|
Author
|
Topic: The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 107 of 413 (481944)
09-13-2008 3:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 105 by PaulK
09-13-2008 5:42 AM
|
|
Re: At the heart of the matter...
PaulK writes: 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). 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.
PaulK writes: 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. 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?
PaulK writes: 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. Unlike some (ahem) I'm honest enough to admit things in places and learn from it so as to debate in good faith. 
PaulK writes: 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. 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 105 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2008 5:42 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 111 of 413 (481973)
09-13-2008 6:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by Huntard
09-13-2008 6:22 AM
|
|
Re: At the heart of the matter...
Huntard writes: 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. 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.
Huntard writes: 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. 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 is the boundless extent within which matter is physically extended and objects and events have positions relative to one another[1]. Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of the boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime. In mathematics spaces with different numbers of dimensions and with different underlying structures can be examined. The concept of space is considered to be of fundamental importance to an understanding of the universe although disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework. Space - Wikipedia
Outer space, often simply called space, comprises the relatively empty regions of the universe outside the atmospheres of celestial bodies. Outer space is used to distinguish it from airspace (and terrestrial locations). Contrary to popular understanding, outer space is not completely empty (i.e. a perfect vacuum) but contains a low density of particles, predominantly hydrogen plasma, as well as electromagnetic radiation. Hypothetically, it also contains dark matter and dark energy Outer space - Wikipedia
Huntard writes: This alone should tell you enough. I don;t pretend to know more then scientists in there particular field of study. 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by Huntard, posted 09-13-2008 6:22 AM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 112 of 413 (481976)
09-13-2008 6:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by Rrhain
09-13-2008 3:53 PM
|
|
Re: At the heart of the matter...
Rrhain writes: "Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum. 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 108 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2008 3:53 PM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 117 of 413 (482018)
09-14-2008 12:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 113 by Straggler
09-13-2008 6:24 PM
|
|
More GR Obfuscation Of 3D Reality
Straggler writes: A perfectly straight 3D bar is perfectly straight in 3D space. However it is "curved" in 4D spacetime. 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by Straggler, posted 09-13-2008 6:24 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 118 of 413 (482021)
09-14-2008 12:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 114 by Straggler
09-13-2008 6:28 PM
|
|
Re: At the heart of the matter...
Straggler writes: So how do you determine that your bar is "absolutely straight"? What defines "straight" in your model? 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by Straggler, posted 09-13-2008 6:28 PM | | Straggler has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by kuresu, posted 09-14-2008 6:37 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Re: Note for Nemisis
AdminNosy writes: See? Some predictions are easy. AdminNosy, this forum is the Freeforall. Why don't you either put on the gloves and come in here without your admin armour on if you wish to participate in this slugout or bug out of the ring? 
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 119 by AdminNosy, posted 09-14-2008 2:21 AM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 123 by NosyNed, posted 09-14-2008 9:46 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 124 of 413 (482049)
09-14-2008 10:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by kuresu
09-14-2008 6:37 AM
|
|
Re: At the heart of the matter...
kuresu writes: a model has to explain how it works. You can't just claim "hypothetically straight, hypothetically straight" without giving up the details. Ok, admittedly, the word hypothetically was a poor choice of words. I should have stuck to my original description of straight. I will get to how my 4D argument stands.
kuresu writes: 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. 1. The 3 dimensions of things in your room are not height, breadth and length. They are height, breadth and depth. 2. We have 2D retinas. The 3D things we see are inferred by our brains. Below is a link which explains this. I don't remember where I saw it but Wikipedia also supports my position on this.
All the information we use is detected on the 2D retina, therefore any sense of three dimensions we have is constructed by the brain. The brain can reconstruct the 3D world incorrectly at times (for instance with the pseudo-3D advertisements painted on sports fields, and with Wheatstone's stereoscope). In reality, we do not really perceive the 3D world at all - we infer it. kuresu writes: 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 knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong) My understanding of 4D is that the the dimension can either be applied as a time dimension or a geometric spatial dimension. Our universe is literally 3D with the fourth dimension added to afford science more freedom/leeway for their various purposes. 4D skews the 3D dimensions of longitude, latitude and altitude by stacking them parallel so as to visualize 3D as 2D. Like 2D models, 4D models do not address my 3D model which relates realistically to the universe. ABE: If he 4th dimension is time, it is not a geometric spatial dimension applicable to my model for the purpose of this debate. If the 4th dimension is an added GR spatial dimension, as I have shown, the 4th dimension obfuscates reality. Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted
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 120 by kuresu, posted 09-14-2008 6:37 AM | | kuresu has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 125 of 413 (482050)
09-14-2008 10:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 123 by NosyNed
09-14-2008 9:46 AM
|
|
Re: piling on
NoseyNed writes: You won't listen to others telling you that you are why should you listen to me? I can't think of a new way to explain it to you and my conjecture to NJ is that there doesn't exist a any such way to help you "get it". NJ hasn't actually attempted to suggest either that you are right or will ever understand. He just thinks it isn't fair to point it out that you aren't and won't. Ok, Nosey N. Fair enough. You're welcome to your opinion and to express it here. Perhaps when all is said and done here, I can help you and others realize that there are legitimate debatable alternatives to the conventional scientific POV. I appreciate that the debate ended up here in Freeforall and not in the science fora so that I can have the opportunity to fully aire my points in depth without the usual restrictions relative to acceptable prevailing science views.
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 123 by NosyNed, posted 09-14-2008 9:46 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 129 of 413 (482069)
09-14-2008 1:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by kuresu
09-14-2008 11:36 AM
|
|
Re: At the heart of the matter...
The point still stands. We experience three spatial dimensions. We perceive (even if slightly incorrect) 3 spatial dimensions with our eyes. If 3 spatial dimensions did not exist, our eyes could not even trick us into perceiving 3 spatial dimensions. See, Kuresu, this is why it's taken you people five pages before even one of you would admit that in the reality dimension of 3D my model remains uncurved. It's fine and dandy for you people to be slightly incorrect when your argument is insufficient, but there's no such leeway for the minority folks here.  Our universe is literally 3D with the fourth dimension added to afford science more freedom/leeway for their various purposes.
kuresu writes: The fourth dimension isn't added willy-nilly. I didn't say it was. I said it is added to afford science more freedom/leeway for their various purposes. Nevertheless it skews/obfuscates the 3d model argument which I've been debating.
kuresu writes: The fourth dimension of time does not obfuscate reality, it is reality. It obfuscates that the reality of a basic 3D universe, without adding the freedom GR 4th dimension and my model applies to that basic reality as well as my argument. Your argument is relative to parallel plane 2D dimensions Mine is relative to actual real dimensions of things we observe. 4D affords the ability to revert 3D back to a 2D plane, thus obfuscating my valid 3D argument. Either you people are doggedly denying the facts or lack the intelligence to understand and comprehend. You MO is to insult, demean and belittle so as to avoid admitting that the logical, sensible ole guy is right.
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 128 by kuresu, posted 09-14-2008 11:36 AM | | kuresu has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 137 of 413 (482125)
09-14-2008 8:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by kuresu
09-14-2008 3:07 PM
|
|
Re: At the heart of the matter...
kuresu writes: Buz, you are, in effect, saying that time does not exist. That there is no past, present, or future. That there is only one moment, but you can't call it moment because that word describes time. Read what I wrote. I wrote "3 spatial dimensions", not "3 dimensions". Wikipedia supports my position that the 4th dimension can be time or spacial. They also support my position that it offer more freedom. What does this tell us? It tells us that it allows for more freedom to deviate from the literal 3D reality of spatial dimension for what ever purpose science wants to apply it. Regarding the 4th dimension:
Such a space differs from the familiar 3-dimensional space that we live in, in that it has an extra dimension, an extra degree of freedom. This extra dimension may be interpreted either as time, or as a literal fourth dimension of space, a fourth spatial dimension. kuresu writes: Time isn't added as a dimension to give GR more leeway, time is added because it is part of our reality. Read what I said. Time has no bearing on my 3D model argument as I have been presenting it. If you think it does, how so?
kuresu writes: A 3D universe would have two spatial dimensions plus time. Didn't you read straggler's post? I have read Straggler's message but not gotten to it yet to assess and respond. Straggler is wrong if he says the literal 3D universe has only 2 spatial dimensions. Are you denying my position that the 3 dimensions of the universe are longitude, latitude and altitude?
kuresu writes: Given that you are denying the existence of time..... Please document where I've denied the existence of time. My hypothesis does not include time as a property of space, but time exists and exists in the universe. Time has nothing to do with my 3D bar argument as set forth in this thread. It is a different topic. Straggler has admitted that my 3D bar will not curve. What has time got to do with that fact?
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 130 by kuresu, posted 09-14-2008 3:07 PM | | kuresu has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 138 of 413 (482126)
09-14-2008 9:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 136 by Coragyps
09-14-2008 5:41 PM
|
|
Wrong Way Coragyps
Coragyps writes: Damn, I'm glad I only read about three posts on this thread!!!  Stay tuned FOR THE REST OF THE STORY. In the mean time how about jumping in the space sluggout ring, read my past responses and throw a few of your own punches by responding. Put my space argument on the ropes IF YOU CAN! Much of what my opponents do is keep on repeating non-applicable same oles and wearing themselves out throwing wild personal meanspirited punches in the air. Edited by Buzsaw, : Remove inappropriate statement.
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 136 by Coragyps, posted 09-14-2008 5:41 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2