|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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. I have never denied that the time dimension does not exist. You are misrepresenting my position which is that time has no bearing on whether my bar model will curve or not in a 3D spatial dimension universe. I am saying that the bar has no non-spatial dimensions which are capable of causing it's curvature, and that includes time. Therefore it would extend continuously without curving if enough energy and matter were applied to it. This debate is about spatial dimensions of a bar. To insist that the non-spatial dimension of time must be considered in this bar model debate is to apply equal spatial value to time dimension that actual spatial dimensions have. As I have shown to be the case this essentially renders space as two dimensional since length and width become one one dimensional line and height becomes the other one dimensional line over time since the height dimensional line curves to become parallel to the width/length line capable of curvature. That's why conventional science uses a 2D model to model the universe. For the bar model to curve it's length dimension must be curved and it must curve continuously if extended. It can never have three uncurved dimensions. My bar model is straight, uncurved and not bended. Imo, there is no property of space capable of causing curvature to the model. For the above reason I repeat: This debate will not be resolved so long as there are different POVs on what the properties of space are. Space is invisible. Imo, nobody can empirically establish what the properties of space are or whether it does indeed curve. I am being maligned as ignorant and bullheaded because I don't consider space to have energy and force properties, it being only space/area in which forces, energy and matter exist. As I understand the position of my counterparts, it is allegedly forces and energy properties of space which allegedly causes it's alleged curvature. 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 |
Modulous writes: 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? I don't see my spaceview as flat. Are you thinking of Johnlofton or am I not understanding what you mean by flat? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
I don't see my spaceview as flat
So then you're no longer denying that space has curvature? How does your "model" explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury? Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So is a 4D model legitimate or not? Are physicists being dishonest when they talk about a 4D model or not?
You are misrepresenting my position which is that time has no bearing on whether my bar model will curve or not in a 3D spatial dimension universe. 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.
I am saying that the bar has no non-spatial dimensions which are capable of causing it's curvature, and that includes time. Therefore it would extend continuously without curving if enough energy and matter were applied to it. 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?
This debate is about spatial dimensions of a bar. To insist that the non-spatial dimension of time must be considered in this bar model debate is to apply equal spatial value to time dimension that actual spatial dimensions have. 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 I have shown to be the case this essentially renders space as two dimensional since length and width become one one dimensional line and height becomes the other one dimensional line over time since the height dimensional line curves to become parallel to the width/length line capable of curvature. 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.
That's why conventional science uses a 2D model to model the universe. 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.
For the bar model to curve it's length dimension must be curved and it must curve continuously if extended. It can never have three uncurved dimensions. My bar model is straight, uncurved and not bended. Imo, there is no property of space capable of causing curvature to the model. 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 again 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?
For the above reason I repeat: This debate will not be resolved so long as there are different POVs on what the properties of space are. Space is invisible. Imo, nobody can empirically establish what the properties of space are or whether it does indeed curve. "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.
I am being maligned as ignorant and bullheaded because I don't consider space to have energy and force properties, it being only space/area in which forces, energy and matter exist. Yo are being maligned as ignorant and bullheaded because:
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
That's why conventional science uses a 2D model to model the universe
No they use a 2D analogy to try to explain the universe to people uneducated in the topic matter. This has been explained to repeatedly, why do you contuine to lie about it? edit: this should be a reply to your message 256 Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
quote: You seem to have confused questions of finite/infinite with questions of bounded/unbounded. The two are not the same. Something can be finite and unbounded. Something can be infinite and bounded. If we are going to have any discussion about space being "curved," we need to have a definition of what "straight" is. So far, you have done everything you can to directly avoid giving a definition or even stating whether or not you agree with the one proferred. We cannot continue until you do. If you don't agree with the definition of "straight" being the path taken by a photon in vacuum, then what is your definition of "straight"? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
What do you mean by " . if enough energy and matter were applied to it."? It's not really a fair question though, is it? They're just magic words you use to make it sound like what you say has some of them thar' edjumacated airs to it, ain't they? After all, it's the big words everyone else uses that make their arguments compelling, ain't it? Buz, they are meaningless gibberish, and if you weren't trying so hard to avoid thinking about the subject you're talking about you might recognize that you don't really know what you're talking about.
You're talking about a straight line. You think that the rigidity of a steel bar makes for a better argument than an imaginary line. It doesn't. Not one of us here on the other side of the argument requires a model as clumsy as your steel bar to picture exactly what you are trying to say. We all get it. It's wrong. You don't need to use analogies with us. We don't mistake your point. it's perfectly clear. It's wrong. In your model space is just a vast, propertyless expanse. It goes off in every direction forever. A point moving along a straight line described within your space moving away from a second point on the same line gets one unit farther away for every unit it travels. It will never get closer, and certainly never meet the second point again. A Euclidean space. We get it ” got it in the 4th grade. And in a 3D Euclidean space you are exactly right. No one disagrees (who's competent to be having this argument). Where you are wrong is that your model better matches reality. It is far easier to understand and comports well with a piece of real(i)ty only a few hundred miles to a side. But as soon as you get to a scale where you want to start using GPS to find your way home it fails. If one sends a time signal (a time signal combined with the speed of light being a constant gives one a way to determine distance) from a satellite in orbit to a ground station without taking into account that the space between is warped by the difference of positions (within the gravitational well) and velocities one could be miles away from the calculated position. Now, your argument is that it is the gravity pulling the signal away from the straight line (I know you've not actually said that, but it is what you've been trying to say) that causes the error, not the shape of the space (a property space can't have) in between. That's a fair argument and not an uninteresting one. It's even a scientific hypothesis that can be tested and falsified. As a matter of fact it has been both: in 1919. Kindly When I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel . everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
quote: But what makes you think space can't do it itself? And what do you mean by "straight"? If it isn't the path a photon takes in vacuum, what is it?
quote: But if space curves, then the bar would curve, too. How do you define "straight"?
quote: Huh? Why is my physics textbook filled with three-dimensional problems? Why is it that I spent all that work in cylindrical and spherical coordinates? Where did this idea that science works in two dimensions come from?
quote: Why must it curve continuously? Can't space be irregular? But this all hinges on having a definition of "straight" which you have failed to provide.
quote: Why? This statement requires a definition of "straight" which you have failed to provide. If it isn't the path a photon takes in vacuum, what is it?
quote: So what happens when it does? You need to provide a definition of "straight" so that we can determine if it is straight or not. If it isn't the path a photon takes in vacuum, what is it?
quote: Indeed, and so long as you refuse to show your work and define your terms, we can never come to an agreement on those properties. How on earth can we test your model without a definition of "straight" in order to determine if a "straight" thing meets itself?
quote: No, it isn't. We can view it directly.
quote: Why not? If you cannot determine what the properties of space are, by what justification do you possibly claim that your bar doesn't have its ends meet simply due to the nature of space?
quote: If we can directly observe space curving, what does that do to your model? Doesn't that require a definition of "straight"? If "straight" isn't defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum, what is it? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I don't see my spaceview as flat. Flat Space quote: You dispute any curvature whatsoever, even local curvature, so I figured that 'flat' was a good way to describe your view of the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Modulous writes: You dispute any curvature whatsoever, even local curvature, so I figured that 'flat' was a good way to describe your view of the universe. 1. All space is inclusive in the Universe. My hypothesis of space is that it is infinite area in which all forces, matter and energy exist. It would be infinitely high, infinitely wide and infinitely deep. I don't know how that equates to flat. 2. I don't deny local curvature of the surface of the earth and other global bodies. However I do deny curvature of the axis of the earth and global bodies. The axis is straight and not curved regardless of the size of the body. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
1. All space is inclusive in the Universe. My hypothesis of space is that it is infinite area in which all forces, matter and energy exist. It would be infinitely high, infinitely wide and infinitely deep. I don't know how that equates to flat. The size of its dimensions is irrelevant. I'm only stating that in your model space has no curvature. I then asked a question about that. Are you suggesting that space can have curvature in your view?
2. I don't deny local curvature of the surface of the earth and other global bodies. If you did, I wouldn't bother trying to discuss this with you. By 'local' curvature I refer to the localised bending of space. I reasoned that you rejected the idea that space could bend due to the gravity of a planet or star, am I wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes: But what makes you think space can't do it itself? And what do you mean by "straight"? If it isn't the path a photon takes in vacuum, what is it? 1. Space's only properties is that it exists and that it is area in which all forces, energy and matter exists. Space/area has no property in it capable of curvature. You cannot empirically refute that, nor can I empirically substantiate it. 2. A straight dimension of a 3D spatial model is a line between two points not bended and not curved. As I understand, it is the non-spatial dimension of time which is allegedly attributed to space's alleged curvature; curvature which allegedly originated at the singularity event of the alleged BBT.
Rrhain writes: No, it isn't. We can view it directly. What properties of it are directly visible to your eyes?
Rrhain writes: Why not? If you cannot determine what the properties of space are, by what justification do you possibly claim that your bar doesn't have its ends meet simply due to the nature of space? Like you, I cannot prove what I understand the properties of it to be.
Rrhain writes: Buzsaw writes:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- it is allegedly forces and energy properties of space which allegedly causes it's alleged curvature. If we can directly observe space curving, what does that do to your model? 1. Imo, you are directly observing forces and/or energy and/or matter existing in space and not space itself. 2. It does nothing to my model unless you can prove that forces, energy and/or matter are properties of space. 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 |
Modulous writes: If you did, I wouldn't bother trying to discuss this with you. By 'local' curvature I refer to the localised bending of space. I reasoned that you rejected the idea that space could bend due to the gravity of a planet or star, am I wrong? Yes, I reject the idea that space can bend. See my message 267. What property of space can be affected by gravity BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Nicely put... shame it will be wasted on Buz.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Yes, I reject the idea that space can bend. So now we agree that I had understood your concept of space, can you go back and answer the questions I raised in Message 255? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024