The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

There is no one arguing how your model works, Buz. The argument is whether it comports with reality. In your model, which is as valid as any model ever conceived right up until you claim it has something in common with reality, has nothing to do with the Universe we live in. What we observe is that space curves. Yes, buz, your bar will not bend. The bar curves exactly as space curves. That makes it absolutely, perfectly straight. One of the properties of absolutely, perfectly straight bars in closed universes is that if the bar is long enough its ends will meet. You've won no points for the admission as that was the starting point. Why is it you are only just now realizing it as it has always been the argument that the bar does not bend? You are demeaned much more for your well practiced stupidity then your inability to comprehend what is not all too hard to understand if one bothers to think about it. But then you've not thought through, or possibly realize the existence of, the implications of your own model, so its a bit much for anyone to expect that you think through, or realize the existence of, implications of other models. The property has been identified many times: it's called curvature. All you have shown, Buz, is that it is indeed your opinion the notion that space has alleged properties capable of being curved is nothing but a concocted illusion to support the BBT. You use the word "shown" in the place of "said" as if you didn't understand the difference between the two.And the word is "unbent", you git.

---

KindlyWhen 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?

You have found evidence of God, Buz. But you need not rely on something as complicated as space curvature. What is the property of donuts that there is a hole in the middle? It's called holiness, buz. (Swiss cheese is fundamentalist fromage ” orthodox ost, maybe? But baby swiss would still be atheistic.)Biblical God Jehovah exists because Jehovah is God = Holes in donuts exist because donuts have holes.Just in case this went over your head: the hole in the donut is the property that has a hole in a donut.Edited by lyx2no, : Add quote.

---

KindlyWhen 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?

Well now that you've warned him he'll know it's a trick and have to claim it irrelevant to his un-model just so we know we can't sneak one "passed" him. he's wily like that.

---

KindlyWhen 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?

No, it's not. There are currently 30 functional GPS satellites in orbit. As part of their function they must take space curvature into account if the system is going to tell anyone where they are. None of them need to take Jehovah into account. Their is a block of empirical evidence for the curvature of space making curvature a property of space as certain as donut holes.You have not refuted the existence of holes in donuts.

---

KindlyWhen 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?

What do you mean by " . if enough energy and matter were applied to it."? It's not really a fair question though, is it? They're just magic words you use to make it sound like what you say has some of them thar' edjumacated airs to it, ain't they? After all, it's the big words everyone else uses that make their arguments compelling, ain't it? Buz, they are meaningless gibberish, and if you weren't trying so hard to avoid thinking about the subject you're talking about you might recognize that you don't really know what you're talking about.You're talking about a straight line. You think that the rigidity of a steel bar makes for a better argument than an imaginary line. It doesn't. Not one of us here on the other side of the argument requires a model as clumsy as your steel bar to picture exactly what you are trying to say. We all get it. It's wrong. You don't need to use analogies with us. We don't mistake your point. it's perfectly clear. It's wrong.In your model space is just a vast, propertyless expanse. It goes off in every direction forever. A point moving along a straight line described within your space moving away from a second point on the same line gets one unit farther away for every unit it travels. It will never get closer, and certainly never meet the second point again. A Euclidean space. We get it ” got it in the 4^th grade. And in a 3D Euclidean space you are exactly right. No one disagrees (who's competent to be having this argument).Where you are wrong is that your model better matches reality. It is far easier to understand and comports well with a piece of real(i)ty only a few hundred miles to a side. But as soon as you get to a scale where you want to start using GPS to find your way home it fails.If one sends a time signal (a time signal combined with the speed of light being a constant gives one a way to determine distance) from a satellite in orbit to a ground station without taking into account that the space between is warped by the difference of positions (within the gravitational well) and velocities one could be miles away from the calculated position.Now, your argument is that it is the gravity pulling the signal away from the straight line (I know you've not actually said that, but it is what you've been trying to say) that causes the error, not the shape of the space (a property space can't have) in between. That's a fair argument and not an uninteresting one. It's even a scientific hypothesis that can be tested and falsified. As a matter of fact it has been both: in 1919.

---

KindlyWhen 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?

But there is no necessity to mention them other then to make your statement sound official. You didn't mention porta-potties for the workmen and they would be just as important. At what point did I mention it was unfair? And I only mean magical in the sense that you use them without understanding thier meanings or applications. I certainly don't think cavediver or Son Goku toss in needless "energies" and "matters" to fill in holes in their thinking. Your bar has no properties that need explaining. The only property that your bar has is that it is understandable to you. Everyone else (who is competent to be having this discussion) gets along fine without it. I'll except existence as a property, but I'd prefer not having to quibble over that type of nonsense. Is the hole in a donut a property of the donut or of space? (And what verb is "unempirically" modifying? Are you saying you have been empirically refuted?)Now, as you're not one of those disagreeing with you, you're not included in the set of those who disagree and are competent to be having this argument. But that you fail to notice the statement could not apply to you doesn't say much for your competence.Furthermore, if I were to make a bronze bust of Molly Pitcher and put it into the boxing ring with the last ten heavyweight world champions simultaneously she'd not last 10 rounds due to her competence as a boxer, but you could bet your boots she'd still be there.This said, I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say it is indeed your level of competence that explain your continuing presence in this argument. It is not the properties you claim, though numbers 2, 3 and 4 are iffy, that we have been arguing, but those you leave out. Namely, for this argument, the property of curvature. For three bonus points: Do you recognize the relationship between 6πMG/c², 2πr, and the earlier mentioned r=3M?

---

KindlyWhen 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?

In the time it took you to make that pissy excuse you could have answered the question "Is "straight" defined by the path of a photon in a vacuum?" All you have to do is type "yes" or "no". How the hell hard is that?That you don't seem to recognize how essential that is goes to your lack of competence.

---

KindlyWhen 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?

It's comparative. You don't want to see me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. (Okay, so when I turn green I look more like Dipsy the teletubby then Lou ferrigno, but you still wouldn't like me.) What you're doing is not called learning. If you want to learn answer the questions. The questions are not designed for us to learn from them, but to steer you toward an understanding of the fatal flaws in your notions.AbE: You need to say something substantial about your notion instead of worrying about who's naughty or nice. You've been repeating the same few lines over and over. Pick one of your lines and reinforce it with something ” anything.P.S. Your notion fails today; there is no need to rehash the big bang. How do you measure a line for straightness ? Edited by lyx2no, : ”

---

KindlyWhen 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?

Might I remind you that the burden of proof is yours. If you're not going to do anything more then restate you position as a response to all objections you fail. Your Buzsaw Notion of Undended Space Bars not only doesn't stand it never stood.You don't walk away victorious. You don't live to fight another day. You lose.

---

KindlyWhen 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?

Both curvature and expansion have been demonstrated over and over again. You have been told this over and over again. There are differences in the way the two cases would effect the Universe. Observations can be, and have been, made to determine which case would better fit the behavior of light within a strong gravitational field. Warped space: 1; Unbended space: 0. Who is we? (space is volume not area. And you keep accusing everyone else of using 2D to confuse.) Again, you need to support your notion, not battle something that you're completely ignorant of. You've never even raised a fist. As it is, the only time your fingers curled was to grab your hat on the way out. No, Buz, you've scored no points. Zero. None. You've reiterated an erroneous POV without supporting it with a single bit of evidence. Nor have you defended against a single attack made against you except by denial or neglect. As you came with neither I'd have to assume if you are leaving with either ” though there is none in evidence ” you've gained by the exchange. The umpteenth reiteration without support.You lose.

---

KindlyWhen 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?

What property of the bar allows It to remain unbended?Any of you mathematicians out there know what umpteen plus one equals?

---

KindlyWhen 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?

Your universe is farther from the real universe then Buzsaw's.

---

KindlyWhen 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?

No you don't. You only have to admit that you don't have a clue.This is gobbleddie-goop that only entered the debate as some of your magic words. It never became official debate material.We told you to forget the BBT non-sense as immaterial at the start.This is gobbleddie-goop you're making up now. Say, "I've no idea." and walk away. (AbE: But not too far or you'll end up back where you started ” again.)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. 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, : ”

---

KindlyWhen 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?

Onifre's admission of ignorance was not universal. It spoke only to the specific point of what gives space the capacity to warp. He admitted nothing about the BBT. Probably because it's irrelivant and off topic. It's not even mentioned in the quote he answered. Not knowing something doesn't imply not knowing anything. Even less so when the thing one doesn't know is related to a separate topic. "IMO" has no power to take the stupid off an idea. This is not a BBT issue anymore than whether "crayons are edible" is to "staying within the lines".The issue is "Does space curve back upon itself?" With a minor in "Does space curve at all?" In the former this side answers, "Yes, If space is closed." ” which is kind of redundant. To the latter this side answers, "Yes, empirically so." To the latter your side answers, "No, how could it." making the former moot. That's better left to philosophers (whom the rest of us can ignore). I would tend to agree with you on this. But I would also tend to believe that Onifre was talking about properties locally sensible to us. After all, he'd already admitted to space having the property of curvature. Onifre's inquisition is a bit out of order. If it weren't you'd not have been able to stick you objection into the middle of it.One observes light to curve.
What would cause light to curve?
Then one will toss in as many reasons as one can think of. (Note that the standard is "can think of" not "all possible reasons".) Then one sort them out with predictions of, consequences of, each guess. (Though to be fair to Onifre, Einstein predicted the curvature of space from baser principles and asked the questions more in the order Onifre offered them. But that's more then anyone should be asked to sort out in the forum instant.)We have two guesses on the table. Light bends because it feels the gravitational force in the way a dog feels the tug of a leash, and; light bends because it feels gravity the way a golf ball feels a dip in the green. (Please be kind with the limits of this analogy.) We have tested both of these possibilities where they make differing predictions. The curved space guess was closely matched, and the gravity as force guess was eliminated. Eliminated, not just less closely matched. (Note that we've done nothing about the unmade guesses. One of them might be an even better match to observations.) My dog is primarily white but has light brown spots on his head and front legs. This is just a description of my dog on screen and in my mind. Is it not possible that it is an accurate description of my dog. Were I to ask a little girl on the side of the road from my van with the tinted windows if she had seen such a dog that she might be able to help me look for him? I'd sure be willing to offer her an ice cream if she could. That is a strength, not a weakness. I'd bet you a dime for donuts he didn't shrug and stop working on it. A fine point, the photon itself is not warped, only its path is. A photon is not an extended object. I couldn't make enough meaning out of the question to give a clear answer.Again, your Euclidian space was first Newton's Eclidian space. It's not a bad idea but it fails upon close, very close, inspection.

---

KindlyWhen 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?

In the first we observe a phenomena. We make guesses as to the cause. We work out the implications of our guesses. We sort our guesses and see which ones can be eliminated by testing and which can stand. We work harder to find more profound implications and tests ” think LHC ” until we eliminate all the guesses. Yes, all the guesses. We've been trying to eliminate ToE for 159 years.In the second we are told a story by our mommies and then shoehorn all the observations into it.Now a problem arises on those rare occasions where our mommies aren't theoretical physicists. She might have accidentally mislabeled a muon as a mason or something. In these instances we are required to think things out for ourselves a bit more than other kids.The lucky ones and the hard working ones try to be understanding when meeting up with one of those kids who didn't get the memo ” society demands it ” but we're under no obligation to disprove their stupid, childish ideas, bear their insult or treat them as peers.Seven hundred post into this inanity and you've yet to provide a single supporting agument that isn't based on your total lack of understanding of even the simplest of ideas; i.e., analogy. The only thing that you have demonstrated, the only thing you have substantiated, the only thing you have made clear, is that you are a silly, old tosspot.Here's a smiley face, , to lighten the mood for you.Edited by lyx2no, : Structure.

---

KindlyWhen 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?