The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

am I missing something here? What's the whole point to this 'discussion'?

that's not your purpose here buz. You never want to discuss the finer points of science without attempting to show how science is wrong, creationism is right, and thus god is real or some such bullshit.So what's your motive here. That's what I was asking. I can clearly see what you all are discussing, but not the why. If you don't feel like answering, then why the hell did you reply and then proceed to evade my question?

I know you buz. You've got some purpose behind all this. You're not interested in simple debate over science. And you won't say what your true goal here is. To paraphrase Rrhain in Open Mind's thread, you're playing a game of 'gotcha' that depends on a set-up. From what I've read, your set-up is wrong, so you're 'gotcha' is going to be hilariously stupid.Quite frankly, I don't know anything about physics, so I stay out of it. Words for the wise, perhaps?Since you're wrong, why can't you admit it?ABE:I just realized this was the free for all thread. So that means you don't have to answer and I don't have to comply with you. So if I really, really wanted to, I could make your life in this thread living hell.You want to know what property of space makes the bar bend back to itself? They've told you, a million times over. Curvature is (if I understand correctly) a property of space. That's the property responsible. Personally, I think cavediver or somebody with time and understanding should just post the mathematical proof if that's even possible.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

This kind of statement proves exactly what I said about myself earlier in the thread.You are not qualified to discuss this stuff. You don't even know enough to realize you're so, so wrong.Seriously, quit while you're behind.

a model has to explain how it works. You can't just claim "hypothetically straight, hypothetically straight" without giving up the details. Sorry, you're not doing science.Oh, and our eyes certainly see in three dimensions. 2D would mean that we only see in length and breadth (or length and height, or breadth and height). We see breadth(I can see how wide my room is), we can see length (I can determine this in my room as well), and height (again, I can tell this about my room). I can see the 3D space that I live in. If it was only one of the 2D models, My room would have no height, or no breadth, or no length.Time is not an unreal dimension either, unless you are suggesting that there is no time. We are moving forward in time, though this is the only dimension I'm aware of that is not spatial (cavediver or someone knowledgable please correct me if I'm wrong)Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

The point still stands. We experience three spatial dimensions. We percieve (even if slightly incorrect) 3 spatial dimensions with our eyes. If 3 spatial dimensions did not exist, our eyes could not even trick us into percieving 3 spatial dimensions. The fourth dimension isn't added willy-nilly. Even religion makes use of four dimensions. After all, there is a past right? Jesus Christ died for your sins 2000 years ago, right? He died in 3 spatial dimensions, but the time dimension tells us when. There is a future, right? The second coming of christ, right? He will exist in 3 spatial dimensions when he comes, but the 4th dimension of time is needed to say when he will come.Without time, there is no passage of events. Everything would be frozen. Christ's death and second coming would be at the same instant, completely unseperated. The universe without time would be incomprehensible. Genesis, the Exodus, and the entirety of the bible would be incomprehensible without time.The fourth dimension of time does not obfuscate reality, it is reality.Your 3D model, because you cannot refute the existence of time, would be a model that is (H=height, B=breadth, D=depth, T=time) either H*B*T;H*D*T; or B*D*T. Without time, your model does not correlate to reality, and thus is useless as a scientific model.read straggler's following post for some really basic (and well-put) insight.

Buz, you are, in effect, saying that time does not exist. That there is no past, present, or future. That there is only one moment, but you can't call it moment because that word describes time.Read what I wrote. I wrote "3 spatial dimensions", not "3 dimensions".Time isn't added as a dimension to give GR more leeway, time is added because it is part of our reality.A 3D universe would have two spatial dimensions plus time. Didn't you read straggler's post? Given that you are denying the existence of time, I'd say you are the one who is doggedly denying the facts. Whether or not you have the ability to comprehend is almost no longer a question--you simply can't if you deny the existence of time. Give it up buz. Your model doesn't even come close to describing reality, except for the one in your head that says time doesn't exist.

um. Because it tastes like an apple? You're speaking nonsense buz.let's put it this way. What property of space do you think keeps it flat (since you obviously think space is flat)?

Enjoy.this is free for all. Where everyone can take a little piece of buz home with him. Just don't get buzzed. Unless you want to, then just make sure it's good quality buzzing material.

Are you aware that "ost" is cheese in swedish?what's the bet that buz will either not get your post or claim it irrelevant to his un-model?Edited by kuresu, : spelling

This may help. I took the time to draw the graphs out on Paint. ABE:not sure what I did wrong (maybe because it's from facebook?), so if a mod can please fix my coding or tell me where I need to put the image to begin with that would be great. Thanks.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

Keep in mind, this is the same person who insisted that each layer of the atmosphere corresponds to one of the layers of the heavens )and got the "purpose" of several layers quite wrong) and that god's throne is in space. Can't find the thread, but it was roughly a year ago. I wonder if he still sticks with that model as well?

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.

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.

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.