The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

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?

Flat Space

quote:

---

In cosmology, the concept of "curvature of space" is considered. A space without curvature is called a "flat space" or Euclidean space.

​

A question often asked is "is the Universe flat"? The geometry of spacetime has been measured by the WMAP probe to be nearly flat.

---

You dispute any curvature whatsoever, even local curvature, so I figured that 'flat' was a good way to describe your view of the universe.

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? 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?

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.

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. 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.

I'd suggest 'Nave' or 'direct' realism is a more accurate name.

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”. 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.

Yes. If, hypothetically speaking, the universe is as you describe it - then a bar that was straight would never meet itself.If, however, the universe is shaped differently, a straight bar may actually meet itself.That you won't even accept this as hypothetically possible speaks volumes about your open mindedness. Everyone else around here is perfectly capable of hypothetically accepting your version of events for the sake of argument: does this not say anything to you? How do you know? Describe your epistemology. You cannot assert Euclidean principles when we are talking about non-Euclidean geometry. It makes no sense.You have difficulty even defining 'straight' and you cannot explain how two ends of a 2D straight line meet without bending into a 2D ring. If you think 'instinct' is good enough for non-Euclidean geometry you are wrong. It's not a question of 'should'. The point is you won't. Even though it won't change reality to try and explore this from the point of view of your opponents. To try and show flaws in non-Euclidean geometry, you should be able to say 'OK, assuming it is true, here are some other possible consequences of your position'.We have named several consequences of your position. Sat-Nav difficulties, the difficulty in calculating the precession of the perihelion on Mercury. Gravitational lensing. Even walking in a straight line becomes a chore.Neverthless - Pacman would insist that the screen he lives in is perfectly flat and that the walls are unbended and non-curved. And yet he keeps coming back on himself. I'm willing to bet that you couldn't even demonstrate that the walls in Pacman's world are straight or otherwise.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No, you forgot to take into account the quantum phased negative curvature of the tachyonic manifolds. If you use the sonic screwdriver to reverse the polarity, you'll find that the quasitronic flange equations derived from Foster's third principle positively accent your time issues. Thus an unbended straight rod, existing within and without itself, extending approaching infinity, will in fact self-curve on a 2M surface so long as we maintain electron flow through the time variants.

This is equivocation. Theists that accept the Big Bang do not think that the Big Bang was the birth of everything that exists (and neither do I!) I watched the first and second lecture. The second lecture is still about basically pure classical physics, with a tiny reference to quantum physics. For the most part though, the second lecture is abstract mathematics (complex conjugates sound more like a grammar thing than a maths thing ), which you might not enjoy but I'm advised its vital to understand what happens next.That said: its not really relevant to the topic at hand. Do you think there's much more life in it? Everyone seems to be repeating themselves.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I didn't say that, since for all I know that is gibberish. More reasonably, there is something else that exists other than what we call the cosmos. Theists that accept the BB generally believe that one such entity is God and that God created spacetime. Sometimes they see the BB as a creation event, other times they believe God created the 4D universe in one go (past, present and future) and the BB is just one coordinate within the spacetime He created. Everything that exists in spacetime, from our perspective, has existed for that amount of time. The Braneworld (or quantum foam etc) of some physicists, the divine realm of some monotheists and the metadivine world of some pagans all exist may have existed for 'longer' if such a thing as time exists outside of this 'pocket' of spacetime.Perhaps another possible thread might be possible to discuss the 'eternal' nature of God. Did the Israelites believe in an eternal God? They used the word qedem, which in a time context seems to imply 'ancient' more than 'eternal'. Is there another word they use to describe Him somewhere else I've missed?I have some chores to run, when I'm done I'll take a look at the thread. That we're being drawn into theology right now is probably a sign the thread has run its course.