The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

Given the dishonesty and closed-mindedness on display in the OP I very much doubt that it is worth posting this as anything other than a demonstration of your refusal to deal with the real issues.Our space is curved in a higher dimension which we do not have access to. (Forget sci-fi ideas about other dimensions, this is a dimension as length is a dimension).If the universe is closed, the curvature is sufficient that a straight line in our three dimensional space will meet up with itself.For your iron bar to avoid meeting up with itself, either it must deviate from the straight or it must leave our three-dimensional space.If you choose the latter option please explain how the bar can do it when we can find no way of moving anything outside of our three spatial dimensions.

I see that the initial comment in my first message here has been proven correct.The rest of my post was a simple explanation of the situation you object to. Bear that in mind.

quote:

---

"Higher dimension...do not have access to." That's interesting. That argument doesn't cut it in the science fora for theistic creationists who cite evidence of higher dimensional intelligence in the universe capable of ID.

---

It is not an argument. It is a description of the mathematics of General Relativity. If you are trying to suggest that your arguments should be accepted because you make gratutitious references to "higher dimensional intelligence" (which apparently has nothing to do with higher dimensions in the sense we are discussing here) then you are simply wrong. If you are suggesting that your arguments were rejected solely or primarily for that reason you are again completely wrong (and you should know that it is wrong).Your point then is both irrelevant and false.

quote:

---

GONG! My static space, unbounded space and infinite space universe is also closed, sufficient for an absolute unbended straight line to extend infinitely, remaining unjoined to itself.

---

In context, "closed" means that the universe curls up on itself, such that if a straight lineis extended far enough it's ends will meet. Which is the case under discussion.
And since your universe is not closed in that sense your point is irrelevant and false,

quote:

---

What observable model can you cite which will join the two ends of the absolute straight bar?

---

In the context we are speaking models (theory) are not observables (data). Thus I only need point out that in the model we are considering a straight line in our space will "join up". So how can an object that is "absolutely straight" in our space not do so ?And if you assert that the bar can somehow leave our space it is up to you to show that such is possible.

quote:

---

Unless it is the matter, energy and forces existing in the unbounded space/area of the universe, all having observational properties, which render things observable within the unbounded universe spherical via the conglomerate forces such as gravity or electromagnetism existing in the universe's unbounded space/area and not space itself.

---

This appears to be incoherent babble. If you are asserting that there is some force which enables the iron bar to leave our space please provide a rational argument that supports that claim.

quote:

---

Ongoing Unanswered question: What observable property of space effects curvature?

---

The question is mistaken. The curvature is effected by mass, not space itself.

quote:

---

1. An infinite unbounded space universe is closed since the infinite space is inclusive in the universe as being area in which anything existing does exist. It is an infinite universe having no bounds and no outside of.

---

You mean that it is open, because it is infinite. If you are going to try to quibble over terminology, at least get the terminology right.

quote:

---

2. Unbounded infinite space cannot curl up on itself.

---

Then it isn't closed.

quote:

---

3. Your 2D line can certainly join up to itself since it needs be straight in only 2 dimensions. My all dimensional bar model is not 2d and must be straight in all dimensions.

---

This is completely incorrect. The line is straight in ALL THREE DIMENSIONS OF OUR SPACE.

quote:

---

4. To clarify my poorly composed statement this is what I meant: It is the matter, energy and forces existing in the unbounded space/area of the universe, all having observational properties, which make the universe appear as spherical via the conglomerate forces such as gravity or electromagnetism existing in the universe's unbounded space/area and not space itself.

---

That is slightly less incoherent but there is still nothing that explains how the straight bar can depart from the straight line (as you insist that it must) without leaving our three-dimensional space. - or any explanation of how it could do so.

quote:

---

It appears that we now agree that mass is what makes the visible area of our universe appear spherical and we then agree that space does not have the property of the ability to curve.

---

I certainly do not agree with either of those. What I said was that mass creates the curvature of space. A curvature which is NOT in any of our three dimensions and nothing to do with "appearing spherical".Come off it Buz. When I say that mass causes the curvature I can hardly be denying the existence of the curvature !

quote:

---

What we do not agree on is your contention that space is bounded.

---

I have not made such a contention. Indeed the closed universe model, which you object to is quite definitely unbounded.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

So far as I can tell Buzsaw intends this thread as an example of the high quality of ID science.(Don't say you weren't warned).

quote:

---

1. To determine what property/properties of space have the ability to curve/be curved.

​

2. To determine what property/properties of space have the ability to cause the joining of the two ends of a bar or line of which all dimensions are unbended and absolute straight.

---

The second has already been repeatedly answered. This thread is in Free-For-All because of your refusal to accept the answers. Indeed you were boasting that it hadn't been answered, even though it had.The first doesn't even make sense.And your posts in this thread indicate that you're desperate to avoid accepting the answers that you have been given.

quote:

---

ABE: Make that "bar" and drop the "line" since lines can either be 2 dimensional imaginary or 3 dimensional lines consisting of material. Thanks to Huntard for pointing this out to me.

---

In geometry a line has ONE dimension. And it is geometry that is the issue.Given that space is curved so that a straight line will wrap around and meet itself, how does your straight iron bar avoid meeting itself ?

quote:

---

1. You first need to identify the alleged properties which allow for space to be curved. I go with the ones who think there are no such properties of space capable of being curved. What are they?

---

You are going to have to put in a lot of explanation before that question becomes something more than an excuse for rejecting GR. Why would space even need "properties that allow it to be curved" ? What sort of properties allow it to be flat ?
Amd if space cannot curve why is GR, which states that it does, so successful ?

quote:

---

2. My hypothetical bar is three dimensional, absolutely straight and unbended. It must be bent to join it's ends. Any engineer will attest to that and zillions of miles will not change that.

---

And under the hypothesis we are considering a straight line in our three-dimensional space does come around and join at its ends. If your bar is straight why doesn't it follow a straight line ?I keep asking and you either don't reply or babble bullshit which obviously has no bearing on the question.

quote:

---

What your all missing is when your looking at the entire universe your seeing the end result of all the dimensions added up and the universe comes out flat.

---

No, I'm not missing out on the fact that the closed universe scenario seems to be out of favour at the moment. That is why I specified that I was talking about that scenario, rather than making a definitive statement that it is true.

quote:

---

Why shouldn't space need properties allowing for it to be curved? Is this about science or fantasy? What exempts space from needful known properties to understand it or make conclusions relative to it?

---

The fact is that if we are to always explain one property in terms of another which "allows" it we will end up with an infinite regress. Obviously science does not require any such thing.

quote:

---

I'm debating a hypothesis that space has only the properties of unbounded infinite existence and area in which everything else in the universe exists. I'm alleging that it has no other properties. You're alleging that it does. Unless you people can identify the properties of space which allow for it's curvature, the Buzsaw space hypothesis remains unrefuted and yours remains in question.

---

You assert that space has the property of being unable to curve. And you can't explain it. Therefore your own hypothesis is equally "in danger".And even more obviously your claim is based on a total rejection of science. To real science General Relativity's demonstrated accuracy as a description of our macroscopic universe guarantees its acceptance unless and until a better theory comes along. Your hypothesis is not even a potential contender, lacking all the mathematical details that would even allow it to attempt to compete. And since the curvature of space is an essential part of the mathematics of General Relativity accepting General Relativity means accepting that space does curve.I know that you think it terribly unfair that science puts detailed successful predictions ahead of your personal likes and dislikes, but the fact is that it does - and for good reason.

quote:

---

Because the dimensions of an absolute straight and not bended line allow for it to curve and the three dimensions of an absolute straight not bended bar do not allow for it to curve.

---

I am trying to make sense of your objection. It seems that you are asserting that a three-dimensional object is free to move OUT of our three-dimensional space, and indeed must do so (unlike a straight line, for some reason). SInce I see no evidence that it is even possible for the bar to depart our space please explain why you are so certain that it must occur.

quote:

---

My 3D model relates more to your real 3D universe than your mainline science line model which is not three dimensional. Your mainline science model, therefore is bogus and skews the debate to accommodate the majority POV, IMO.

---

By which you mean, that in your opinion it is unfair that science does not consider your unsupported opinion to be on a par with solid evidence.

The heart of the matter is that you refuse to admit that you are wrong. When people try to help you by explaining the reality you accuse them of "obfuscation" and "dishonesty". You just can't accept that our intuitive ideas cannot be safely extended beyond the everyday environment where they work (or in some cases don't work).

quote:

---

I can accept what does not become nonsensical, illogical and imo, utterly impossible, magical and mystical such as the 3D bar connect thing.

---

But you will invent something at least equally "nonsensical, illogical and imo, utterly impossible, magical and mystical" rather than admit that you could be wrong. The whole idea of an iron bar defying space which you invented is - to someone who actually understands the ideas - even worse than the ideas you made it up to reject. There's no consistency in your thinking other than the fixed idea that you are right.If you are honest you have to admit that you were making "arguments" that even you didn't understand in places. That isn't debating in good faith.I know, you'll dismiss all this as Paul being "mean" again. But it's all true and obvious to anyone who reviews this thread.

quote:

---

You need to copy and paste the specific statement context that I am wrong on and state why a 2D model does not obfuscate the reality of the 3D universe as per the context in which the statement was made rather than accusing me of dishonesty.

---

Well there's a clear example. Firstly I did not accuse you of dishonesty in the quoted text - I pointed out that you had accused others of dishonesty.Using a simpler example to illustrate the principles involved is the opposite of obfuscation. The fact that you refuse to understand it is no excuse for making false accusations.

quote:

---

Invented model? Admitting that I could be wrong? Utterly impossible? Dishonest?

​

I am the one here inventing models, insisting I'm right and raising impossibilities?

---

Yes, all of them.

quote:

---

How about dishonest 2d model - 3d reality; our POV can't possibly be wrong; not bended 3d bars curving full circle without bending?

---

The 2D model is not dishonest, it is an honest attempt to explain.
Unlike your ideas General Relativity is not out forward as dogma - it is accepted because of the evidence, as has been pointed out.
The bending of space (not the bar as such - the bar is straight in our three dimensions as I have explained).So we have yet another example of you preferring false accusations and misrepresentation to admitting your errors.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Our universe is literally 3D with the fourth dimension added to afford science more freedom/leeway for their various purposes.

---

Their purpose is understanding how our universe operates. General Relativity works better than Newtonian gravity, so General Relativity took over. And it continues to work so well that nothing has replaced it.

quote:

---

Either you people are doggedly denying the facts or lack the intelligence to understand and comprehend

---

Seems to me that you are doggedly denying the facts and failing to understand. Sometimes failing to understand even your own assertions or their consequences.

quote:

---

You MO is to insult, demean and belittle so as to avoid admitting that the logical, sensible ole guy is right.

---

Again this seems to describe your own posts. A "logical, sensible" guy would admit the possibility that people who know something about the subject might just have a better understanding than somebody who hasn't bothered to study the subject. A "sensible logical" person might try to understand the analogies offered as explanation rather than using them as an excuse to slander people who disagree with him. A "logical sensible" person wouldn't babble nonsense in an attempt to "prove" his point.You are not a "logical sensible ole guy", Buzsaw.

No, Buz. Explaining a model you don't want to understand is NOT obfuscation.I know you're going to accuse me of being mean for pointing out that you are engaging in one of your standard slanders. No honest, moral person would agree with you.

quote:

---

1. But my model models reality of what is observed. My model has the three basic spatial dimensions. You are applying time as a non-spatial dimension, that is non-geometric. It has no geometric line and imperceivable geometrically. That's why it is not included in my model.

---

You have yet to show that your model is as successful as GR. YOu have yet to show that your model is even detailed enough to potentially be as successful as GR. GR models the reality of what is observed far more successfully than your "model" is even potentially capable of (after all, the best you could do is swipe from the Newtonian ideas that GR replaced).I'll grant that there is some confusion over time and I wish that it hadn't been brought up. It isn't really part of this discussion.

quote:

---

2. My argument, my position and my model are 3D. I am saying my model WILL NOT CURVE, no matter how far it is extended. YOU HAVE FINALLY ADMITTED HERE THAT THAT IS CORRECT.

---

This is an example of real obfuscation. Nobody has argued that your model will curve. Only that it cannot be an accurate model of reality because it does not account for the deviations from Newtonian physics that GR explains through the curvature of space.I guess you are confusing your model of space with your infinitely long absolutely straight iron bar. But you have no coherent model of that iron bar. I am still waiting to see an explanation of how it can deviate from a straight line in three dimensional space.If our three dimensional space is curved than as a three dimensional object in three dimensional space the iron bar has to follow that curvature.

quote:

---

3. As I understand it, what the 4th (time) dimension does to 3D when it is applied to space, i.e. spacetime, according to conventional science, is to allegedly (abe: cause curvature) to all three dimensions of 3D to become 2 parallel geometric spatial lines over time.

​

The bottom line which represents 2 dimensions, i.e. longitude and latitude, becomes one dimension since a line has one dimension. The top 1D line, altitude/height, having becoming allegedly bent, over time becomes parallel to the bottom 1D line by alleged curvature. So what the unreal thing 4D does by applying time is change the real 3D universe into a magical illusionary 2D of parallel dimensions capable of curvature, yet each line remaining straight as it curves.

---

Time is a distraction and a mistake on the part of some of your opponents.
Equally your use of longitude and latitude is geocentric in the extreme.On the other hand you seem able to generate your own confusion without help. Your "understanding" is so confused I don't think it can be corrected other than throwing it out and starting from scratch. You should start with the understanding that the 2-dimensional models were analogies, used only because they make the issues easier to understand. Any "understanding" which assumes that they are anything more than (very close) analogies is going to be badly wrong.

quote:

---

4, The problem of adding the 4th dimension, time, to my 3D bar model and trying to argue that it's ends will join is that it is not a one dimensional line and it's three dimensions can never be magically parallel curvable one or two dimensional lines because unlike one dimensional lines, it's dimensions have a physical measurement, two of which never change when it is extended.

---

Time is not the issue, that's the other "4th dimension".

quote:

---

5. This is why conventional science MUST apply only one or two dimensional models such as geometric lines or 2D surfaces but that obfuscates my model.

---

This point is entirely wrong. Conventional science uses lower-dimensional model as illustrations and analogies to explain their models. It is not obfuscation, nor is it even concerned with your model. [quote] That's what you people have been doggedly denying for five long pages now and you demean me for incomprehension!
[/quite]It's obvious that you don't understand. It's not "demeaning" to point that out.

quote:

---

The above appears to be the reason conventional science can't identify the alleged property of space capable of curvature other than geometric math etc. It's all illusional geometric lines.

---

I offered to answer if you would clarify the question. You refused.

quote:

---

ABE: Imo, the notion that space has alleged properties capable of being curved, as I've shown above is nothing but a concocted illusion to support the BBT. Imo, it doesn't even deserve the status of hypothesis since it has no legitimate model.

---

The model has existed for some time and it has been thoroughly tested. It is called General Relativity. Denying that GR even exists at this point of the thread goes beyond absurdity.

Careful there. As I understand it (and this is consistent with Cavediver's post) the use of time as a fourth dimension is not related to the curvature of space. We use a fourth spatial dimesnion to describe (and myabe quantify) that curvature, but it's a separate issue.

quote:

---

2. I repeat: No property of space allows for anything to happen in the universe. All pertains to the mass, forces and energy existing in space which happens in the universe.

---

Are you really arguing that distance and direction play no role in physics ?If so, there's really no point in your even attempting to discuss the subject.

quote:

---

You need to refute the points made in my message #145 item by item.

---

That's already been done.On the other hand you need to produce an honest explanation of how your "absolutely straight" iron bar does not follow a straight line in 3-dimensional space.