|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Damn, I'm glad I only read about three posts on this thread!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Ok, but it says the 3D world is not perceived via the eye but inferred by the brain.
That's a debatable topic for another thread. Until I know more about the topic, I'll admit that it's beyond my understanding and my argument may be unsubstantiated. 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: Your whole argument is based on a complete misapprehension of everything that everybody is saying to you No. Rather, your arguments keeps on misapplying my position to your own 4D position which has four stacked dimensions, thus essentially applying my 3D model to a 2d model. Question: Does 4D stack 4 dimensions parallel? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
No. Rather, your arguments keeps on misapplying my position to your own 4D position which has four stacked dimensions, thus essentially applying my 3D model to a 2d model. No No No No No No. And for the last time - NO. Forget GR. Forget "straight" curved bars. Forget curvature. Forget photons, light beams, infinity, the universe and all of the rest of it. Forget all the physics you find contentious and ungodly. None of it need even be considered for you to get this extremely simple point. Just consider a group of guys throwing a ball around a normal everyday park. It really is that simple. You cannot fully graphically and mathematically represent the everyday situation of a ball being thrown around a park without considering 4D geometry. See Message 127 which attempts to explain this at a level you should be able to understand. If not then feel free to ask questions.
Question: Does 4D stack 4 dimensions parallel? No. This has nothing to do with parallel dimensions.Four guys. One ball. In a park. No parallel dimensions required. Please read Message 127 and then tell me how you would go about modelling a ball being thrown around a normal everyday Earthbound three dimensional park as time progresses without needing to consider 4 dimensional maths. Please just try and accept the fact I am trying to help you understand the need for 4D maths. The whole "straight" bar thing is a lost cause with you as far as I am concerned but an understanding of why 4D maths is considered to be needed is, I believe, within your grasp if you will just stop being so damn stubborn and actually listen. Four guys. One ball. In a park. Demonstrates all you need to know to get this pointSee Message 127 and I hope to hear back from you. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4737 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
I'm convinced that if Buzsaw is capable of interpreting "freedom" from the wiki article as the 4thdimension being "Number Fudging Potential" then I'm sure he'll be able to make whatever he wants out of all those word thingies in Message 127.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Yes you are almost certainly right.
But I live in eternal optimisim that the multidimensional depths of Buz's ignorance are surmountable Straight bars etc. etc. I give up. But........If he is willing to accept anything other than his preconceived notion that we are all trying to fool him with some fancy jiggery pokery mathematical mumbo jumbo then I think he might well be able to grasp why we keep on about this 4D thing. If..........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Buzsaw.
Buxsaw writes: Ok, but it says the 3D world is not perceived via the eye but inferred by the brain. I wasn't talking about the 3D world, Buzz: I was talking about the 3D retina. Take a piece of paper with some writing on it. The surface of that paper, and all the letters on it, are only 2-dimensional. Pay particular attention to the lower-case letter "l". Now, curl your paper into a C-shape in your hand and look at all the little l's again. Do they still look like l's, or have they all been bent into C's because of the curvature of the paper? Of course they still look like little l's, because you only read l's in two dimensions: the third dimension isn't taken into account for the shapes of letters (did you ever see the movie Contact?---the aliens in that movie had 3D writing that the scientists couldn't figure out because they were trying to interpret it in 2D). In the same way, we only define "straight lines" in three dimensions: the fourth dimension isn't considered. It's only confusing because, in my paper example, you can actually see the third dimension, but, in the "unbent curved bar space" example, you can't see the fourth dimension in which the curvature happens, so you think it's completely bogus. -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: Your 3D bar is straight in 3D. Nobody is disputing that. However in 4D curved spacetime it is necessarily curved. 1. But my model models reality of what is observed. My model has the three basic spatial dimensions. You are applying time as a non-spatial dimension, that is non-geometric. It has no geometric line and imperceivable geometrically. That's why it is not included in my model. 2. My argument, my position and my model are 3D. I am saying my model WILL NOT CURVE, no matter how far it is extended. YOU HAVE FINALLY ADMITTED HERE THAT THAT IS CORRECT. 3. As I understand it, what the 4th (time) dimension does to 3D when it is applied to space, i.e. spacetime, according to conventional science, is to allegedly (abe: cause curvature) to all three dimensions of 3D to become 2 parallel geometric spatial lines over time. The bottom line which represents 2 dimensions, i.e. longitude and latitude, becomes one dimension since a line has one dimension. The top 1D line, altitude/height, having becoming allegedly bent, over time becomes parallel to the bottom 1D line by alleged curvature. So what the unreal thing 4D does by applying time is change the real 3D universe into a magical illusionary 2D of parallel dimensions capable of curvature, yet each line remaining straight as it curves. 4, The problem of adding the 4th dimension, time, to my 3D bar model and trying to argue that it's ends will join is that it is not a one dimensional line and it's three dimensions can never be magically parallel curvable one or two dimensional lines because unlike one dimensional lines, it's dimensions have a physical measurement, two of which never change when it is extended. 5. This is why conventional science MUST apply only one or two dimensional models such as geometric lines or 2D surfaces but that obfuscates my model. That's what you people have been doggedly denying for five long pages now and you demean me for incomprehension! The above appears to be the reason conventional science can't identify the alleged property of space capable of curvature other than geometric math etc. It's all illusional geometric lines. ABE: Imo, the notion that space has alleged properties capable of being curved, as I've shown above is nothing but a concocted illusion to support the BBT. Imo, it doesn't even deserve the status of hypothesis since it has no legitimate model. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add comment Edited by Buzsaw, : change wording for clarification BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
except of course, while the universe seems to be flat in general, there are 'ripples' in it. There are some places where space is totally warped so there are curves. This effect was predicted by General relativity, and shown to be true by the bending of light around the sun.
A pocket in the universe where there is a round connection is called 'a black hole'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4737 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
2. My argument, my position and my model are 3D. I am saying my model WILL NOT CURVE, no matter how far it is extended. 1. But my model models reality of what is observed. There is no one arguing how your model works, Buz. The argument is whether it comports with reality. In your model, which is as valid as any model ever conceived right up until you claim it has something in common with reality, has nothing to do with the Universe we live in. What we observe is that space curves.
YOU HAVE FINALLY ADMITTED HERE THAT [my bar will not bend] IS CORRECT. Yes, buz, your bar will not bend. The bar curves exactly as space curves. That makes it absolutely, perfectly straight. One of the properties of absolutely, perfectly straight bars in closed universes is that if the bar is long enough its ends will meet. You've won no points for the admission as that was the starting point. Why is it you are only just now realizing it as it has always been the argument that the bar does not bend?
[Y]ou demean me for incomprehension! You are demeaned much more for your well practiced stupidity then your inability to comprehend what is not all too hard to understand if one bothers to think about it. But then you've not thought through, or possibly realize the existence of, the implications of your own model, so its a bit much for anyone to expect that you think through, or realize the existence of, implications of other models.
The above appears to be the reason conventional science can't identify the alleged property of space capable of curvature other than geometric math etc. It's all illusional geometric lines [and light following the curvature]. The property has been identified many times: it's called curvature.
Imo, the notion that space has alleged properties capable of being curved, as I've shown above is nothing but a concocted illusion to support the BBT. All you have shown, Buz, is that it is indeed your opinion the notion that space has alleged properties capable of being curved is nothing but a concocted illusion to support the BBT. You use the word "shown" in the place of "said" as if you didn't understand the difference between the two. And the word is "unbent", you git. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
No, Buz. Explaining a model you don't want to understand is NOT obfuscation.
I know you're going to accuse me of being mean for pointing out that you are engaging in one of your standard slanders. No honest, moral person would agree with you.
quote: You have yet to show that your model is as successful as GR. YOu have yet to show that your model is even detailed enough to potentially be as successful as GR. GR models the reality of what is observed far more successfully than your "model" is even potentially capable of (after all, the best you could do is swipe from the Newtonian ideas that GR replaced). I'll grant that there is some confusion over time and I wish that it hadn't been brought up. It isn't really part of this discussion.
quote: This is an example of real obfuscation. Nobody has argued that your model will curve. Only that it cannot be an accurate model of reality because it does not account for the deviations from Newtonian physics that GR explains through the curvature of space. I guess you are confusing your model of space with your infinitely long absolutely straight iron bar. But you have no coherent model of that iron bar. I am still waiting to see an explanation of how it can deviate from a straight line in three dimensional space. If our three dimensional space is curved than as a three dimensional object in three dimensional space the iron bar has to follow that curvature.
quote: Time is a distraction and a mistake on the part of some of your opponents.Equally your use of longitude and latitude is geocentric in the extreme. On the other hand you seem able to generate your own confusion without help. Your "understanding" is so confused I don't think it can be corrected other than throwing it out and starting from scratch. You should start with the understanding that the 2-dimensional models were analogies, used only because they make the issues easier to understand. Any "understanding" which assumes that they are anything more than (very close) analogies is going to be badly wrong.
quote: Time is not the issue, that's the other "4th dimension".
quote: This point is entirely wrong. Conventional science uses lower-dimensional model as illustrations and analogies to explain their models. It is not obfuscation, nor is it even concerned with your model.
[quote]
That's what you people have been doggedly denying for five long pages now and you demean me for incomprehension![/quite] It's obvious that you don't understand. It's not "demeaning" to point that out.
quote: I offered to answer if you would clarify the question. You refused.
quote: The model has existed for some time and it has been thoroughly tested. It is called General Relativity. Denying that GR even exists at this point of the thread goes beyond absurdity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:quote: That doesn't answer the question. Let's try it again, shall we? "Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum. Do you agree with that definition or not? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Buz writes: Given enough energy it would extend straight out into space infinitely in one real spacial direction. Straggler writes: OK. But in 4D spacetime it would still curve. Careful, the phenomenon we are discsuing is a property of the (3d)curvature-induced topology of the 3d space. It doesn't really have anything to do with the fourth dimension. In the same way, the 2-sphere is a purely two-dimensional object. We can embed it in three dimensions for visualisation purposes, where we see it as the surface of a ball and comfortably analyse its topology. But it is completely wrong to say that the 2-sphere gains its topology by curving in a third dimension. The curavture is completely intrinsic to 2-d, despite the false impression given by our artificial 3-d embedding. In the same way, the curvature we are talking about that could 'close' the Universe is completely intrinsic to 3-d, and has nothing to do with the fourth time dimension, irrespective of how much of a headache this causes in trying to bend your mind around the situation...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024