The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

You have repeatedly demonstrated a number of misconceptions regarding the model that you so despise. You have also claimed that this model is just a huge deception by scientists to trick and confuse an unwitting public. You previously ignored my message regarding this slander Message 251I would like to know if as a result of this thread you now understand and accept the following regarding these key areas -1) Any model that includes time and 3 spatial dimensions is necessarily a 4D model. Regardless of curvature. Regardless of bent straight bars.2) Use of 2D analogies are explanatory aids not assertions or even suggestions that reality is actually 2D 3) The inclusion of a time component is not the cause of any form of curvature. Nobody is suggesting that representing time results in spatioal dimensions folding in on themselves, becoming parallel dimensions or any other of the nonsense that you have suggestedDo you still claim that it is all a big con developed by physicists to "obfurscate" and deceive?Or has this thread at least had some positive educational effect on you?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The theory of spacetime curvature was originally formulated with a static eternal universe in mind. Although these ideas of GR are now fully incorporated into the BB model you need to bear this in mind as it seems at odds with what you appear to believe about the reasons for spacetime curvature being proposed. Good. Apologies if I have become overly frustrated at times. Good again. This is where you start to get confused again. Nobody is suggesting that the universe is 2D. This is literally used for educataional purposes only.When we talk about 'flat' space this does not mean anyone is denying that there are 3 spatial dimensions. When we talk about 2D models it is purely to demonstrate 3D principles + time without the need to conceptualise in 4D (which we cannot really do) No Buz. This is a complete and utter misapprehension on your part. Your whole objection to the idea of curvature is because in your mind you think it is synonomous with the BB don't you?It would be quite possible for spacetime to curve regardless of the universe expanding or the BB having occurred. Indeed when Einstein conceived of General Relativity (the theory of spacetime curvature) he assumed a static non-expanding eternal universe. This assumption was later observed to be false.Your whole objection to curvature, based on your hostility to BB, is misplaced No Buz. No.
Nobody is claiming or has ever claimed that spatial dimensions become parallel. They remain orthogonal in a curved model. We are not layering dimensions on top of one another in the way that you think. You are battling an, albeit unintentional, strawman. Again. No. Your objections to all of this is based on a false understanding of what you think we are saying and bears no relation to what is actually being said.Nobody is claiming that time makes any spatial dimensions become parallel. Get this misapprehension out of your head. Whether you believe it or not the curvature of space has been empirically verified numerous times by multiple methods. All have been observed to match exactly the predictions of spacetime curvature as per GR. Your objections to spacetime curvature are derived purely from your hostility to BB.
Spacetime curvature and the Big Bang are related obviously but they are not the same thing. This is another misaprehension of yours.When Einstien created General Realativity he did so with the idea of an eternal static universe in mind. Mass as spacetime curvature, photons following "straight" lines in 4D spacetime etc. etc. etc. All of these empirically verified phenomenon would exist whether a different model of cosmological evolution had been used or not.Spacetime curvature and the Big Bang are related but potentially seperate phenomenon. You need to understand this.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The current cosmological model does incorporate spacetime curvature and the BB as intrinsic elements.However space could be curved whilst still allowing for an eternal static universe. Exactly as Einstien first postulated.But the empirical observable evidence utterly refutes this view. You say logical but since when did "logical" mean in disagreement with all of the observable evidence?Surely on this basis your objection is philosophical/theistic rather than "logical"? Well modern physics suggests that the properties of space and time and matter are all the product of interracting fields. Thus your view of space as either/or is in itself non-sensical and illogical. And if all such things are the result of interracting fields....? Where does that leave your "hypothesis"?Buz as much as you would like to, you cannot reveal the secrets of the universe by waving your hands in front of you and describing what you see in terms of your very limited perspective.

It has just occurred to me that you think that when we say that a straight bar will curve in curved spacetime you think that the bar really does bend. That it really does react as though a force were applied.That is not what we are saying. Curved space does not impose a superman bending bars of steel type force. The molecular structure of the bar remains unchanged. There is no bar bending force. There is simply a straight bar in curved spacetime. Hence the importance of your definition of straight.If you curve/bend a steel bar by force the material stresses and fractures. A bar curved as a result of curved spacetime will show no evidence of having being bent. There is no stressing or fracturing of the material. By any physical measure the bar is straight. Even in curved spacetime.You do understand this don't you?

Just for one moment, for the sake of argument if nothing else, lets assume that curvature is indeed a property of space.
If space does indeed curve where does the "straight" bar go if it does not curve?

Jeez Buz that is quite a bar you have there!! It bursts through the infinite universe? Into space outside the universe? How can there be space outside the universe? Where is this "infinite space" that is not part of the "infinite universe"?Is this (to use your word) "logical"? The trouble is that this is not how it actually works. By any physical measure or criteria the 3D bar remains straight in curved spacetime. Structurally it is straight. If an infinite laser beam is shone along it perfectly parallel it will remain perfectly parallel and straight. If your bar were made of the most brittle substance on Earth, a substance that would snap at the mere hint of physically bending the bar would still remain intact in curved spacetime. Curvature imposes no forces. Curvature simply changes what the nature of "straight" actually is.That is why Rrhain keeps asking you what you mean by "straight". By any physical measure you can make the bar is straight. That is the point. If you are going to limit nature to common sense derived from limited human perception then the world would be a very very different place. Are radio waves transmitting sound from one location to another common sense? Atoms - According to the "classical" model of the atom you are 99.99% empty space!! Is that common sense? Do you deny the existence of atoms? Are these things "logical"?GR is the result of logic applied to observation. The results have been empirically tested numerous times by multiple means. We rely on these results every day for technological purposes.Do you really have the insight to deny all of this on the basis of your perecived sense of common sense "logic"? An insight that escaped Einstein? An insight that none of the physicists on the planet today can see? Are you really that clever?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. What you said was: So according to you we have an infinite universe containing force, energy and matter which is itself surrounded by infinite space. The "straight" bar bursts out of the universe and into the space? Is that what you are saying?

So there is an area (maybe even the vast majority?) of the universe absent from any matter, energy or forces? Is that what you are saying?What leads you to conclude that this exists? Is there any evidence for this?

It is not so much your credentials as the equivelance, or lack of it, of your point of view in comparison to the scientific consenus. Yours is not so much a minority point of view, rather it is a empirically refuted point of view.I have started this new thread largely with you in mind.http://EvC Forum: Points Of View -->EvC Forum: Points Of ViewPS What is the way to link to this in the msg= format?

Well mainly becuase you are wrong............The bar can be absolutely straight in 3D space by any measure, definition or observation you care to name and yet will still display the behaviour you so despise. Namely following a straight path in curved space Is "straight" the shortest distance between two points in your "model" or not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hmmmmm. If by mystical and debatable you actually mean empirically tested and verified then you are right. And it would retain all of these properties in curved space. That is the point. The bar does not physically bend. The bar remains straight by any physical means by which you can test or define straightness. Spirit level. Check. Laser. Check. Examination of the atomic structure. Check. It even looks straight for heavens sake!!!! The bar is straight. The bar follows a perfectly straight, unbent, uncurved path. But it follows that straight path in curved spacetime.How is that?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think what Buz is referring here (although I doubt he understands this himself) is the idea that the universe as a whole is essentially a 4D shere with space as a 3D surface of that sphere. If this were indeed the case then the two ends of the bar would indeed meet up in much the same way that a straight line drawn round the equator must necessarily meet up.I don't think any knowledge of the the overall topology of the universe has been claimed by anyone with any certainty but this is a model that has been considered and mentioned previously at EvC and, I believe, the one Buz is referring to.

Well someone needs to get a definition of straight out of you so I thought I would be the next to try. back!!The trouble with this definition is that by any 3D measure the bar is uncurved, is unbent and is perfectly straight. See Message 337

Yep that is how this whole thing started. An infinitely long 3D straight steel bar whose ends meet in a 4D spherical universe. It seems like such a long time ago :sigh:Regardless of the overall topology of the universe, which no-one really knows, just the concept of curvature is enough to get Buz frothing at the mouth so a straight bar that meets up with itself was all just a bit too much for the poor fellow. Hence this thread. I passed GR years ago but if I took that exam today I think I would be lucky to get a single mark!!!! Buz does not stand an ice-sculpture in hells chance of getting any of the maths involved. He would not even comprehend why any of it might be even be relevant. The shortest distance between two points concept is kinda fundamental.........However we can cite the physical evidence for spacetime curvature in terms of gravity as that is all but irrefutable and perfectly understandable to anyone willing to listen.Willing being the key criteria it seems.........

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