The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

My bar must bend to make it's way around the 2d circumference of the earth and connect the two ends.

---

That isn't how spherical geometry works, though. A great circle doesn't bend at all. It is perfectly straight.And yet, a line drawn on a great circle is just that: A circle. In fact, that's the definition of "straight" in spherical geometry: It lies upon a great circle. In spherical geometry, all parallel lines meet. Only non-parallel lines don't.In our current universe, a "straight" line is defined by the path a photon takes in vacuum. Thus, even though a light beam "bends" around a star, it is actually travelling in a "straight" line.Thus, a sufficient gravitational mass can warp space such that it can have light move in a circle.

---

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.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

if there were enough matter and energy to extend that rigid straight and tall monument up into the cosmos that the tip of it would go full circle around the alleged finite universe to form a circle to have the pointed tip top of it protrude up through planet earth and crash into the base of itself WITHOUT BENDING?

---

In an appropriate geometry, yes. You've been given an example: In spherical geometry, you don't even need "matter and energy" to make it happen: You simply need to move in a straight line because the very definition of "straight" in spherical geometry is to lie upon a great circle.Now, we don't live in a universe based upon spherical geometry. However, we do live in a universe where space itself is warped. The definition of "straight" in our universe is defined by the path a photon takes in vacuum.But we know that gravitational fields bend space. Sufficient gravitational fields placed strategically can, indeed, cause the path of a photon to double back upon itself.And that path is necessarily straight as defined by the geometry of space itself.

---

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.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

2. Unbounded infinite space cannot curl up on itself.

---

Yes, it can. Does the term "torus" mean anything to you?

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.

---

But since the dimensions themselves can curve, "straight" only has meaning with regard to those dimensions. In our universe, the definition of "straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in a vacuum.But mass and other gravitational sources warp space. Thus, a straight line can quite easily double back and cross itself.

quote:

---

which make the universe appear as spherical

---

The universe does not appear spherical.

quote:

---

mass is what makes the visible area of our universe appear spherical

---

Incorrect. The universe does not appear spherical.

quote:

---

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

---

Incorrect. You are confusing "closed" with "bounded," and the two are not the same.

quote:

---

what are the properties of space which render it capable of having bounds with no space outside of the space bounds?

---

This is a nonsensical question. The entire point is to include everything. Therefore, the entire concept of "outside" is nonsensical.

---

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.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Buz has enough sense to observe an unbended straight flag pole, bar, or the Washington Monument

---

Incorrect. You have observed no such thing. None of those things are straight.Only the path of a photon is straight. All of the things you mention have mass and exist within a gravitational field. Thus, those fields interact and throw them off of straight.

---

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.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

not bended 3d bars curving full circle without bending?

---

Precisely. This is exactly what we're talking about. You cannot "common sense" your way through this. It seems crazy to think that a straight line could curve back upon itself, but that's exactly what happens.Let's start very slowly, one step at a time.1) "Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with this definition, yes or no?

---

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.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.

---

​

That is irrevelant to my model which is a 3D absolute straight not bended bar.

---

That doesn't answer the question. Let's try it again, shall we?"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

---

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.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

We're still waiting for something substantive

---

Actually, I'm still waiting for you to answer the direct question put to you twice now:"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

---

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.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

No property of space allows for anything to happen in the universe.

---

And yet, general relativity directly contradicts this statement. Or are you saying that the eclipse in 1919 didn't happen? Or that there is no such thing as gravitational lensing?Are you saying we should deny what we can see with our own eyes?

---

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.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

My model is not a photon in a vacuum.

---

Perhaps, but that is not an answer to the question. Fourth time now:"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

quote:

---

You know what my model and position is

---

No, I don't. If I did, I wouldn't be asking the question I am.

quote:

---

and I'm not repeating it for you.

---

I didn't ask you to. I simply asked you if you agreed with a definition of "straight."

quote:

---

You need to refute the positions I've raised as to space, time and how they relate to my 3D bar model argument in order to get a response from me.

---

I cannot do that until you answer my question. We must be using the same definitions for terms, would you not agree? If you were using the word "inflammable" to mean "incapable of being set on fire" while I was using the word "inflammable" to mean "capable of being set on fire," then there would be a problem regarding something defined as "inflammable."Thus, since you are talking about "straight" things, we need to define what "straight" means.Fifth time:"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

---

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.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you saying we should deny what we can see with our own eyes?

---

​

I'm questioning your interpretation of what we can see.

---

What is to be "interpreted." Either the light is bending around the mass or it isn't. Since we have a picture of it bending, how can one "intepret" it to conclude that isn't bending?We're back to the question you won't answer. Sixth time:"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in a vacuum.Do you agree with this definition or not?

quote:

---

My model challenges your 4D spacetime interpretation of what we see.

---

Huh? "4D"? Who said anything about 4D? I know I didn't. I simply asked you if you agreed with a definition of "straight." You have refused to answer.

quote:

---

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

---

I cannot do that until you answer my question. We must be using the same definitions for terms, would you not agree? If you were using the word "inflammable" to mean "incapable of being set on fire" while I was using the word "inflammable" to mean "capable of being set on fire," then there would be a problem regarding something defined as "inflammable."Thus, since you are talking about "straight" things, we need to define what "straight" means.Seventh time:"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

---

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.

Buzsaw responds to PaulK:

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's already been done.

---

​

And it's been soundly refuted.

---

No, it hasn't.Now what?Perhaps you can start by answering my question. Eighth time:"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

---

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.

johnfolton responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.

---

​

Why would the mass of the straight bar thats longer than the curvature not just cross over a curvature its not like the straight bar is a photon?

---

We haven't made it that far. One step at a time. All I want to know at this point is how we define what "straight" means. The definition I learned in my physics classes was that "straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do we agree with that definition or not?

---

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.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

Photons are not 3D to my knowledge.

---

I didn't say that they were. All I want to know is if you agree with the following definition of "straight":"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.

quote:

---

Straight for the purpose of this debate applies to my 3D model.

---

But what do you mean by "straight"? Unless and until we can agree we mean the same thing when we say "straight," we cannot talk about "straight" things. So for the tenth time:"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree or disagree with that definition?

---

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.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do we agree with that definition or not?

---

​

In science straight can be relative

---

Not according to the definition given. Do you agree with it? Is "straight" defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum?

quote:

---

relating to what one is referring relative to dimensions and relative to the science POV being discussed/debated etc.

---

That's why I'm asking you to define your terms. Do you agree with the definition of "straight" being the path a photon takes in vacuum?

quote:

---

We are debating two science views here; one alleging that space has properties of energy and forces, the other having the property of area.

---

And that's why you need to define your terms. Do you agree with the definition of "straight" being the path a photon takes in vacuum?

quote:

---

My 3D spatial dimensional model models the 3D spatial dimensions of the universe. Mine cannot curve in 3D and remain straight.

---

But what do you mean by "straight"? Do you agree with the definition of "straight" being the path a photon takes in vacuum?

quote:

---

Attempting to co-ordinate 3 spatial dimensions with 1 one non-spatial dimension does not realistically model the 3D spatial universe for the reasons I have repeatedly re-iterated

---

And I never mentioned any of that. All I have asked for is for you to define what you mean by "straight.""Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

quote:

---

mainly that the 4D geometric argument ends up with two 1D parallel geometrical lines which can curve.

---

I haven't gone anywhere near this. All I want right now is for you to define what you mean by "straight.""Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

quote:

---

Your photon model of straight is a one dimensional line, capable of curving straight supporting 4D geometrics, only 3 of them spatial.

---

Huh? We haven't gone that far. I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by "straight.""Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

quote:

---

Mine is a 3D, all spatial dimensions perfectly co-ordinated to the 3D spatial universe, the time dimensional being non-co-ordinate to the spatial dimensional for determination of what is straight.

---

I never said anything about time. I know others have, but I am not them. I'm still waiting for a definition of "straight.""Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

quote:

---

Conclusion: My 3D model, given enough energy could extend infinitely without curving and not bended.

---

That still doesn't answer the question of what you mean by "straight." For the ninetenth time:"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

---

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.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Hey - straight is straight

---

But what does that mean? How do you determine if something is "straight" as opposed to "not straight"? We need a definition."Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

quote:

---

instead of botherings with semantics, let's just agree on the definition everybody uses.

---

But what is that definition? It tends to be defined as "not bent or curved," but that isn't very helpful because it defines it in terms of something else that isn't well defined.A standard to compare against would be helpful, wouldn't it?"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition of not?

quote:

---

For debate, it should be the definition everyone knows.

---

What if the definition "everyone knows" is wrong? But considering that the only person who has given a definition of "straight" is me, might you be kind enough to answer the simple question put forward?"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

quote:

---

If Buz was using a different definition, then his motives could be questioned.

---

But we haven't even made it that far. A definition has been put forward. All that has been asked is if he agrees with it or not. So far, he has done everything he can to avoid the question."Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do we agree with that definition or not?

quote:

---

As it's you who is doing it, it is now your motives that are being questioned.

---

But I haven't stated any motivations at all. I've just proferred a definition and asked if we can agree with it.It's possible that the answer is no. But so far, he has been incapable of providing even that as an answer.

quote:

---

So here's our definition;
______________

​

There you go.

---

And exactly how do we use that to determine if something is straight? And you're assuming that someone is using a font that results in this "straight" line. And doesn't it also assume that my monitor is "straight"? This definition you're using isn't very helpful.What about mine?"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with that definition or not?

---

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.