Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 166 of 413 (482415)
09-16-2008 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by kuresu
09-16-2008 1:31 PM


Re: Um! Donuts
Well now that you've warned him he'll know it's a trick and have to claim it irrelevant to his un-model just so we know we can't sneak one "passed" him. he's wily like that.

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 165 by kuresu, posted 09-16-2008 1:31 PM kuresu has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 413 (482504)
09-16-2008 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Son Goku
09-16-2008 11:59 AM


Re: Models
Son Goku writes:
It is the curvature itself. Spacetime has curvature as a property.
The full on answer is that the concept of distance itself changes across the universe and it is this "change in the definition of distance" that causes curvature.
Thanks for weighing in here, Son Goku. Perhaps I need to recap my position.
I don't know whether you've read the thread so far, but I don't think it has been empirically established that aspects of forces, matter and energy can be properties of spaces. One of my counterparts in this debate (I believe it was PaulK) said that mass causes curvature of space.
I'm saying that the only property of space is existing unbounded infinite area in which all mass, energy and forces exists, leaving the only property of space as existing area in which all mass forces and energy exist. Were it not for what's in space, the universe would be an infinite existing perfect vacuum called space.
I'm also saying that time is not a property of space and that they are separate entities. Time relates to mass, energy and forces which exist in space and not to space perse.
I've shown that in a bona fide real 3D universe time or space have no property capable of curving my 3D measurable bar. The only way space can be shown to curve is in a 4D model of abstract geometric lines, time having the effect of 2D and 1D parallel dimensions which are curvable on paper or in the mind. As I've insisted, that's why 2d models are always used and my 3D not bended bar model is so despised as a model. There remains no property of space capable of curving the three dimensions of my model without bending one of it's dimensions and without changing it. If it is extended, all that time can do is allow it to extend to the extent that energy allows, all of it's three dimensions remaining uncurved and not bended.
What have I said above that is wrong?

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 160 by Son Goku, posted 09-16-2008 11:59 AM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Straggler, posted 09-17-2008 3:24 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 413 (482512)
09-16-2008 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by lyx2no
09-16-2008 1:23 PM


Re: Um! Donuts
lyx2no writes:
You have found evidence of God, Buz. But you need not rely on something as complicated as space curvature.
It appears I need to clarify my analogy.
For space science to ascribe the existence of space curvature as factual to the claim that space does curve is equal to creationists ascribing the existence of Jehovah as supreme god to our claim that Jehovah is supreme god.
Both camps claim evidence exists. Savvy?

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 164 by lyx2no, posted 09-16-2008 1:23 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by lyx2no, posted 09-16-2008 9:38 PM Buzsaw has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 169 of 413 (482522)
09-16-2008 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Buzsaw
09-16-2008 9:14 PM


Still Donuts
For space science to ascribe the existence of space curvature as factual to the claim that space does curve is equal to creationists ascribing the existence of Jehovah as supreme god to our claim that Jehovah is supreme god.
No, it's not. There are currently 30 functional GPS satellites in orbit. As part of their function they must take space curvature into account if the system is going to tell anyone where they are. None of them need to take Jehovah into account. Their is a block of empirical evidence for the curvature of space making curvature a property of space as certain as donut holes.
You have not refuted the existence of holes in donuts.

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 168 by Buzsaw, posted 09-16-2008 9:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Buzsaw, posted 09-16-2008 11:30 PM lyx2no has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 413 (482536)
09-16-2008 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by kuresu
09-16-2008 12:01 PM


Re: Shape
If I gave that impression, I didn't mean to. If you read message 167 carefully it reiterates my space position. It has no properties of shape.
Perhaps the mass existing in the universe which is in space/area has a galaxy shape which may or may not factor in on the perception of curvature of the universe's aggregate mass. I don't think there's any way to know since we have no idea if what we can observe is a speck of the aggregate mass of the universe or if it is a significant portion of it.

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 161 by kuresu, posted 09-16-2008 12:01 PM kuresu has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 413 (482539)
09-16-2008 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by lyx2no
09-16-2008 9:38 PM


Re: Still Donuts
lyx2no writes:
No, it's not. There are currently 30 functional GPS satellites in orbit. As part of their function they must take space curvature into account if the system is going to tell anyone where they are. None of them need to take Jehovah into account. Their is a block of empirical evidence for the curvature of space making curvature a property of space as certain as donut holes.
You have not refuted the existence of holes in donuts.
1. Who said anything about Jehovah relative to anything to do with certain aspects of space? Read and think about why I said what I said.
2. I repeat: No property of space allows for anything to happen in the universe. All pertains to the mass, forces and energy existing in space which happens in the universe.
3. Likely there are significant forces, energy and even perhaps mass which are of dimensions yet undetectable by scientific methodology such as what we regard as supernatural or mystic.

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 169 by lyx2no, posted 09-16-2008 9:38 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2008 1:32 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 175 by Rrhain, posted 09-17-2008 1:45 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 413 (482541)
09-16-2008 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by lyx2no
09-16-2008 1:23 PM


Re: Um! Donuts
lyx2no writes:
Just in case this went over your head: the hole in the donut is the property that has a hole in a donut.
Say what?? Property has a hole in a donut??? Well anyhow, speaking of donut holes, they have some identifiable properties such as space and the elements existing in it's area.

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 164 by lyx2no, posted 09-16-2008 1:23 PM lyx2no has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 173 of 413 (482544)
09-16-2008 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Buzsaw
09-16-2008 11:57 AM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
We're still waiting for something substantive
Actually, I'm still waiting for you to answer the direct question put to you twice now:
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 09-16-2008 11:57 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2008 8:31 AM Rrhain has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 174 of 413 (482578)
09-17-2008 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Buzsaw
09-16-2008 11:30 PM


Re: Still Donuts
quote:
2. I repeat: No property of space allows for anything to happen in the universe. All pertains to the mass, forces and energy existing in space which happens in the universe.
Are you really arguing that distance and direction play no role in physics ?
If so, there's really no point in your even attempting to discuss the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Buzsaw, posted 09-16-2008 11:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 175 of 413 (482583)
09-17-2008 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Buzsaw
09-16-2008 11:30 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
No property of space allows for anything to happen in the universe.
And yet, general relativity directly contradicts this statement. Or are you saying that the eclipse in 1919 didn't happen? Or that there is no such thing as gravitational lensing?
Are you saying we should deny what we can see with our own eyes?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Buzsaw, posted 09-16-2008 11:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2008 8:56 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 176 of 413 (482612)
09-17-2008 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Buzsaw
09-16-2008 8:51 PM


Re: Models
I've shown that in a bona fide real 3D universe time or space have no property capable of curving my 3D measurable bar. The only way space can be shown to curve is in a 4D model of abstract geometric lines, time having the effect of 2D and 1D parallel dimensions which are curvable on paper or in the mind. As I've insisted, that's why 2d models are always used and my 3D not bended bar model is so despised as a model.
Well it appears that you have been publicly outsmarted by a 10 year old. Message 163. If you still don't get the need to discuss 4D with relation to 3 spatial dimensions and time regardless of curvature, "paralell dimensions" or anything even remotely contentious then I give up. There really is no hope for you.
It has to be said that if you cannot even cope with a model required to describe throwing a ball around a park, a model readily comprehended by a 10 year old, then the chances of you grasping any model of the universe or being privy to some sort of insight that Einstein and the whole of science has missed are absolutely nil.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Buzsaw, posted 09-16-2008 8:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 413 (482644)
09-17-2008 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Rrhain
09-16-2008 11:48 PM


Apples and Oranges
Rrhain writes:
Actually, I'm still waiting for you to answer the direct question put to you twice now:
"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.
Do you agree with that definition or not?
My model is not a photon in a vacuum. You know what my model and position is and I'm not repeating it for you.
You need to refute the positions I've raised as to space, time and how they relate to my 3D bar model argument in order to get a response from me.

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 173 by Rrhain, posted 09-16-2008 11:48 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Rrhain, posted 09-17-2008 9:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 413 (482647)
09-17-2008 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Rrhain
09-17-2008 1:45 AM


What Is Being Denied
Rrhain writes:
Are you saying we should deny what we can see with our own eyes?
I'm questioning your interpretation of what we can see. My model challenges your 4D spacetime interpretation of what we see. You need to refute the points made in my message #145 item by item.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 175 by Rrhain, posted 09-17-2008 1:45 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2008 4:53 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 187 by Rrhain, posted 09-17-2008 9:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 179 of 413 (482674)
09-17-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Buzsaw
09-15-2008 11:01 PM


Can You Count?
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.
A 10 year old can comprehend why 3D maths is insufficiant to model 3 spatial dimensions plus time. (regardless of anything to do with curvature or straight bars etc. etc. etc.) Why cannot you?
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.
No. Regardless of curvature or anything else remotely contentious a 4D model is required to describe 3 spatial dimensions plus time. This is basic counting. 4 co-ordinates. 4 axes. A 10 year old can grasp this. Why can you not?
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.
What? Actually don't bother answering that. How can you meaningfully discuss spacetime curvature when you are finding it impossible to grasp the simple concepts of co-ordinates and counting.
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.
There is no magic. There is empirical evidence. And there is the ability to count. Again - There is no point discussing curvature until you can grasp why it is that a 4D model is essential.
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.
Your "model" is incapable of representing 3 spatial dimensions + time.
If your model of the universe does not include time it can hardly be a model of the universe can it? You are denying time exists.
4 co-ordinates. 4 axes. 4 dimensional model. Counting Buz, just simple one two three four counting.
That's what you people have been doggedly denying for five long pages now and you demean me for incomprehension!
My 10 year old nephew has never heard of GR, spacetime curvature or gravitational lensing. He has never considered the complexities of the GPS system and clocks progressing at different rates. He has certainly never thought about curved "straight" bars. I daresay he would agree with your commonsense conclusion regarding the bar meeting at the ends.
However even he immediately saw the problem with trying to model a 3D spatial universe that included time in only 3 dimensions. Why can you not see this problem?
How can 4D be mathematical obfuscation and bamboozlement when a 10 year old can see that a 3D model is insufficiant?
Your "model" cannot even represent the motion of an everyday ball in an everyday park. It's a joke.
I refer you again to Message 163 and Message 127 in the forlorn hope that you might yet reach the level of comprehension of a 10 year old boy.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Buzsaw, posted 09-15-2008 11:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by kuresu, posted 09-17-2008 4:31 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 184 by Buzsaw, posted 09-17-2008 8:46 PM Straggler has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 180 of 413 (482717)
09-17-2008 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Straggler
09-17-2008 1:10 PM


Re: Can You Count?
This may help. I took the time to draw the graphs out on Paint.
ABE:not sure what I did wrong (maybe because it's from facebook?), so if a mod can please fix my coding or tell me where I need to put the image to begin with that would be great. Thanks.
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 09-17-2008 1:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Straggler, posted 09-17-2008 4:50 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 183 by Asgara, posted 09-17-2008 7:35 PM kuresu has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024