The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

Understood. I agree and that's fine.
My point is that I think we are overestimating Buz's capacity for any of this.Curvature and the like are just not concepts that are going to sink in.He seems to honestly not appreciate the simple fact that a mathematical model that defines position in 3 dimensions and also includes time is effectively a 4D mathemataical model.He is insistent that any talk of 4D is mathematical bamboozlement intended only to cover the wool over his eyes and deny his 3D existence.If we can just get him to realise the simple reality of 4 co-ordinates requiring 4D maths then that, in my opinion, is the best we can hope for.

Yet again you miss the point. I am not trying to corrupt your world view. I am not curving anything. Stop looking for a fight and just listen.I have given up trying to convince you of anything even remotely contentious. My sole aim is to make you understand why 4D maths is required to describe the motion of everyday 3D objects as time progresses. Forget curvature. Forget GR. These are irrelevant. It is simply a case of counting.3+1=4I have tested this explanation on my 10 year old nephew and he got it straight away. Admittedly he had the advantage of seeing sketches in front of him but still........Once more unto the breach:EXPLANATION

If you want to write down the position of a ball being thrown around a park then at any given position you need one co-ordinate for each spatial dimension.

Therefore you need 3 co-ordinates. One co-ordinate for length. One co-ordinate for height. One co-ordinate for breadth.

So with 3 numbers you can write down the position of the ball at any given point.

​

Are you with me so far? Nothing contentious there I hope!!

​

If you were to draw this you would need a graph with 3 axes. One axis for length. One axis for height. One axis for breadth.

The axes of this graph would therefore look like the corner of a cube. Three lines. Each one at right angles to the other two.

The position of the ball would be a point somewhere inside this cube based on the co-ordinates of it's position

​

Are you still with me? This is nothing more than the very basic concept of co-ordinates and plotting points.
With this model we can take a "snapshot" and show the position of the ball at any given instant. However we cannot show anything that involves the normal progression of time. We cannot plot the motion of the ball as time progresses because we have no time axis on which to measure time.

​

We want to add time information so that we not only know the position of the ball we also know when it was in that position.

As well as our 3 spatial co-ordinates we now need to write down a time that corresponds to when the ball was at that position.

Therefore we need 4 numbers to describe the position of the ball at any given point. The three numbers for the position. And one number for the time. 4 co-ordinates.

We want to add this time information to our existing graph. How do we do this?

​

In case the answer is not obvious I'll tell you. We need to add another axis to our graph to represent time. We need another line that is at right angles to all of the already existing lines that make up our position-only graph.

​

For 4 co-ordeinates we need 4 axes.

​

Buz Challenge: Now you try drawing that graph and tell me where you think the problem might be

​

Please note: I have made no references to anything curving. We are simply plotting points to describe the motion of a ball. In a park as it is thrown around and a normal clock ticks along counting normal everyday commonsense friendly time.

​

It could not be more simple.

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.

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? 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? 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. 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. 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. 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.

That's great. If we can get the pics working there may be hope for Buz yet. Or is that too optimistic...?Admins - If we can get some advice on fixing the pic that would be appreciated?

You are being a complete idiot. This has nothing to do with BB theory. This has nothing to do with spacetime curvature. This has nothing to do with straight bars. Co-ordinates and the ability to count are all that is needed.Your dumbass "model" could not even be used to represent a ball in a park using purely Newtonian physics.The 10 year old in question is not brainwashed. They can simply cope with the concept of co-ordinates and counting. Why this is beyond you is anybodies guess...... 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. Buz your model is bullshit. My nephew saw it immediately with no mention of anything beyond discussing a ball in a park. No talk of anything to do with BB, curves, bars or photons. Just a ball in a park.You try and use your model to represent the motion of a ball in a park and you see how far you get. Try programming a computer to show this motion without using 4 co-ordinates. It cannot be done. 3D is inadequate for this task.There are no tricks. A 4D model is essential to represent 3 spatial dimesnsions and time in any meaningful way. A 10 year old can see that.You are just looking more and more stupid by denying this blatantly simple mathematical fact. It's got fuck all to do with "geometrical" lines obfuscating anything. How does your "model" represent time?
You tell me how your model can be used to programme a computer to analyse the motion of a ball in a park? Nothing fancy just good ol pure Newtonian concepts of time and space. It cannot be done using a 3D model. 4 co-ordinates, 4 axes, 4 dimensions. It is as plain as the nose on your face.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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.

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. 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? 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. Well if they are essentially saying that 3+1=3 then how would you describe their position?

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. 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

1. Whether space is curved or not a 4D model is still required. Whether or not the bar bends or not a 4D model is still required.
2. The empirical evidence of our universe all tells us that space is curved. But whether or not space is curved a 4D model is required regardless.Any model of the universe that includes 3 spatial dimensions and time will need to be a 4D model. But a ball moving in 3 spatial dimensions as time progresses is about as common sense and everyday an example as it is possible to get. If your "model" of tyhe universe is unable to cope with this scenario it can hardly be said to reflect reality now can it?Your "model" of the universe consists of you waving your hands in three directions and yelling "Look. Look. Look" It is not a method of modelling or representing anything.To describe the motion of objects in 3 spatial dimensions you need a time component. You need co-ordinates that represent time as well as co-ordinates to represent the position in terms of each of the 3 spatial dimensions.Without this there is no means of representing motion, calculating velocity or determining acceleration. A 3D model is therefore insufficiant.A 4D model is essential regardless of curvature, bent bars, BB, GR or any of the other things that you find so darned offensive.Your inability and refusal to grasp this unbelievably simple point is utterly perplexing to me. It is obvious. A child can see it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The point is that the need for 4D is required whatever the answer to the questions may be. Your ongoing inability to recognise this is just becoming increasingly embarrassing......However have it your way. 1. In curved space it would have to exist in that curved space and so would itself be curved. In non-curved space it would not.2. In a curved 4D spherical universe yes. In a non-curved universe no.I hope that answers your questions.The fact that whether space is curved or non-curved you still need a 4D model remains true Jesus you are one stubborn old dude. A child can see that 3 dimensions are insufficiant. Regardless of curvature bent bars or anything else. How many times do I have to repeat this?If you want to model motion you must use a 4D model. 3 spatial co-ordinates and one time co-ordinate. 4 axes. 4 dimensions. Without this you cannot model changes in 3D position as time progresses. You cannot model velocity. You cannot model acceleration. It just cannot be done.YOUR 3D MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE CANNOT REPRESENT OBJECTS MOVING. IT IS NO MODEL AT ALL. IT IS A JOKEWhen we say a 4D model all we mean is that time is represented by an axes on a graph in the same way that the 3 spatial dimensions are. This allows a time component which makes it possible to model change in time. This is required regardless of curvature and regadless of any bent straight bar theories.4D is not the evil ungodly cause of everything you object to here. That is the point. You have repeatedly said the use of 4D is unjustified obfurscation, mathematical bamboozlement, a huge con trick and all sorts of other wild (and quite frankly insulting) assertions.4D is used because 4D is absoluetly essentail to any viable model. Your ongoing inability to grasp this incredibly simple concept really does make you look foolish.

I haven't made a spacetime argument. I am still trying to get you to count past 3. It is proving much harder than anticipated. This makes no difference to anything in terms of the bar potentially curving or not. But it does mean that your dumass "model" of the universe does not include time. Quite a critical ommission I would say. Irrelevant If space is curved then the curvature of space. If space is not curved then it would not. All the empirical evidence tells us space is indeed curved.REGARDLESS OF CURVATURE. REGARDLESS OF STRAIGHT BARS. YOU NEED A 4D MODEL TO REPRESENT 3 SPATIAL DIMENSIONS AND TIME. NOBODY IS NEEDLESSLY USING 4D MODELS IN ORDER TO CONFUSE STUBBORN OLD MEN

Your "model" of the universe has no time

You cannot define what you mean by straight

You are incapable of comprehending the requirement for 4 co-ordinates to model motion

​

Your "model" consists of nothing more than you flapping your arms in 3 directions and yelling "Look. Look. Look. 3D. 3D. 3D. Straight. Straight. Straight"

​

It's silly.

Buz
Throughout this thread you have implied, and at times even explicitly stated, that the use of a 4D model is "obscurfation", trickery, dishonest, unwarranted and basically a big con conceived of by scientists to convince an unwitting public of a false and ungodly universe.You have also consistetly painted yourself as some sort of wily old fox who has seen through the fog of deceit conjured up by scientists. The champion of the confused and confounded masses. The one who has called the bluff of the physicist, exposed the sham and declared the obviousness of the 4 dimensional deceit being imposed in the name of intellectual elitism. Good ol Buz. Fighting for truth, justice and the 3D way!!!However the fact is that it is you who is wrong. It is you who is ignorant and it is you who is looking increasingly foolish.The fact is that the need for a 4D model is required regardless of the curvature of space. A 4D model is essential for modelling changes in 3D position in time whether space is curved or flat. You neither need to know, nor accept Einsteins insights that space and time are intrinsically linked and that spacetime is curved to require a 4D model. The need for a 4D model exists whether straight bars curve or not.Just in case this is not clear.ANY MODEL THAT CAN DESCRIBE CHANGES IN 3D POSITION IN TIME MUST BE A 4D MODELYou are wrong. You have been repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong. A 10 year old with no more science or maths education than a basic grasp of the concept of co-ordinates and an ability to count can see that you are wrong. YOU ARE WRONG.Yet you repeatedly fail to address any of this and continue on your merry ignorant path. Repeatedly and relentlessly asserting that 4D model is used only to obfurscate. Repeatedly and relentlessly asserting that a 3D model of the universe is sufficient with no regard as to how you would include time or motion in such a model. The fact is that it cannot be done.Standing in your living room waving your arms and yelling "Look. Look. Look. 3D. 3D. 3D. Straight. Straight. Straight" is not a model. Nor are you the grand exposer of the Empereors new dimension. You are just an old man waving his arms around and looking silly.Given your earlier comments regarding the intent of scientists in using 4D models and the strong implication that they are dishonest in doing so it would be noble of you to actually admit that this is actually untrue. Admit that this is a mistake. Unless you really are still too ignorant to appreciate why such a model is absolutely essential regardless of any of the curvature issues you may have.So have you genuinely been outsmarted by a 10 year old or are you just too stubborn to admit your mistake?

I have slowly realised that I am probably banging my head against a brick wall. I guess the above confirms this.......

So is a 4D model legitimate or not? Are physicists being dishonest when they talk about a 4D model or not? Which is exactly what I have been saying too. The inclusion of time has no bearing on whether or not space is curved. However the need for a 4D model applies regardless of curved bars, curved space or curved bananas. Just for one moment consider the hypothetical idea that space is curved. What do you think a straight bar would do if space were indeed curved? To insist that a 4D model is used to obfurscate rather than because a method of representing time is required regardless of curvature is dishonest or ignorant. As far as I can tell this is a huge pile of utterly meaningless bollocks. You have demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about. Again. The reason a 2D analogy is used to explain the idea to amateurs is because we are unable to conceptualise in 4D. Analogies like the surface of the ballon use 2 spatial dimensions + time = 3 co-ordinates and 3 dimensions. Because we can conceptualise 3D models. One spatial dimension is removed for demonstration purposes only because the concepts of 4D can be explained in a way that we can actually visualise. It is an anology for people like you an me to aid understanding. I expect Cavediver largely deals in mathematical models and has little need for 2D analogies. Nobody is claiming that the universe is 2D if that is what you foolishly think. Nobody is trying to con you. The point that you fail to appreciate is that by any possible measure or meaningful definition the bar is perfectly straight in curved spacetime. The bar is not physically "bent" in the way you mean. That is why you are so unable to answer Rrhains persitent request for a definition of straight.I ask againJust for one moment consider the hypothetical idea that space is curved. What do you think a straight bar would do if space were indeed curved? "Space is invisible"? So is air. Do you deny that we can know about air too? That is a ridiculous reason to declare that your dumass "model" has any validity. The fact is we can determine a great deal about the properties of space. You are wrong. Yo are being maligned as ignorant and bullheaded because:

You ignore/deny all the empirical evidence that you disagree with

You have accused physicists of dishonesty and trickery regarding the use of 4D models and 2D analogies despite the fact that 4D models are essntial regrdless of curvature and 2D analogies are used only as explanatory aids and not representations of reality

You refuse to define what straight is despite this obviously being a fairly key point (indeed starting point for discussion)

You constantly refer to your "model" as though you have a well considered theory that consists of more than you flapping your arms around in 3 directions. Yet your "model" quite evidently is unable to represent time or motion in any meaningful way

You ignore every question that you do not want to answer with arrogant statements of it being irrelevant to your "model" (whatever that may be)

​

As I understand the position of my counterparts, it is allegedly forces and energy properties of space which allegedly causes it's alleged curvature.

​

No.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.