Straggler writes:
A 10 year old can comprehend why 3D maths is insufficient to model 3 spatial dimensions plus time. (regardless of anything to do with curvature or straight bars etc. etc. etc.) Why cannot you?
The 10 year old has been programmed into the BB spacetime mindset, but guess what? Most 10 year olds can understand that the 3D bar's ends will not join regardless of how much time you give it and how long it gets. Why can't 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.
Straggler writes:
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. Most 10 year olds can grasp this. Why can you not?
Most 10 year olds can see that your four dimensions are not co-ordinates. Three are spatial and time is not. You're trying to co-ordinate a not spatial dimension into my model so as to obfuscate it. It does not co-ordinate. The way you do this is to take your pencil and rig up a geometric model of one and two dimensions which is not reality, as I've been arguing all these pages. Why can't you see that?
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.
Straggler writes:
What? Actually don't bother answering that.
Most 10 year olds can answer it. Why can't you?
Straggler writes:
Buzsaw writes:
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.
Again, when you
can't refute, belittle the messenger and run.
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.
Straggler writes:
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.
You're spinning round and round, Straggler. You ignore the
fact that my model has three spatial dimensions just as does the universe. Your model tries to add a 4th
non-spatial and non-coordinate which does not model the spatial dimensions of the universe.
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.
Sure. I'm not at all surprised. You've programmed into his young impressionable mind what to think.
Straggler, you're wasting your time with the path of the ball. All it amounts to is more obfuscative math and geometrical lines.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
™ Version 4.2