|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: Your "model" is incapable of representing the motion of a ball in a park obeying purely Newtonian physics. If you cannot see that there is no point talking to you about anything even vaguely more interesting. You're loosing it, Straggler. My model models the three spatial dimensions of the universe. For my 3D straight bar to curve would be for it's length dimension to curve and for the properties of my model to be altered and perhaps even the height dimension to a miniscule degree. Time exists but is not a spatial co-ordinate to spatial dimensions. You can't refute that fact.
Straggler writes: Buz your model is bullshit. No. Your's is BS because mine co-ordinates to 3D spatial reality of the universe and your's translates into 2D spatial by adding the non-spatial ordinate, time dimension. Time cannot change the reality that the universe has three spatial dimensions which your argument does.
Straggler writes: You try and use your model to represent the motion of a ball in a park and you see how far you get. By the same token try to use your model to refute my model and it's obvious how far you're getting. All you're doing is loosing it in your frustration.
Straggler writes: It's got fuck all to do with "geometrical" lines obfuscating anything. How does your "model" represent time? You have yet to substantiate that time curves my model. It can't without bending one of it's 3 dimensions and time (non spatial in dimension) has no property capable of that. Edited by Buzsaw, : change word 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
FACT: A model limited to 3D cannot be used to represent the motion of an everyday ball as it changes position in time. Even using normal Newtonian physics.
FACT:A computer programme designed to model this motion would have to work in 4D to plot changes in 3 spatial co-ordinates and time. Using a 3D model only this would be IMPOSSIBLE. FACT:In a universe with no curvature, infinite straight bars that never meet at the ends and all the other things you insist upon, you still need 4D models to describe the motion of an object in 3D space and time. Obviously. Doh!!! If you are too stupid or stubborn to understand why this is then that is not my fault. I have tried to divorce this simple point from anything remotely relating to BB, GR, curvatute, bars or anything else even vaguely contentious. None of the things you consider abominable need to be accepted or even considered to grasp this astonishingly simple concept. A 10 year old who can count and who has a grasp of the concept of co-ordinates can see this. In your "model" how do you represent time such that you can calculate motion? It cannot be done. It is impossible. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
And it's free for all isn't it?
Nemesis Jug, you've been away for awhile. Care to comment on how this is going? Actually, it is going exactly as predicted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
If you are too stupid or stubborn to understand why this is then that is not my fault If someone disagrees they're stupid or stubborn. He might see, yet not agree. Clearly ad hominem.
A 10 year old who can count and who has a grasp of the concept of co-ordinates can see this. Clearly you are confused. If people don't agree with you, this doesn't mean they are ten year olds, stupid, or stubborn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Hey - straight is straight, instead of botherings with semantics, let's just agree on the definition everybody uses. For debate, it should be the definition everyone knows. If Buz was using a different definition, then his motives could be questioned. As it's you who is doing it, it is now your motives that are being questioned. So here's our definition;
______________ There you go.
We haven't made it that far No - but let's not pretend we won't make it this far; O BYE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Hey - straight is straight, instead of botherings with semantics, let's just agree on the definition everybody uses. Yeah, 'cos everyday definitions are all that are required when dealing with space-time physics For fuck's sake, what happened to intelligence on this board...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I am not a space-time physicist, neither is anyone here as far as I know. All we are is a bunch of amateur debaters. For the sake of debate it makes sense that the least of us should understand what is being discussed.
Now if a gay man tells me straight isn't infact straight, then we're going to have issues here! (No, I couldn't resist Percy, just a joke, don't pour out your wrath on mikey. ) Seriously though, I don't mind being the least person reading this particular thread, so please - for space-time anomolies such as mikey - lets keep straight straight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
But Mike because the definition of "straight" is important Hiroshima disappeared.
Don't avoid defining terms if you want to use them. Define "straight" as in a long, iron bar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If someone disagrees they're stupid or stubborn. I gave up discussing anything to do with spacetime curvature with Buz ages ago. All I have been saying ever since is that 4 co-ordinates require 4 axes on a graph. Apparently this a point for disagreement.............? Silly me I honestly thought this was a case of simple counting but with both Buz and you in disagreement maybe I should reconsider my own ability to count.
He might see, yet not agree. Clearly ad hominem. I am not sure what there is not to see? 4 co-ordinates required to describe position in 3 dimensions and time seems self evident. How could it possibly be otherwise?
Clearly you are confused. Oh I am confused. I am genuinely baffled how anyone can claim that 3+1=3. I really thought I could explain the simple concept of the need for 4D maths to Buz without ever going anywhere near the contentious areas of this whole topic (curvature, bent straight bars, photons etc. etc. etc.) That was my very limited aim. I have evidently failed to do this.
If people don't agree with you, this doesn't mean they are ten year olds, stupid, or stubborn. Well if they are essentially saying that 3+1=3 then how would you describe their position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I am not a space-time physicist, neither is anyone here as far as I know Actually I think we have at least 2 professional space-time physicists who regularly post here at EvC. Cavediver is one and Son Goku the other. I think we also have a mathematician and (although not relevant to this debate) at least one paleantologist and several professional biologists.
All we are is a bunch of amateur debaters We may all be amateaur when it comes to debating but there are evidently more genuinely qulaified and knowledgeable people here than you had formerly appreciated. As for me...well I fit your original description perfectly Edited by Straggler, : I cannot spell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
As for me...well I fit your original description perfectly Nothing wrong with that, you sound in-tune enough for mikey.
Actually I think we have at least 2 professional space-time physicists who regularly post here at EvC. Then I am refuted on that particular point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
NosyNed writes: Define "straight" as in a long, iron bar. That depends on whether you allege to curve the bar with non-spatial dimension, time, which is not realistically co-ordinate to spatial demensions. ABE: Merriam Webster
1a : free from curves, bends, angles, or irregularities b : generated by a point moving continuously in the same direction and expressed by a linear equation As I said, it depends on what the definition relates to.a. = 3D b. = 2D 4D equates to b. or 2D for the reason I have stated and substantiated. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add to. 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: If you are too stupid or stubborn to understand why this is then that is not my fault. I have tried to divorce this simple point from anything remotely relating to BB, GR, curvature, bars or anything else even vaguely contentious. That's the major problem with your ball/motion model. It does not relate to my bar model. Suppose my 3D not bended straight bar model were to extend suddenly (abe: from 3 ft.) to beyond the edge of the universe. 1. What could possibly stop it or curve it? 2. Abe: Would it's ends connect? Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Lets say the universe has a center to it like Steven Hawkins say the earth could be the center of the universe. However a straight bar that would not bend is more like the flatness of the expansion of the universe its like the believed unclosed expansion of the universe with the earth being at the center.
Which is more likely a scientific reason why all stars redshift from the earth and a straight rod projecting out from the earth could not return to the earth because its projecting out from the center of a flat universe with the earth being the center of the universe and all other parts of the universe not centers. Steven Hawkins himself acknowledged the earth could in fact be the center of the universe. The reasons they don't go there is because Hawkins, Hubble are athiests so they developed multiple centers in the big bang theory instead of the logical conclusion based off redshift. Hubble said they had to think of another reason to explain the redshift other than the logical conclusion based off the evidence that the earth is the center of the universe. However the universe has been proven to be a flat universe it would have to be a curved universe for a continuing projecting straight rod to leave the universe flatness. Because flatness is part of straightness given the universe is flat not curved the straight rod will stay within the universe expansion infinitely if the universe is not closed? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Earth center of our flat universe! http://www.halos.com/...ter-of-the-universe-320x240-273k.htm Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:quote: Not according to the definition given. Do you agree with it? Is "straight" defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum?
quote: That's why I'm asking you to define your terms. Do you agree with the definition of "straight" being the path a photon takes in vacuum?
quote: And that's why you need to define your terms. Do you agree with the definition of "straight" being the path a photon takes in vacuum?
quote: But what do you mean by "straight"? Do you agree with the definition of "straight" being the path a photon takes in vacuum?
quote: And I never mentioned any of that. All I have asked for is for you to define what you mean by "straight." "Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum. Do you agree with that definition or not?
quote: I haven't gone anywhere near this. All I want right now is for you to define what you mean by "straight." "Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum. Do you agree with that definition or not?
quote: Huh? We haven't gone that far. I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by "straight." "Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum. Do you agree with that definition or not?
quote: I never said anything about time. I know others have, but I am not them. I'm still waiting for a definition of "straight." "Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum. Do you agree with that definition or not?
quote: That still doesn't answer the question of what you mean by "straight." For the ninetenth time: "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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024