|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes: "Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum. Do you agree with this definition or not? Straight has multiple definitions. I'm not apprised enough on photons in vacuums to answer whether your definition is one of the definitions of straight, except that perhaps a perfect vacuum does not exist. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:quote: I'm only interested in the one that I've given. "Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum. Do you agree with this definition or not?
quote: OK. What would you need to know? Do you know how photons propagate? For example, it was thought that photons required a medium in which to propagate. It was called the "luminiferous ether." The Michelson-Morley experiment was developed to detect the presence of this ether and it failed, leading us to conclude that there is no ether and light propagates on its own. The reason I bring up vacuum is that we know there are things that can deflect light. A mirror, for example, redirects the path of a photon. What I'm trying to establish is that a photon that is traveling all on its own and isn't being deflected by anything is what we use to determine if something is "straight." That it is the standard by which everything else is measured. Do you agree with this definition? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rrhain, I'm not going on your segway. You're simply hijacking this thread with repeated same-oles that you're not going to get any more answers on. Move on or I'll simply ignore you. I'm not interested at this time in photons or learning more about them.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It's a perfectly forthright answer. Given the stated assumptions that is what has to happen.It would make no sense for anything else to occur. quote: You've already had the explanation. In our three-dimensional space the bar does not curve. It has to follow the curvature of space because it cannot break out of our three dimensional space. Therefore if the curvature of space is such that a straight line must meet itself the straight bar must do so as well. This has been explained to you before. You have tried to refute it by babbling nonsense, and it is probably why you are also talking nonsense about the dictionary definition of "straight".
quote: Your "understanding" is rooted in your repeated misrepresentations of Straggler's posts. Straggler has explicitly stated that he is NOT talking about the curvature of space. TIme as a dimension is not directly related to the curvature of space.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw responds to me
quote: You know, you can say, "No, I don't agree with that definition." I'll then ask you to define what you mean by "straight," but I thought I would help things along by providing a definition that is commonly used.
quote: Huh? You're the one who is talking about straight things having their ends meet. That necessarily requires a definition of "straight." How is that "hijacking this thread"?
quote: If you would directly answer a simple question put to you the first time it is asked, it wouldn't be required to ask it again.
quote: In other words, you don't want to actually define your terms and show your work but you expect us to simply accept it on faith that you have any inkling of what your own point is.
quote: And this is a change, how? You haven't answered my singular question to you so far.
quote: Then how do you define "straight"? We cannot discuss your model until you define what you mean by "straight." If you don't like the definition I've put forward, that's fine, but we need one so that we can all understand what you mean by it so that we can determine if a "straight" bar can have its ends meet. 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 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Of course, factoring in the time dimension. Not factoring anything in - this is what will happen.
What about my sudden extension bar model How is it extending? So that it looks and measures perfectly straight? Then it will meet itself after a length of 6.pi.M.G/c2
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Rrhain, I'm not going on your segway. You're simply hijacking this thread with repeated same-oles No, Buz. Rrhain's question is at the very heart of all of this, and the fact that you cannot appreciate this is what reveals just how mindbogglingly out of your own depth you have become.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
1. What would curve it, even considering your spacetime argument? 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.
It's extension is instant, having nothing whatsoever to do with the non-spatial time dimension. 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.
2. The bar does not move. It just extends. Irrelevant
1. What property of space would curve the suddenly extended bar? 2. What would cause the bar's 2 ends to connect? 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" 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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" Keep in mind, this is the same person who insisted that each layer of the atmosphere corresponds to one of the layers of the heavens )and got the "purpose" of several layers quite wrong) and that god's throne is in space. Can't find the thread, but it was roughly a year ago. I wonder if he still sticks with that model as well?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Then the solution to settling this debate is about the properties of space and what property of space causes it to curve.
1. Buzsaw says any observance of curvature is perception of forces, matter and energy existing in space/area, space having no properties capable of curvature; it's only property being existing unbounded area. 2. Conventional physics says space itself curves, has force and energy properties and is finite. 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: |
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 MODEL You 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
I know wikipedia is not a reliable source but it seems to be saying that in a flat unclosed universe that the time cone is only projected forward. That an object can not move instantly to another location. Its only a curved universe black hole it appears that an object could move to another location where the end could meet the beginning.
The problem with the rod turning back upon itself is the rod is travelling thru a flat universe. Galaxies appear not to be moving just time dilation or the cone is being projected forward just like an hypothetical straight rod projecting forward. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A high-flying balloon that soared over Antarctica has answered one of cosmology's greatest questions by revealing that the fabric of the Universe is "flat". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm In "simple" examples of spacetime metrics the light cone is directed forward in time. This corresponds to the common case that an object cannot be in two places at once, or alternately that it cannot move instantly to another location. In these spacetimes, the worldlines of physical objects are, by definition, timelike. However this orientation is only true of "locally flat" spacetimes. A closed timelike curve can be created if a series of such light cones are set up so as to loop back on themselves, so it would be possible for an object to move around this loop and return to the same place and time that it started. An object in such an orbit would repeatedly return to the same point in spacetime if it stays in free fall. Returning to the original spacetime location would be only one possibility; the object's future light cone would include spacetime points both forwards and backwards in time, and so it should be possible for the object to engage in time travel under these conditions. Closed timelike curve - Wikipedia Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
and almost on-topic, so sod it, here's my reply to ICANT wrt his recent rejected proposed new topic:
My question is, If it is a pile of crap when I say it? Yes
Is it also a pile of crap when Neil Turok says it? No That was easy. Next?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Keep in mind, this is the same person who insisted that each layer of the atmosphere corresponds to one of the layers of the heavens )and got the "purpose" of several layers quite wrong) and that god's throne is in space. Can't find the thread, but it was roughly a year ago. I wonder if he still sticks with that model as well? I have slowly realised that I am probably banging my head against a brick wall. I guess the above confirms this.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
1. Buzsaw says any observance of curvature is perception of forces, matter and energy existing in space/area, space having no properties capable of curvature; it's only property being existing unbounded area. 2. Conventional physics says space itself curves, has force and energy properties and is finite.
OK. Can you think of a way to discriminate between the two models? For example, can your flat spaceview explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024