The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

In the time it took you to make that pissy excuse you could have answered the question "Is "straight" defined by the path of a photon in a vacuum?" All you have to do is type "yes" or "no". How the hell hard is that?That you don't seem to recognize how essential that is goes to your lack of competence.

---

KindlyWhen 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?

Once curved, all dimensions of space would become parallel to the mass horizon of the universe as I understand it. The only way for them to be orthogonal would be for no time dimension to be applied. Correct, anybody?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

ABE: Inappropriate answer deleted, having time to think over. Lyx2no, as with others, have all been kind, in that they have participated and attempted to convey what they believe is truth. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Wrong, again.

---

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

It's comparative. You don't want to see me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. (Okay, so when I turn green I look more like Dipsy the teletubby then Lou ferrigno, but you still wouldn't like me.) What you're doing is not called learning. If you want to learn answer the questions. The questions are not designed for us to learn from them, but to steer you toward an understanding of the fatal flaws in your notions.AbE: You need to say something substantial about your notion instead of worrying about who's naughty or nice. You've been repeating the same few lines over and over. Pick one of your lines and reinforce it with something ” anything.P.S. Your notion fails today; there is no need to rehash the big bang. How do you measure a line for straightness ? Edited by lyx2no, : ”

---

KindlyWhen 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?

What do you see at the edge of the universe, buz? The universe is somewhere between 60-100 billion light years across. Let's say we're at the center. We walk to the edge of the universe (30-50bly). What do we see when we're standing on the edge?A possible analogy: what do you see when you're standing on the edge of the earth? The earth has a circumference of 40,000km. Let's say new york is at the center. We walk 20,000km. What do we see at the edge of the earth?Cavediver, Son Goku, if I'm wrong here let me know.

The theory of spacetime curvature was originally formulated with a static eternal universe in mind. Although these ideas of GR are now fully incorporated into the BB model you need to bear this in mind as it seems at odds with what you appear to believe about the reasons for spacetime curvature being proposed. Good. Apologies if I have become overly frustrated at times. Good again. This is where you start to get confused again. Nobody is suggesting that the universe is 2D. This is literally used for educataional purposes only.When we talk about 'flat' space this does not mean anyone is denying that there are 3 spatial dimensions. When we talk about 2D models it is purely to demonstrate 3D principles + time without the need to conceptualise in 4D (which we cannot really do) No Buz. This is a complete and utter misapprehension on your part. Your whole objection to the idea of curvature is because in your mind you think it is synonomous with the BB don't you?It would be quite possible for spacetime to curve regardless of the universe expanding or the BB having occurred. Indeed when Einstein conceived of General Relativity (the theory of spacetime curvature) he assumed a static non-expanding eternal universe. This assumption was later observed to be false.Your whole objection to curvature, based on your hostility to BB, is misplaced No Buz. No.
Nobody is claiming or has ever claimed that spatial dimensions become parallel. They remain orthogonal in a curved model. We are not layering dimensions on top of one another in the way that you think. You are battling an, albeit unintentional, strawman. Again. No. Your objections to all of this is based on a false understanding of what you think we are saying and bears no relation to what is actually being said.Nobody is claiming that time makes any spatial dimensions become parallel. Get this misapprehension out of your head. Whether you believe it or not the curvature of space has been empirically verified numerous times by multiple methods. All have been observed to match exactly the predictions of spacetime curvature as per GR. Your objections to spacetime curvature are derived purely from your hostility to BB.
Spacetime curvature and the Big Bang are related obviously but they are not the same thing. This is another misaprehension of yours.When Einstien created General Realativity he did so with the idea of an eternal static universe in mind. Mass as spacetime curvature, photons following "straight" lines in 4D spacetime etc. etc. etc. All of these empirically verified phenomenon would exist whether a different model of cosmological evolution had been used or not.Spacetime curvature and the Big Bang are related but potentially seperate phenomenon. You need to understand this.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Regarding the earth we see what we realize is a tiny area of the planet which looks flat. If we're Looking up we see spherical bodies in the heavens suspended in space but would conclude that the earth is likely also spherical.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

No, but I regard the BBT as affecting the science space POV. My primary objection to space curvature or space expansion is the logical view that space's only properties are as I've stated, most significantly being existing area in which all forces, energy and matter exists.It is nonsensical and illogical, Imo, to think that some forces and energy are considered to be existing in space and others are attributed as properties of space as conventional science does.For space to do anything it would require space properties of force and/or energy or possibly even matter.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

way to go, Buz. You completely missed the point. There is no edge to earth when you're travelling on its surface. So you have no choice but to end up where you started if you travel in a straight line. Think about it. Travel along the 38th parallel. Start at the ROK/DPRK border. Walk west for 40,000 km. You will be back at the ROK/DPRK border. Or start at the prime meridian (Greenwhich). Head north in a straight line. Follow that prime meridian for 40,000 km and you will be back at Greenwhich. You travelled a straight line, right? It certainly didn't bend, right? Which means the earth is curved.Go to the universe. Start at the milky way. Travel for 60-100 blys. In any direction. Just keep going straight. Guess what. You, if I understand our physicists right, will be back at the milky way galaxy. The universe is curved. Your straight line has to follow the curvature. If it doesn't, like on earth, you will not end up back where you started. If you followed the straight line on earth without obeying curvature you would end up in space. But that doesn't happen. You know, I think this might be the basis of your entire conceptual problem. I don't think we're suspended in space.

The current cosmological model does incorporate spacetime curvature and the BB as intrinsic elements.However space could be curved whilst still allowing for an eternal static universe. Exactly as Einstien first postulated.But the empirical observable evidence utterly refutes this view. You say logical but since when did "logical" mean in disagreement with all of the observable evidence?Surely on this basis your objection is philosophical/theistic rather than "logical"? Well modern physics suggests that the properties of space and time and matter are all the product of interracting fields. Thus your view of space as either/or is in itself non-sensical and illogical. And if all such things are the result of interracting fields....? Where does that leave your "hypothesis"?Buz as much as you would like to, you cannot reveal the secrets of the universe by waving your hands in front of you and describing what you see in terms of your very limited perspective.

Might I remind you that the burden of proof is yours. If you're not going to do anything more then restate you position as a response to all objections you fail. Your Buzsaw Notion of Undended Space Bars not only doesn't stand it never stood.You don't walk away victorious. You don't live to fight another day. You lose.

---

KindlyWhen 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 is not an election where the majority rules or wins. All the kings horses and all the kings men have yet to empirically establish that forces and energy can be a property of space, allowing for it's curvature and expansion.We know that energy, forces and matter occupy space and that space is area in which these exist.What BBT science does is to assign certain forces, energy which exist in space to be properties of space. Without assigning energy and forces to being properties of space, the BBT alleged originating expanding space could not have existed.Furthermore, as I have contended for a long time, the BBT of expanding space had not place where it could have existed in, no time for it to have happened and no place for it to expand into.No, LOL, Lyx2no, we've all taken some hits here in this sluggout, but just because the pack says Buzsaw is the only one with bruises, we've all scored some punches here.I'm not by any means claiming a decisive victory, but I'll live to engage again so long as I'm allowed to do so. BTW, Buzsaw leaves the ring with logic and common sense intact, (abe: having not been knocked senseless).THE RIGID 3D NOT BENDED, I.E. NOT CURVED BAR'S ENDS WILL NEVER EVER CONNECT WITHOUT BENDING THE BAR. SPACE/AREA JUST IS NOT THAT POTENT! Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Both curvature and expansion have been demonstrated over and over again. You have been told this over and over again. There are differences in the way the two cases would effect the Universe. Observations can be, and have been, made to determine which case would better fit the behavior of light within a strong gravitational field. Warped space: 1; Unbended space: 0. Who is we? (space is volume not area. And you keep accusing everyone else of using 2D to confuse.) Again, you need to support your notion, not battle something that you're completely ignorant of. You've never even raised a fist. As it is, the only time your fingers curled was to grab your hat on the way out. No, Buz, you've scored no points. Zero. None. You've reiterated an erroneous POV without supporting it with a single bit of evidence. Nor have you defended against a single attack made against you except by denial or neglect. As you came with neither I'd have to assume if you are leaving with either ” though there is none in evidence ” you've gained by the exchange. The umpteenth reiteration without support.You lose.

---

KindlyWhen 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?

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

Space/area has no property in it capable of curvature.

---

Why not? Wouldn't finding something that is supposed to be "straight" is actually not "straight" be evidence that it space can actually curve?

quote:

---

You cannot empirically refute that

---

Only if we remain without a definition of "straight." That's why I keep asking you to define your terms. A commonly used one is the path a photon takes. So far, you haven't given us a definition of "straight" so we don't have any way of determining if something is "straight" or not.

quote:

---

nor can I empirically substantiate it.

---

Don't you find that to be a problem? If you cannot validate your claim, why on earth should we accept it at all since there are those who claim we can determine if something is "straight" and thus empirically determine if space curves?

quote:

---

A straight dimension of a 3D spatial model is a line between two points not bended and not curved.

---

That doesn't define anything. All you've done is shift from one undefined term to another. What is "bended"? What is "curved"? How does one determine if something is "straight"? What does it mean to be "straight"? What is the definition? If "straight" isn't the path a photon takes, what is?

quote:

---

As I understand, it is the non-spatial dimension of time which is allegedly attributed to space's alleged curvature

---

Incorrect. Time has nothing to do with it. If space curves, it doesn't curve "in time."

quote:

---

curvature which allegedly originated at the singularity event of the alleged BBT.

---

Incorrect. If space is curved, it is curved in and of itself.

quote:

---

What properties of it are directly visible to your eyes?

---

The way it curves or doesn't. That, of course, requires a definition of "straight." A common one is the path a photon takes. When the eclipse of 1919 happened, we were able to test the Einsteinian model of space by watching the path of photons as they passed by the sun.

quote:

---

Like you, I cannot prove what I understand the properties of it to be.

---

Incorrect. I have a definition of "straight" and a test that I can do to see if space curves based upon that definition of straight. If "straight" is defined as the path a photon takes, then we can test if something is "straight" by watching the paths of photons. If they bend as they move across space, then that is proof that space bends.This is exactly what happened in 1919 during the eclipse. The sun is the largest gravitational source we have nearby. Thus, it would be an effective way to see if photons bend when passing by. Unfortunately, it's too bright to see any stars that are in its direction. We have to wait for an eclipse to obscure the light of the sun so that we can see the light from the stars behind it.And sure enough, we saw that the photons from the background stars bent as they passed by the sun.Beyond that, galaxies are even bigger gravitational wells. If we look at photons that pass by galaxies, we might be able to see if they bend when passing by. And sure enough, we see "lensing" where the light of entire galaxies bends around intervening galaxies as it passes toward us.But that is based on the definition of "straight" being the path a photon takes. Do you agree with this definition or not? We cannot determine if space curves unless and until you define what it means for something to be "straight."

quote:

---

Imo, you are directly observing forces and/or energy and/or matter existing in space and not space itself.

---

Incorrect. Newtonion physics, which assumes space does not curve, cannot account for the bending of photons that we see. That's what the 1919 eclipse showed us: If Newtonian physics were true, then the light from the photons as they passed the sun should have been apparently coming from a certain location. But if space were curved as described by Einsteinian physics, then those photons should have been apparently coming from a different location.How do you explain the fact that the photons agreed with the Einsteinian model? If space isn't curved, how did it happen?What do you mean by "straight"?

quote:

---

It does nothing to my model unless you can prove that forces, energy and/or matter are properties of space.

---

Incorrect. Our current models of space do not require "forces, energy, and/or matter" to be "properties of space." Instead, such things affect space.What do you mean by "straight"? If it isn't the path a photon takes, 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.