Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 413 (483076)
09-19-2008 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rrhain
09-19-2008 8:35 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rrhain, posted 09-19-2008 8:35 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Rrhain, posted 09-19-2008 9:40 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 242 of 413 (483078)
09-19-2008 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Buzsaw
09-19-2008 9:07 PM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
quote:
"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 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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Buzsaw, posted 09-19-2008 9:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Buzsaw, posted 09-19-2008 9:53 PM Rrhain has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 413 (483079)
09-19-2008 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Rrhain
09-19-2008 9:40 PM


Move On
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Rrhain, posted 09-19-2008 9:40 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Rrhain, posted 09-20-2008 2:46 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 247 by cavediver, posted 09-20-2008 4:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 244 of 413 (483114)
09-20-2008 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Buzsaw
09-19-2008 8:46 PM


Re: BUMP FOR ANSWER TO QUESTIONS BY SOMEONE
quote:
don't see that as a forthright answer. Your answer isn't making much sense. How about rephrasing it for clarification.
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:
Since time wouldn't be a factor, we need to know what causes the bar model to allegedly curve and it's ends to connect.
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:
As I understand it, you people have been agreeing that a 3D model would not curve without the time dimension causing the curvature.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 09-19-2008 8:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 245 of 413 (483116)
09-20-2008 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Buzsaw
09-19-2008 9:53 PM


Buzsaw responds to me
quote:
Rrhain, I'm not going on your segway.
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:
You're simply hijacking this thread
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:
with repeated same-oles
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:
you're not going to get any more answers on.
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:
Move on or I'll simply ignore you.
And this is a change, how? You haven't answered my singular question to you so far.
quote:
I'm not interested at this time in photons or learning more about them.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Buzsaw, posted 09-19-2008 9:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 246 of 413 (483121)
09-20-2008 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Buzsaw
09-19-2008 8:07 PM


Re: Black Hole/Photon Question
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Buzsaw, posted 09-19-2008 8:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 247 of 413 (483122)
09-20-2008 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Buzsaw
09-19-2008 9:53 PM


Re: Move On
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Buzsaw, posted 09-19-2008 9:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 248 of 413 (483131)
09-20-2008 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Buzsaw
09-19-2008 3:30 PM


Re: BUMP FOR ANSWER TO QUESTIONS BY SOMEONE
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" 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.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 228 by Buzsaw, posted 09-19-2008 3:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 249 by kuresu, posted 09-20-2008 8:05 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 250 by Buzsaw, posted 09-20-2008 8:33 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 09-20-2008 5:40 PM Straggler has replied

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


    Message 249 of 413 (483133)
    09-20-2008 8:05 AM
    Reply to: Message 248 by Straggler
    09-20-2008 7:33 AM


    Re: BUMP FOR ANSWER TO QUESTIONS BY SOMEONE
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 248 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2008 7:33 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 254 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2008 4:34 PM kuresu has not replied

    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 250 of 413 (483134)
    09-20-2008 8:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 248 by Straggler
    09-20-2008 7:33 AM


    Re: BUMP FOR ANSWER TO QUESTIONS BY SOMEONE
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 248 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2008 7:33 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 251 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2008 11:34 AM Buzsaw has not replied
     Message 255 by Modulous, posted 09-20-2008 5:03 PM Buzsaw has replied
     Message 261 by Rrhain, posted 09-20-2008 6:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


    Message 251 of 413 (483162)
    09-20-2008 11:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 250 by Buzsaw
    09-20-2008 8:33 AM


    Re: BUMP FOR ANSWER TO QUESTIONS BY SOMEONE
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 250 by Buzsaw, posted 09-20-2008 8:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

    johnfolton 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
    Posts: 2024
    Joined: 12-04-2005


    Message 252 of 413 (483172)
    09-20-2008 1:54 PM


    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: 06-16-2005


    Message 253 of 413 (483174)
    09-20-2008 2:09 PM


    Well, it is free-for-all
    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: 09-30-2006


    Message 254 of 413 (483187)
    09-20-2008 4:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 249 by kuresu
    09-20-2008 8:05 AM


    Re: BUMP FOR ANSWER TO QUESTIONS BY SOMEONE
    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.......

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 249 by kuresu, posted 09-20-2008 8:05 AM kuresu has not replied

    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 255 of 413 (483193)
    09-20-2008 5:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 250 by Buzsaw
    09-20-2008 8:33 AM


    discriminating
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 250 by Buzsaw, posted 09-20-2008 8:33 AM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 257 by Buzsaw, posted 09-20-2008 5:46 PM Modulous has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024