You know, I tried a similar model. All the way back in Message 295 that buz has yet to answer.
Of course, you put it much better than I did. But given that Buz thinks that there is something outside of the universe for his bar to go to, I'm not hopeful for anyone to get through to him.
Your universe is farther from the real universe then Buzsaw's.
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?
Of course, you put it much better than I did. But given that Buz thinks that there is something outside of the universe for his bar to go to, I'm not hopeful for anyone to get through to him.
You've got my position/hypothesis wrong, Kuresu. My position is that the Universe is infinite in that space is infinite, so there is no outside of the Universe so the bar model never leaves the Universe.
It would not even go outside of your finite Universe model. It would falsify yours.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
Jeez Buz that is quite a bar you have there!! It bursts through the infinite universe? Into space outside the universe? How can there be space outside the universe? Where is this "infinite space" that is not part of the "infinite universe"?
Is this (to use your word) "logical"?
Sigh! Straggler, you need to re-read me more carefully. Note that what I said is "the energy, force and matter area of the universe, i.e. that portion of the universe which has energy and matter occupying that portion of infinite space. Savvy now?
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This was done long long ago. The trouble is, Buz, you don't even have any clue as to the meaning of the words you areusing. You do not understand force, energy, never mind space. Most people think that their understanding that applies in their garage applies to the Universe at large. They are simply uninformed of the nature of reality, and they will probably remain that way for their entire lives. You *INSIST* that your understanding that applies in your garage should apply to the Universe at large. There's a word for people who think like that. It is 'idiot'.
Imo, by the same token there's an alliterative phrase for people who think unrealistically. It is 'mystically imaginative.'
cavediver writes:
What does "occupy" mean, Buz? How does something occupy space? What does that mean? Is there no space where that thing is? Does space fill in behind that thing, as that thing moves around?
Earth and the other planets occupy their area of he Solar System where they exist. Forces, energy and matter occupy the area/space of the Universe where they exist. Get the analogy? It's called realism.
What BBT science does is to assign certain forces, energy which exist in space to be properties of space.
cavediver writes:
Buz, why are you lying? You have been told that BBT is based upon General Relativity, and it is General Relativity that assigns these properties space - General Relativity, that is one of the two most successfully tested theories ever devised. So why do you keep bringing up BBT and making these claims? BBT has nothing to do with any of this.
Are you denying now that energy, matter, forces and space originated from the BB singularity?
"assigns these properties space? Please clarify. Do you mean 'assigns these properties to be properties of space'?
cavediver writes:
What has the BBT to do with any of this? When I was five, I informed my best friend that nothing could travel faster than light. He replied that some dragsters could. This is the level of your understanding, Buz.
Again, are you now denying that the expansion and curvature of space did not originate from the BB singularity?
cavediver writes:
Yes, Buz, you have scored punches - in your own stupid face. Why am I reminded of the Black Knight?
So why then has this debate gone over 10 rounds into overtime? If there was a KO in the first round, why am I still standing?
cavediver writes:
Yes, the logic and common sense that works perfectly well in your garage. But surely only the most pig-ignorant fuck-wit would try to claim that his garage-based understanding would enable him to overturn 100 years of quantum, relativistic, and cosmological physics? Don't you think, Buz?
Imo, if you were to allow even a smidget of logic and common sense to debatable versions of GR and QM mysticism by varied science views, you might get it more realistic.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
So why then has this debate gone over 10 rounds into overtime? If there was a KO in the first round, why am I still standing?
Because you are too stubborn to admit defeat, though it has been showed and explained over and over again.
You have nothing to support your silly claims, you keep contradicting your own claims, then denying it. Your silly arguments are so silly i cannot find words for it.
Sigh! Straggler, you need to re-read me more carefully. Note that what I said is "the energy, force and matter area of the universe, i.e. that portion of the universe which has energy and matter occupying that portion of infinite space. Savvy now?
No. What you said was:
The bar goes through the energy, force and matter area of the infinite universe and into infinite space/area remaining uncurved and unbended refuting curvature of space and substantiating infinite space.
So according to you we have an infinite universe containing force, energy and matter which is itself surrounded by infinite space. The "straight" bar bursts out of the universe and into the space? Is that what you are saying?
So according to you we have an infinite universe containing force, energy and matter which is itself surrounded by infinite space. The "straight" bar bursts out of the universe and into the space? Is that what you are saying?
No it's not what I am saying. If I've said it once I've said it a half dozen times that infinite space is inclusive to the term 'universe.'
Again, what I am saying is that there is an area of the universe's infinite space where there is matter, energy, and forces. The bar would go through that area and continue on into the infinite space of the universe straight and uncurved.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
quote:Earth and the other planets occupy their area of he Solar System where they exist. Forces, energy and matter occupy the area/space of the Universe where they exist. Get the analogy? It's called realism.
It's good you put that laughing smiley in because that's exactly what physicists are doing.
Question: How does the Casimir Effect work?
quote:What BBT science does is to assign certain forces, energy which exist in space to be properties of space.
Like the Casimir Effect. How does your model explain it?
quote:So why then has this debate gone over 10 rounds into overtime?
Because you keep refusing to answer simple questions directly asked.
What do you mean by "straight"? If the definition of "straight" is not the path a photon takes, what is it?
quote:If there was a KO in the first round, why am I still standing?
What makes you think you are? We're still waiting for you to define your terms and show your work.
What do you mean by "straight"? If the definition of "straight" is not the path a photon takes, what is it?
quote:debatable versions of GR and QM
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about: What are these "debatable versions"? You need to be specific and give details about what you mean. Define your terms and show your work.
What about general relativity and quantum mechanics is "debatable"?
Hint: This doesn't mean I'm saying there isn't anything to debate. It simply means I want to know what you think is debatable.
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.
quote:The bar would go through that area and continue on into the infinite space of the universe straight and uncurved.
But how do you know it's "straight"? What do you mean by "straight"? If the definition of "straight" is not 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.
Again, what I am saying is that there is an area of the universe's infinite space where there is matter, energy, and forces. The bar would go through that area and continue on into the infinite space of the universe straight and uncurved.
I just can't get over the fact that you truly think your hunches trump the work of people with a deep knowledge of the subject combined with a huge amount of natural talent for mathematics.
If you can show your work the Nobel prize is yours, Buz!
Again, what I am saying is that there is an area of the universe's infinite space where there is matter, energy, and forces. The bar would go through that area and continue on into the infinite space of the universe straight and uncurved.
So there is an area (maybe even the vast majority?) of the universe absent from any matter, energy or forces? Is that what you are saying?
What leads you to conclude that this exists? Is there any evidence for this?
Earth and the other planets occupy their area of he Solar System where they exist. Forces, energy and matter occupy the area/space of the Universe where they exist. Get the analogy? It's called realism.
quote:Nave realism claims that the world is pretty much as common sense would have it. All objects are composed of matter, they occupy space, and have properties such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour.
Scottish Philosophers tried to go somewhere with 'Common Sense Philosophy' in the 18th and 19th Centuries, but ultimately it didn't really work. Reid once argued that skeptical philosophers “proved by unanswerable arguments what no man in his senses could believe” - a position you seem to be taking here. If you find yourself agreeing, I'm sure others in this thread can understand Kant's response to Common Sense Philosophy by saying that it means “the stalest windbag can confidently take up with the soundest thinker”.
So why then has this debate gone over 10 rounds into overtime? If there was a KO in the first round, why am I still standing?
Buz, you have concussion. Drink more water, stop trying to get back to your feet. Stop trying to throw punches at the medics.
All I know is that your position is that a straight bar is 'unbended' and in a Euclidean universe it would never meet up with itself. I knew that before the thread started, its the most obvious position to take. The question is, how do we demonstrate whether the universe is infinite and Eucliean or not?
There are many experiments that have been proposed, it seems that the Euclidean image you have of the universe is outdated and demonstrably inaccurate. It proved impossible to get to this in any depth since such seemingly straightforward things such as a definition of 'straight' or 'unbended' seemed elusive. How can we know if a straight bar could meet itself if we don't know what 'straight' is.
I have not even seen you hypothetically accept that if space could bend in the way described by physicists, then a bar that would be otherwise measured as straight could indeed come back on itself, depending on the nature of the geometry of space.
™ Version 4.2