1) "Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with this definition, yes or no?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buz
The reason a 2D model is often used is because it aids the conceptual model of spacetime as 4 dimensional (where time is the 4th dimension). We obviously cannot think in terms of 4 dimensions because we are limited to 3 spatial dimensions. Try creating a physical 4D model if you do not believe me!!How are we to try and conceptualise the idea that the spatial dimensions we experience are geometrically equivelent to the surface of a 4D sphere?
We do this by imagining the perspective of something dwelling in the 2D surface of a 3D sphere. The sort of spehere we can conceptualise physically. Hence the 2D anlogy used with regard to "straightness" etc.That is why we talk about 2D analogies and models. Those who understand the maths of these things do not necessarily need such models but it is the best method of explaining these things to those who may not have the mathematical knowledge to conceptualise from equations alone.The aim is not to trick. Not to obfuscate. Not to deny reality. And not to deny God. The aim is to simplify the conceptual point such that it can be understood without maths. It is a simplistic model to aid understanding.

Spacetime is 4 dimensional. Surely you agree with that?

Geometrically we must therefore work with a 4D model. Surely you agree with that?

Using a 3D model for conceptual simplification is a valid method of visualising things like "straightness" in a spherical model. Surely you agree with that?

Imagining things from the perspective of a being living in 2 spatial dimensions with time as the third dimension is a valid way of exploring the idea of dwelling in a 3D surface of a 4D sphere. Do you understand this?

​

Whether you agree with the model or not is irrelevant. An appreciation of why such 2D models are valid and used is achievable.
It really is not to pull the wool over people's eyes. Quite the opposite in fact.

​

Do you understand this now? Or do you still think we are all just trying to con you somehow?

quote:

---

You need to copy and paste the specific statement context that I am wrong on and state why a 2D model does not obfuscate the reality of the 3D universe as per the context in which the statement was made rather than accusing me of dishonesty.

---

Well there's a clear example. Firstly I did not accuse you of dishonesty in the quoted text - I pointed out that you had accused others of dishonesty.Using a simpler example to illustrate the principles involved is the opposite of obfuscation. The fact that you refuse to understand it is no excuse for making false accusations.

quote:

---

Invented model? Admitting that I could be wrong? Utterly impossible? Dishonest?

​

I am the one here inventing models, insisting I'm right and raising impossibilities?

---

Yes, all of them.

quote:

---

How about dishonest 2d model - 3d reality; our POV can't possibly be wrong; not bended 3d bars curving full circle without bending?

---

The 2D model is not dishonest, it is an honest attempt to explain.
Unlike your ideas General Relativity is not out forward as dogma - it is accepted because of the evidence, as has been pointed out.
The bending of space (not the bar as such - the bar is straight in our three dimensions as I have explained).So we have yet another example of you preferring false accusations and misrepresentation to admitting your errors.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

It's just as logical for an apple to taste like an apple as it is for 3D straight bars to remain uncircular. I go with logic so long as it remains logical to do so. So far the counterparts have failed to trump logic, reality and sense with some of the quite mystical GR arguments. It's all static unbounded infinite space/area regardless of where the space exists. The difference is that our area of space in the infinite universe is occupied.I've been regarded as a stubborn ole ignorant fool for alternative POVs which I aire, but at least some who contribute to Wikipedia lend support to my space view. Space - Wikipedia Outer space - Wikipedia There are folks more savvy and educated than I who hold to the Euclidean space POV.
If I don't understand something, I ask them questions about it. If I don't understand there answers, I'll ask more questions. If after a long talk I still don't understand it, I shrug, and continue on with my life. There is nothing wrong with not understanding this "higher physics" stuff. I don't understand how it works myself, however, I can imagine it happening. Logical or not, this does not matter.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.So, instead of accepting General Relativity on this fact, you rather say it's not true and make up your own theory, which I'm pretty sure you can't even begin to express in mathematical equations.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.I'm beginning to see where people's frustrations are coming from. Did you just actually say you're not willing to learn? How can you be serious? If the math provide an answer as to how this is possible, then surely it is within you're interest to study them. Even if you don;t think it's correct, wouldn't learning what it actually says then help you in formulating a different equation that is closer to your ideas? (for so far as that is possible). Furthermore, they are not "miracle mystery claims" as Cavediver has pointed out, within the math it is perfectly logical for this to happen, since you don't know what the math say, you can't criticize them. So you just shout "Nuh-uh!" and then claim you are right, even though you have no math, or anything else, to back it up.Imo, time will show many of those predictions to become falsified.

---

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

That is irrevelant to my model which is a 3D absolute straight not bended bar.

---

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

A perfectly straight 3D bar is perfectly straight in 3D space. However it is "curved" in 4D spacetime. Can you suggest an experiment that could be done to falsify these conclusions and verify your own kindergarten cosmology model?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So how do you determine that your bar is "absolutely straight"? What defines "straight" in your model?Without defining this the rest of your argument is completely, utterly and totally meaningless

Buz old bean, you really need to get into the habit of reading everything on a webpage when you cite it. This is from the Wiki page on Space: If space is curved, it follows logically that anything in space is curved, unless it has some property that allows it to leave space.Please, feel free to ignore this and continue with your own delusional ramblings.

---

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

Yes. Good point succinctly made.Buz has basically got to demonstrate that space is not capable of curvature at all if his argument is to make any sense at all.But then his argument doesn't make any sense at all....... oh well.

You're getting unreal on me again. In the 3D real world our eyes see 2D since our eyes are not 3D. 4D adds a time or additional bonus (unreal) space dimension for more freedom in teaching the GR POV of space, etc. It stacks the real 3 altitude, latitude and longitude dimensions along with the bonus dimension into 4 (abe: geometric) unreal parallel dimensions which essentially transform the real 3D space into a geometric 2D for purposes of science when in reality space has 3 dimensions, altitude, latitude and longitude.So we're back to square one, so far as refutation of my 3D reality bar model.The alleged curve property of space is hypothetical and debatable. Space cannot allow for my model to bend or curve. It's ends will never meet. Given enough energy it would extend straight out into space infinitely in one real spacial direction. Space is infinite, static and unbounded, but having no outside of. Edited by Buzsaw, : 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.

For the purpose of the hypothesis it is hypothetically absolutely straight with enough energy to extend infinitely. It is a model (as in doing science :cool.

---

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

See? Some predictions are easy.

a model has to explain how it works. You can't just claim "hypothetically straight, hypothetically straight" without giving up the details. Sorry, you're not doing science.Oh, and our eyes certainly see in three dimensions. 2D would mean that we only see in length and breadth (or length and height, or breadth and height). We see breadth(I can see how wide my room is), we can see length (I can determine this in my room as well), and height (again, I can tell this about my room). I can see the 3D space that I live in. If it was only one of the 2D models, My room would have no height, or no breadth, or no length.Time is not an unreal dimension either, unless you are suggesting that there is no time. We are moving forward in time, though this is the only dimension I'm aware of that is not spatial (cavediver or someone knowledgable please correct me if I'm wrong)Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.