Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 346 of 413 (484212)
09-27-2008 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Buzsaw
09-26-2008 11:52 PM


Re: Bent Bars and the Man of Steel
To concede this debate would to be for me to agree that space has properties capable of curving, that the properties of space include energy and force, that curvature and expansion of space began at the BBT singularity, that the universe including space are temporal, that God is/was temporal, that the rigid bar's ends are capable of curving without being bended, etc, etc. In other words, I'd have to concede all that I believe with all of my mind and being/heart.
Personally I think you are making a bigger deal of this than it really warrants. All you would actually concede is that the evidence for spacetime curvature is valid.
As far as I can tell this need have no effect whatsoever on your theistic beliefs. It really need not even conflict with your anti BB beliefs.
Other than starting you potentially down that rocky road that most of us call reality I don't think accepting spacetime curvature need be nearly quite such the psychological ordeal that you suggest it would necessaril be.
Anyway I know you well enough to know that this will not deter you from your view. So have it your way.
Apologies if I have become overly frustrated and short tempered at times. No hard feelings. Till next time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2008 11:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 347 of 413 (484213)
09-27-2008 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Buzsaw
09-27-2008 12:06 AM


Re: Rehashing The Definition Of Straight
in the real universe is that my Euclidean model falsifies your GR model
Really Buz? How does your bullshit model explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury? Show your math.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2008 12:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 348 of 413 (484214)
09-27-2008 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Buzsaw
09-26-2008 11:52 PM


Re: Bent Bars and the Man of Steel
Buz writes:
Onifre, thanks for trying in a kindly manner,
Never my intent to be rude, I would like fo ryou to really learn this stuff though. I can't explain how cool it is when you do.
Last attempt LOL.
To concede this debate would to be for me to agree that space has properties capable of curving,
Ok. This is easy to understand if you remember one simple thing, gravity.
Gravitational lensing established that a photon, which is massless energy, curved because of the effects of gravity on the space around the mass object. Now think about that. Basically nothingness was curved. If it curved, what made it curve?
Answer: The curvature in space. Simply put, a mass energy, i.e. Earth, distorts space so that anything going straight follows the curvature of space. And remember, it, whats following the curve, lets say your bar, is feeling no force on it. It has no idea it's curving. Now doesn't that blow your mind?.
that the properties of space include energy and force,
I don't think you understand how this sounds. That statement 'space includes energy and force' can mean so many different things. I don't honestly know how you are applying it as an argument against GR.
that curvature and expansion of space began at the BBT singularity
Im trying to follow this. First curvature of space, since it is a result of mass density on space itself, requires mass objects. Second, do you even know what the singularity is? You understand it's not a thing that has any properties, right? When you use the word 'began' you are not speaking about the cosmological model of the BB, you are thinking theologically. Theological concepts of beginning and creation have to be abandoned momentarily when your brain is tuned for physics. If not you keep these Earthly ideas of starting points and beginning of things. You can't think that way in physics.
that the rigid bar's ends are capable of curving without being bended,
Im not asking you to accept this one, just recognize that the mathematical explanations that explain this, and the theory of GR, are over your head and that you don't fully grasp it. Maybe you don't know anything about space yet. Don't feel bad man, Einstein screwed up ALL of physics with this shit.
And lets remember what you are asking. You have a hypothetical bar, obviously we can't ever have an observable experiment on this so, the only way possible, to show that conceptually the properties of space will cause the bar to curve with(remember that WITH) space, is in a mathematical formula. And here's where even Einstein would fail to how you how space curves because you don't know the math behind it, and so you'd have to take our word for it. And judging by your 6100 or so posts, if you still hold to these ideas about space, you don't trust anybody!
I am absolutely 100% convinced logically and as per the Biblical account relative to God, of eternal space,
I don't see where GR violates this belief.
of my concept of the properties of the bar relative to space,
Let Einstein inside that head of yours Buz, I promise you'll love it man. Let him change your concept of space like he did for the rest of the physics community. Come to the dark side Luke, sorry I couldn't help it.
I've learned quite a bit from you people in this and hopefully you will not go from this debate without understanding why I adamantly defend my position.
I do and sadly it's the very reason why I feel you should learn this stuff, because your position is wrong. But, we'll fight another day Buz.
--Oni

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2008 11:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 349 of 413 (484215)
09-27-2008 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Buzsaw
09-26-2008 11:52 PM


No You Don't!
To concede this debate would to be for me to agree that space has properties capable of curving .
No you don't. You only have to admit that you don't have a clue.
. that the properties of space include energy and force .
This is gobbleddie-goop that only entered the debate as some of your magic words. It never became official debate material.
. that curvature and expansion of space began at the BBT singularity
We told you to forget the BBT non-sense as immaterial at the start.
. that the universe including space are temporal, that God is/was temporal .
This is gobbleddie-goop you're making up now.
. that the rigid bar's ends are capable of curving without being bended, etc, etc.
Say, "I've no idea." and walk away. (AbE: But not too far or you'll end up back where you started ” again.)
In other words, I'd have to concede all that I believe with all of my mind and being/heart.
Lord love a duck, when I was five I thought with all of my mind and being/heart that I was born at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I got over it.
I hope you understand that it is not dogged stubborness and bullheadedness that has driven me along these pages of debate.
Yes it is. That's what it's called when you refuse to admit you don't have a clue when you don't have a clue.
Buz, we know why you adamantly defend an untenable decision. It's another one of those things that isn't original to you.
Edited by lyx2no, : ”

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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2008 11:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 350 of 413 (484216)
09-27-2008 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Buzsaw
09-26-2008 10:17 PM


Re: KO'd on the way into the ring: a conclusion
Hypothetically accept??
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?
Look, Modulous, rest assured that Buzsaw is lucid enough to know that if the two ends of a 3D not bended and uncurved bar join, the bar must bend/curve into a 3D ring.
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.
Why should I hypothetically accept otherwise??
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2008 10:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by johnfolton, posted 09-27-2008 2:22 AM Modulous has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 351 of 413 (484219)
09-27-2008 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Modulous
09-27-2008 1:54 AM


Re: Gravitational lensing?
Gravitational lensing.
Einstein did he not say spacetime can increase but when it does it brings its own energy. right? Thus is gravitational lensing not just the opposite nothing and energy being taken out of this universe did not see Einstein saying 3 dimensional objects being curved only spacetime. right? Like if your travelling in 3 D you have to account for the curvature of space moving forward in time but its not curving 3D. right? Its only spacetime thats being curved. right? The universe itself is it not 3d unclosed flat? Its like a straight 3D rod projecting within the flatness of our believed unclosed flat universe. right?
P.S. Its like the earth goes 24 hours in time while spacetime moves 1000 years. So like thru spacetime dilation you could have an earth of 13,000 years with the spacetime of 65 billion years due to the curving of spacetime. It might well be the universe is young due the spirals of the galaxies have not yet unravelled yet the distances increasing due spacetime dilation stuff, etc... right?
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Modulous, posted 09-27-2008 1:54 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Modulous, posted 09-27-2008 4:21 AM johnfolton has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 352 of 413 (484220)
09-27-2008 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Buzsaw
09-27-2008 12:06 AM


Re: Rehashing The Definition Of Straight
quote:
2. I don't see that as a problem at all. The problem is yours in that my model is going to extend straight continuously and remain straight, nothing; not even curvature of space curving it. Imo, your problem, in the real universe is that my Euclidean model falsifies your GR model unless alleged curvature of space can physically bend my bar to follow the alleged curvature of space.
And here you are being thoroughly illogical.
Assuming you (confusingly) mean your hypotthetical iron bar as your "model" it has to follow the curvature of space unless you assume that it has "magical" properties which let it behave differently from any known object, and break out of our three dimensional space. But if you make that then it becomes irrelevant.
To sumn up your argument.
1) If the universe were curved (and closed) a sufficiently long straight (in our three dimensions) iron bar would meet up with itself.
2) A magically straight iron bar would not do so
3) Therefore the universe cannot be curved (and closed).
It just doesn't work because 1) relies on the iron bar being ordinary and following the curvature of space and 2) assumes that the iron bar is not ordinary and does not follow the curvature of space.
Logically speaking your argument is worthless.
I have raised these points more than once, and I'm not the only one to do so. Yet still you cling to the idea that it "refutes" the curvature of space. Even though you cannot defend it - as has been seen in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2008 12:06 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2008 5:26 PM PaulK has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 353 of 413 (484223)
09-27-2008 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by johnfolton
09-27-2008 2:22 AM


amphigorously ultracrepidarious
right?
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by johnfolton, posted 09-27-2008 2:22 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by onifre, posted 09-27-2008 10:09 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 360 by johnfolton, posted 09-27-2008 3:49 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 361 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2008 4:52 PM Modulous has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 354 of 413 (484232)
09-27-2008 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Straggler
09-26-2008 10:13 PM


Straggler writes:
quote:
PS What is the way to link to this in the msg= format?
As the instructions say, just extend the "coordinates" of the msg tag:
[msg=ForumNumber,ThreadNumber,MessageNumber]
The common method of using it is to reference the message number, and thus it doesn't show the forum and thread. If you put in two numbers, that will show the thread and message but not show the forum. Three numbers gives all.
Which is which? Well, look at your URL:
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Points Of View -->http://EvC Forum: Points Of View -->EvC Forum: Points Of View< !--UE-->
Your forum number is "f=11," the thread number is 361, and the message number is 1. Thus:
[msg=11,361,1]
Turns into:
Message 1

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Straggler, posted 09-26-2008 10:13 PM Straggler has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 355 of 413 (484237)
09-27-2008 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Buzsaw
09-26-2008 10:17 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
rest assured that Buzsaw is lucid enough to know that if the two ends of a 3D not bended and uncurved bar join, the bar must bend/curve into a 3D ring.
But is it "straight"? This is the part that we're getting stuck on: If a "straight" bar ends up having its ends meet, wouldn't that be an indication that space is curving?
You seem to want to have a circular definition of "straight." It's "straight" because its ends don't meet and its ends don't meet because it's "straight."
What do you mean by "straight"? If it isn't 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2008 10:17 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2008 5:12 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 356 of 413 (484238)
09-27-2008 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Buzsaw
09-26-2008 11:23 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Online Dictionary definition of straight: Extending continuously in the same direction without curving
So what does it mean when a "straight" bar has its ends meet? It hasn't curved, and yet it's meeting itself.
Wouldn't that indicate that space curved? The bar is "straight." All examinations of all parts of the bar indicate that it is has not deviated from "straight" in any manner. And yet, its ends are meeting. So if it wasn't the bar that curved, what is left to cause the directly observed result?
You seem to want to have a circular definition 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2008 11:23 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 357 of 413 (484242)
09-27-2008 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Buzsaw
09-27-2008 12:06 AM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
nothing; not even curvature of space curving it.
The bar exists in space, yes?
So how is it going to avoid the effect of space curving?
Again, what would it mean for your model to have a "straight" bar have its ends meet?
You seem to want to have a circular definition 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2008 12:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 358 of 413 (484253)
09-27-2008 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Modulous
09-27-2008 4:21 AM


Re: amphigorously ultracrepidarious
Modulous writes:
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.
Finally a clear explanation...thanks Mod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Modulous, posted 09-27-2008 4:21 AM Modulous has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 359 of 413 (484264)
09-27-2008 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Buzsaw
09-26-2008 9:32 PM


Re: Bent Bars and the Man of Steel
Buz writes:
Too many of the messages in this thread have been repetition of the credentials of my debate counterparts, such as this message which says nothing, nada, in refutation of my message.
Your "message" refutes itself because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Buz writes:
Rick, do you have anything to say about the substance of my message.
Your "message" has no substance because you have no idea what you are talking about.
My grasp of GR is very basic, but I accept that there are people out there with far more mathematical talent than myself who have discovered and successfully tested it. My ignorance does not trump their knowledge.
Incidentally, when will you address the fact that General Relativity is being used right now in labs and universities across the world and giving accurate results?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2008 9:32 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2008 5:04 PM RickJB has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 360 of 413 (484282)
09-27-2008 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Modulous
09-27-2008 4:21 AM


Re: amphigorously ultracrepidarious
in fact self-curve on a 2M surface so long as we maintain electron flow through the time variants.
Think you've been watching to much star trek? I always thought the electron shield restricts electron flow through the time variants?
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Modulous, posted 09-27-2008 4:21 AM Modulous has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024