Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 271 of 413 (483268)
09-21-2008 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Buzsaw
09-20-2008 10:43 PM


quote:
Like you, I cannot prove what I understand the properties of it to be.
Well, at least you understand that your "model" is unfalsifiable. Now, can you explain why gravitational lensing isn't evidence that space curves?
Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Buzsaw, posted 09-20-2008 10:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2008 10:42 AM subbie has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 413 (483272)
09-21-2008 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Modulous
09-21-2008 7:10 AM


Re: Parahelion of Mercury Prediction
Modulous writes:
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?
1. All I can say is that Einstein's prediction of the parahelion of Mercury was based on whether the GR prediction of it's phenomenal behavior was correct. That is debatable and this isn't the place to go in depth on that. This depends on whether GR space theory is correct.
2. How can a universe spaceview be flat with three infinite immeasurable dimensions? Does that mean that a straight line between two points existing within a such spaceview will be uncurved or does it mean that the universe is flat?

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 270 by Modulous, posted 09-21-2008 7:10 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Modulous, posted 09-21-2008 11:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 413 (483273)
09-21-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by subbie
09-21-2008 9:57 AM


Proof Not Required For Falsifiability
subbie writes:
Well, at least you understand that your "model" is unfalsifiable. Now, can you explain why gravitational lensing isn't evidence that space curves?
LOL! If proof is the requisite for falsifiability, then conventional science's spaceview is unfalsifiable.

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 271 by subbie, posted 09-21-2008 9:57 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by subbie, posted 09-21-2008 10:44 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 275 by kuresu, posted 09-21-2008 10:46 AM Buzsaw has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 274 of 413 (483274)
09-21-2008 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Buzsaw
09-21-2008 10:42 AM


Re: Proof Not Required For Falsifiability
quote:
LOL! If proof is the requisite for falsifiability, then conventional science's spaceview is unfalsifiable.
Wonderful. Can you explain why gravitational lensing isn't evidence that space curves?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2008 10:42 AM Buzsaw has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 275 of 413 (483275)
09-21-2008 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Buzsaw
09-21-2008 10:42 AM


Re: Proof Not Required For Falsifiability
By your logic, all science you disagree with is unfalsifiable.
Just because you deny (or misunderstand) the evidence and proof does not mean it isn't there.
Further, falsibility also rests on evidence showing how the hypothesis or theory can be wrong, not solely on evidence that its right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2008 10:42 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 276 of 413 (483276)
09-21-2008 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Buzsaw
09-21-2008 10:31 AM


Re: Parahelion of Mercury Prediction
1. All I can say is that Einstein's prediction of the parahelion of Mercury was based on whether the GR prediction of it's phenomenal behavior was correct.
Right. And that prediction was based on a spacetime geometry that warps. Does your model, in which spacetime geometry does not warp, also predict the precession? I ask because the greatest minds in science were unable to explain Mercury's maverick behaviour before the theory without adding arbitrary fudge factors. If you have solved the problem, I would be very impressed with you and your model's capability. I'd say it was worth testing it in other difficult areas to see if it holds up more.
2. How can a universe spaceview be flat with three infinite immeasurable dimensions? Does that mean that a straight line between two points existing within a such spaceview will be uncurved or does it mean that the universe is flat?
I don't mean flat in the way one flattens a top hat. I mean flat as in 'has no curvature'. You state that the universe has no curvature, therefore, since there is no curvature, the universe is flat.
You are thinking that 'flat' means 'having had one of its dimensions shrunk by pressure' or 'is much smaller in one dimension than in others' or something similar. Obviously, your concept of the 3D universe is not squashed, but if it does not have curvature - it is described as being 'flat'. If you don't like the word, by all means use a different one - but flat has been used to describe this kind of universe for a long time so you'll have to get used to what other's mean when they say it.
In case 'spaceview' was giving you a problem, I just meant it amusingly like one might use 'worldview'. Replace spaceview with 'understanding/opinion of the nature of space'. I say this, because if you do the substitution into your paragraph it simply becomes linguistic gibberish.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2008 10:31 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 413 (483280)
09-21-2008 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by lyx2no
09-20-2008 7:06 PM


Re: Incompetent Or Nonconformist?
lyx2no writes:
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.
1. Enough energy/matter applied simply means for it to extend to a length dimension relative to the model which is a bar capable of continuous extension.
2. Those words are no more unfair and magical than many words and phrases which conventional science uses relative to various models on various topics.
3. A rigid 3D bar has other properties applicable to my argument which an imaginary geometric one dimensional line does not have. It has mass properties which must be changed for the ends of it to connect. If you curve or bend the length dimension of a not curved, not bended rigid straight bar the mass of it is affected.
lyx2no writes:
In your model space is just a vast, property less 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).
I agree, except that my space model has properties (and I am competent enough to remain unempirically refuted/KO'd thus far, one vs a dozen or so of counterparts having lasted in the space sluggout ring for going on 10 rounds. )
Properties of space:
1. Space exists.
2. Space is infinite in all directions, having at least 3 infinite spatial dimensions.
3. Space is area capable of being occupied by all existing energy, forces and matter.
4. Space has an infinite non-spatial time dimension.
lyx2no writes:
Where you are wrong is that your model better matches reality.
Which of the four properties of my spaceview do not match the possibility of reality?

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 262 by lyx2no, posted 09-20-2008 7:06 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by subbie, posted 09-21-2008 12:01 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 279 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2008 12:35 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 280 by RickJB, posted 09-21-2008 12:41 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 281 by lyx2no, posted 09-21-2008 4:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 278 of 413 (483282)
09-21-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Buzsaw
09-21-2008 11:46 AM


Re: Incompetent Or Nonconformist?
quote:
and I am competent enough to remain unempirically refuted/KO'd
Of course, the only reason you can even claim this is because you ignore questions you can't answer. For example, can you explain why gravitational lensing isn't evidence that space curves? I'd venture to guess that you could start now and would hit the (hypothetical) 300 post limit of this thread before you answered all the unanswered questions in the thread.
By your standards, my Gravity does not exist "model" has not been empirically refuted.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2008 11:46 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2008 9:54 PM subbie has not replied

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


Message 279 of 413 (483286)
09-21-2008 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Buzsaw
09-21-2008 11:46 AM


Re: Incompetent Or Nonconformist?
You have repeatedly demonstrated a number of misconceptions regarding the model that you so despise. You have also claimed that this model is just a huge deception by scientists to trick and confuse an unwitting public. You previously ignored my message regarding this slander Message 251
I would like to know if as a result of this thread you now understand and accept the following regarding these key areas -
1) Any model that includes time and 3 spatial dimensions is necessarily a 4D model. Regardless of curvature. Regardless of bent straight bars.
2) Use of 2D analogies are explanatory aids not assertions or even suggestions that reality is actually 2D
3) The inclusion of a time component is not the cause of any form of curvature. Nobody is suggesting that representing time results in spatioal dimensions folding in on themselves, becoming parallel dimensions or any other of the nonsense that you have suggested
Do you still claim that it is all a big con developed by physicists to "obfurscate" and deceive?
Or has this thread at least had some positive educational effect on you?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2008 11:46 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2008 9:28 PM Straggler has replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4991 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 280 of 413 (483288)
09-21-2008 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Buzsaw
09-21-2008 11:46 AM


Re: Incompetent Or Nonconformist?
Buz writes:
I agree, except that my space model has properties...
You don't have a model. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Buz writes:
I am competent enough to remain unempirically refuted/KO'd thus far, one vs a dozen or so of counterparts having lasted in the space sluggout ring for going on 10 rounds.
You been refuted countless times. You just refuse to accept it. You truly have no idea how out of your depth you are, Buz.
"In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it, thou art a fool." - Rabbi Ben Azai

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2008 11:46 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2008 9:41 PM RickJB has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 281 of 413 (483324)
09-21-2008 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Buzsaw
09-21-2008 11:46 AM


Incompetent
1. Enough energy/matter applied simply means for it to extend to a length dimension relative to the model which is a bar capable of continuous extension.
But there is no necessity to mention them other then to make your statement sound official. You didn't mention porta-potties for the workmen and they would be just as important.
2. Those words are no more unfair and magical than many words and phrases which conventional science uses relative to various models on various topics.
At what point did I mention it was unfair? And I only mean magical in the sense that you use them without understanding thier meanings or applications. I certainly don't think cavediver or Son Goku toss in needless "energies" and "matters" to fill in holes in their thinking.
3. A rigid 3D bar has other properties applicable to my argument which an imaginary geometric one dimensional line does not have. It has mass properties which must be changed for the ends of it to connect. If you curve or bend the length dimension of a not curved, not bended rigid straight bar the mass of it is affected.
Your bar has no properties that need explaining. The only property that your bar has is that it is understandable to you. Everyone else (who is competent to be having this discussion) gets along fine without it.
I agree, except that my space model has properties (and I am competent enough to remain unempirically refuted/KO'd thus far, one vs a dozen or so of counterparts having lasted in the space sluggout ring for going on 10 rounds. )
I'll except existence as a property, but I'd prefer not having to quibble over that type of nonsense. Is the hole in a donut a property of the donut or of space? (And what verb is "unempirically" modifying? Are you saying you have been empirically refuted?)
Now, as you're not one of those disagreeing with you, you're not included in the set of those who disagree and are competent to be having this argument. But that you fail to notice the statement could not apply to you doesn't say much for your competence.
Furthermore, if I were to make a bronze bust of Molly Pitcher and put it into the boxing ring with the last ten heavyweight world champions simultaneously she'd not last 10 rounds due to her competence as a boxer, but you could bet your boots she'd still be there.
This said, I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say it is indeed your level of competence that explain your continuing presence in this argument.
Which of the four properties of my spaceview do not match the possibility of reality?
It is not the properties you claim, though numbers 2, 3 and 4 are iffy, that we have been arguing, but those you leave out. Namely, for this argument, the property of curvature.
For three bonus points: Do you recognize the relationship between 6πMG/c2, 2πr, and the earlier mentioned r=3M?

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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2008 11:46 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 413 (483385)
09-21-2008 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Straggler
09-21-2008 12:35 PM


Re: Incompetent Or Nonconformist?
[qs=Straggler]1) Any model that includes time and 3 spatial dimensions is necessarily a 4D model. Regardless of curvature. Regardless of bent straight bars.
I would agree.
2) Use of 2D analogies are explanatory aids not assertions or even suggestions that reality is actually 2D
Agreed but 2D model is not analogous to the universe. No way.
3) The inclusion of a time component is not the cause of any form of curvature. Nobody is suggesting that representing time results in spatial dimensions folding in on themselves, becoming parallel dimensions or any other of the nonsense that you have suggested
No. Nobody is suggesting it because they don't want to admit that that is the effect that 4D has.
1. The alleged expansion of three spatial dimensions and one time dimension space originated at the BBT singularity event. (allegedly)
2. Curvature of spatial three dimension space allegedly began at the BBT singularity event.
3. The BBT singularity allegedly originated from a submicroscopic spherical compression which expanded likely into a curved formed mass.
4. If the length, dimension, the depth dimension and the height dimensions of the curved form become curved, [b]the time dimension allows for the dimensions (in time) to become parallel which would be three parallel geometric RM lines rather than Euclidean lines at 90 degree angles to one another.
5. En effect, you have three spatial dimensions (parallel geometric lines) capable of curvature and one time dimension which allows time for the curvature from the BBT singularity event. If the expansion were sudden factoring no time, the dimensions would expand geometrically 3D, all dimensions being at 90 degree angles to one another rather than parallel.
NOTE: After thinking it over since my last explanation of this I have revised from 2 parallel spatial D lines to 3 parallel spatial lines which are effected. It still has the effect of 2 dimensions, due to the geometric lines being parallel.
The problem is whether space has the property of curvature. That is the problem we will likely never come to terms on in this debate.
Again, the buck stops with whether the BBT is factual or not. I say not, because there was allegedly no place for the energy to have existed, no time for it to have happened and no area for it to expand to. That's magic and fantasy in the extreme.
Straggler writes:
Do you still claim that it is all a big con developed by physicists to "obfuscate" and deceive?
Or has this thread at least had some positive educational effect on you?
1. I believe physicists have, in good faith, devised unrealistic and in some cases, extremely complicated and debatable hypotheses for lending support to the BBT. Space curvature and expansion is paramount to the BBT. Without them it would have no basis.
2. Thanks to you and each of my counterparts in this debate, I have had to learn a lot about your POV and research scientific terminology etc. I know you and others have expended a lot of time and effort into this debate and appreciate the input whether or not we agree.
3. This thread has given me a lot to think about, like on nights when I lay in bed, the body resting and the mind very busy.

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 279 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2008 12:35 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by DrJones*, posted 09-21-2008 10:13 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 292 by Straggler, posted 09-22-2008 8:52 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 413 (483390)
09-21-2008 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by RickJB
09-21-2008 12:41 PM


Re: Incompetent Or Nonconformist?
RickJB writes:
You don't have a model.
LOL! I use a 3D model to explain mine. Many conventional educators use a bogus 2D model to explain theirs.
Unlike the conventional real universe, the 2D sphere model expands into something, has an edge/surface and has an exterior source of energy for expansion.

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 280 by RickJB, posted 09-21-2008 12:41 PM RickJB has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 413 (483391)
09-21-2008 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by subbie
09-21-2008 12:01 PM


Re: Incompetent Or Nonconformist?
subbie writes:
Of course, the only reason you can even claim this is because you ignore questions you can't answer.
Have you ever done a 10 page debate, one on a pack of a dozen or so? I've done some, including this one. FYI, some of my messages answer questions from more than one needing responses and some of the messages don't justify the time it takes to respond.
I don't know what you have on your plate, but mine includes running a sole proprietor full time business, church activities, necessary travel to multiple business locations, one nearly an hour away, ebay sales, gardening, lawn work, book keeping (I do my own), etc, etc. besides the time I put into this board.

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 278 by subbie, posted 09-21-2008 12:01 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by lyx2no, posted 09-21-2008 10:16 PM Buzsaw has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 285 of 413 (483393)
09-21-2008 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Buzsaw
09-21-2008 9:28 PM


Re: Incompetent Or Nonconformist?
If the length, dimension, the depth dimension and the height dimensions of the curved form become curved, the time dimension allows for the dimensions (in time) to become parallel which would be three parallel geometric RM lines rather than Euclidean lines at 90 degree angles to one another.
What the fuck is this word salad supposed to mean Buz? The three dimensions never become parallel. They are always orthoganal to each other. This is more evidence that you're full of shit when it comes to this topic.
The problem is whether space has the property of curvature. That is the problem we will likely never come to terms on in this debate.
Because you're too arrogant to admit that you're wrong. We have direct evidence that space is curved and you ignore it when its presented to you.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Buzsaw, posted 09-21-2008 9:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2008 12:15 AM DrJones* 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