The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

I am not a space-time physicist, neither is anyone here as far as I know.

---

Ahem. Speak for yourself.

quote:

---

For the sake of debate it makes sense that the least of us should understand what is being discussed.

---

And what about my definition is so difficult to understand?"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:

---

ABE: Merriam Webster

​

1a : free from curves, bends, angles, or irregularities
b : generated by a point moving continuously in the same direction and expressed by a linear equation

​

As I said, it depends on what the definition relates to.
a. = 3D
b. = 2D

---

Huh?In Cartesian coordinates, the line passing through (x₀, y₀, z₀) and parallel to the vector [a, b, c] is given by the linear parametric equations:x = x₀ + at
y = y₀ + bt
z = z₀ + ctThe variable "t" does not stand for "time." It is simply a parametric variable which by convention is usually labeled "t" (just as the variables for spatial dimensions by convention are labeled "x," "y,", and "z").So why would "a point moving continuously in teh same direction and expressed by a linear equation" necessarily be defined as "4D"?Twentieth 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.

Codegate responds to me:

quote:

---

Well, I doubt you will ever get a definition of straight from those you are asking, so I will give it a go on their behalf.

​

A line (or bar) is considered straight if any two planes that are perpendicular to the line are also parallel.

---

That doesn't help. As you say, all you've done is replace one undefined concept, "straight," with another undefined concept, "parallel." As the examination of Euclidean geometry has shown us, "parallel" is an axiomatic property and is not derived. It is because of changes to the Fifth Postulate that we came up with non-Euclidean geometries.^*Since we're dealing with space rather than imposing a mathematical construct, it would be more helpful if we could come up with a physical definition.At any rate, what we really need is an answer from Buzsaw himself:"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Does he agree with that definition or not?^* And even then, the Fifth Postulate doesn't mention the concept of "parallel." Instead, it simply says that if two straight lines are crossed by a transversal such that the interior angles on one side are less than two right angles, then the two straight lines, if extended indefinitely, will meet on that side. From this, we can derive what we commonly know as "parallel," but notice how the concept is constructed.

---

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 cavediver:

quote:

---

Of course, factoring in the time dimension.

---

Time has nothing to do with it.

quote:

---

What about my sudden extension bar model where time is not a factor relative to my recent posts?

---

As soon as you define what "straight" means, we can determine what happens to those two ends."Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with this 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 need to know what causes the bar model to allegedly curve and it's ends to connect.

---

The nature of space does it, it would seem.Second question: If we carried out this experiment of yours and found that the ends connected, how would that affect your claim?

quote:

---

As I understand it, you people have been agreeing that a 3D model would not curve without the time dimension causing the curvature.

---

Incorrect. Time really has nothing to do with 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.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

​

Do you agree with this definition or not?

---

​

Straight has multiple definitions.

---

I'm only interested in the one that I've given."Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum.Do you agree with this definition or not?

quote:

---

I'm not apprised enough on photons in vacuums to answer whether your definition is one of the definitions of straight, except that perhaps a perfect vacuum does not exist.

---

OK. What would you need to know? Do you know how photons propagate? For example, it was thought that photons required a medium in which to propagate. It was called the "luminiferous ether." The Michelson-Morley experiment was developed to detect the presence of this ether and it failed, leading us to conclude that there is no ether and light propagates on its own.The reason I bring up vacuum is that we know there are things that can deflect light. A mirror, for example, redirects the path of a photon. What I'm trying to establish is that a photon that is traveling all on its own and isn't being deflected by anything is what we use to determine if something is "straight." That it is the standard by which everything else is measured.Do you agree with this 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:

---

Rrhain, I'm not going on your segway.

---

You know, you can say, "No, I don't agree with that definition." I'll then ask you to define what you mean by "straight," but I thought I would help things along by providing a definition that is commonly used.

quote:

---

You're simply hijacking this thread

---

Huh? You're the one who is talking about straight things having their ends meet. That necessarily requires a definition of "straight." How is that "hijacking this thread"?

quote:

---

with repeated same-oles

---

If you would directly answer a simple question put to you the first time it is asked, it wouldn't be required to ask it again.

quote:

---

you're not going to get any more answers on.

---

In other words, you don't want to actually define your terms and show your work but you expect us to simply accept it on faith that you have any inkling of what your own point is.

quote:

---

Move on or I'll simply ignore you.

---

And this is a change, how? You haven't answered my singular question to you so far.

quote:

---

I'm not interested at this time in photons or learning more about them.

---

Then how do you define "straight"? We cannot discuss your model until you define what you mean by "straight." If you don't like the definition I've put forward, that's fine, but we need one so that we can all understand what you mean by it so that we can determine if a "straight" bar can have its ends meet.

---

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:

---

1. Buzsaw says any observance of curvature is perception of forces, matter and energy existing in space/area, space having no properties capable of curvature; it's only property being existing unbounded area.

​

2. Conventional physics says space itself curves, has force and energy properties and is finite.

---

You seem to have confused questions of finite/infinite with questions of bounded/unbounded. The two are not the same. Something can be finite and unbounded. Something can be infinite and bounded.If we are going to have any discussion about space being "curved," we need to have a definition of what "straight" is. So far, you have done everything you can to directly avoid giving a definition or even stating whether or not you agree with the one proferred. We cannot continue until you do.If you don't agree with the definition of "straight" being the path taken by a photon in vacuum, then what is your 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.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

I am saying that the bar has no non-spatial dimensions which are capable of causing it's curvature

---

But what makes you think space can't do it itself?And what do you mean by "straight"? If it isn't the path a photon takes in vacuum, what is it?

quote:

---

Therefore it would extend continuously without curving if enough energy and matter were applied to it.

---

But if space curves, then the bar would curve, too. How do you define "straight"?

quote:

---

That's why conventional science uses a 2D model to model the universe.

---

Huh? Why is my physics textbook filled with three-dimensional problems? Why is it that I spent all that work in cylindrical and spherical coordinates? Where did this idea that science works in two dimensions come from?

quote:

---

For the bar model to curve it's length dimension must be curved and it must curve continuously if extended.

---

Why must it curve continuously? Can't space be irregular? But this all hinges on having a definition of "straight" which you have failed to provide.

quote:

---

It can never have three uncurved dimensions.

---

Why? This statement requires a definition of "straight" which you have failed to provide. If it isn't the path a photon takes in vacuum, what is it?

quote:

---

Imo, there is no property of space capable of causing curvature to the model.

---

So what happens when it does? You need to provide a definition of "straight" so that we can determine if it is straight or not. If it isn't the path a photon takes in vacuum, what is it?

quote:

---

This debate will not be resolved so long as there are different POVs on what the properties of space are.

---

Indeed, and so long as you refuse to show your work and define your terms, we can never come to an agreement on those properties. How on earth can we test your model without a definition of "straight" in order to determine if a "straight" thing meets itself?

quote:

---

Space is invisible.

---

No, it isn't. We can view it directly.

quote:

---

Imo, nobody can empirically establish what the properties of space are or whether it does indeed curve.

---

Why not? If you cannot determine what the properties of space are, by what justification do you possibly claim that your bar doesn't have its ends meet simply due to the nature of space?

quote:

---

it is allegedly forces and energy properties of space which allegedly causes it's alleged curvature.

---

If we can directly observe space curving, what does that do to your model?Doesn't that require a definition of "straight"? If "straight" isn't defined as the path a photon takes in vacuum, 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.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

Space/area has no property in it capable of curvature.

---

Why not? Wouldn't finding something that is supposed to be "straight" is actually not "straight" be evidence that it space can actually curve?

quote:

---

You cannot empirically refute that

---

Only if we remain without a definition of "straight." That's why I keep asking you to define your terms. A commonly used one is the path a photon takes. So far, you haven't given us a definition of "straight" so we don't have any way of determining if something is "straight" or not.

quote:

---

nor can I empirically substantiate it.

---

Don't you find that to be a problem? If you cannot validate your claim, why on earth should we accept it at all since there are those who claim we can determine if something is "straight" and thus empirically determine if space curves?

quote:

---

A straight dimension of a 3D spatial model is a line between two points not bended and not curved.

---

That doesn't define anything. All you've done is shift from one undefined term to another. What is "bended"? What is "curved"? How does one determine if something is "straight"? What does it mean to be "straight"? What is the definition? If "straight" isn't the path a photon takes, what is?

quote:

---

As I understand, it is the non-spatial dimension of time which is allegedly attributed to space's alleged curvature

---

Incorrect. Time has nothing to do with it. If space curves, it doesn't curve "in time."

quote:

---

curvature which allegedly originated at the singularity event of the alleged BBT.

---

Incorrect. If space is curved, it is curved in and of itself.

quote:

---

What properties of it are directly visible to your eyes?

---

The way it curves or doesn't. That, of course, requires a definition of "straight." A common one is the path a photon takes. When the eclipse of 1919 happened, we were able to test the Einsteinian model of space by watching the path of photons as they passed by the sun.

quote:

---

Like you, I cannot prove what I understand the properties of it to be.

---

Incorrect. I have a definition of "straight" and a test that I can do to see if space curves based upon that definition of straight. If "straight" is defined as the path a photon takes, then we can test if something is "straight" by watching the paths of photons. If they bend as they move across space, then that is proof that space bends.This is exactly what happened in 1919 during the eclipse. The sun is the largest gravitational source we have nearby. Thus, it would be an effective way to see if photons bend when passing by. Unfortunately, it's too bright to see any stars that are in its direction. We have to wait for an eclipse to obscure the light of the sun so that we can see the light from the stars behind it.And sure enough, we saw that the photons from the background stars bent as they passed by the sun.Beyond that, galaxies are even bigger gravitational wells. If we look at photons that pass by galaxies, we might be able to see if they bend when passing by. And sure enough, we see "lensing" where the light of entire galaxies bends around intervening galaxies as it passes toward us.But that is based on the definition of "straight" being the path a photon takes. Do you agree with this definition or not? We cannot determine if space curves unless and until you define what it means for something to be "straight."

quote:

---

Imo, you are directly observing forces and/or energy and/or matter existing in space and not space itself.

---

Incorrect. Newtonion physics, which assumes space does not curve, cannot account for the bending of photons that we see. That's what the 1919 eclipse showed us: If Newtonian physics were true, then the light from the photons as they passed the sun should have been apparently coming from a certain location. But if space were curved as described by Einsteinian physics, then those photons should have been apparently coming from a different location.How do you explain the fact that the photons agreed with the Einsteinian model? If space isn't curved, how did it happen?What do you mean by "straight"?

quote:

---

It does nothing to my model unless you can prove that forces, energy and/or matter are properties of space.

---

Incorrect. Our current models of space do not require "forces, energy, and/or matter" to be "properties of space." Instead, such things affect space.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.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

It has been argued throughout the thread that the two ends of my rigid not bended not curved bar model will indeed join, the bar remaining not bended if extended far enough. I'm still unconvinced that space has properties capable of this magical, illogical feat.

---

How can you know that without a definition of "straight" to compare your bar against?If we have a definition of "straight" and can determine if something is "straight" and yet still observe it bending, would that not be evidence that it was space itself that was curving?What is your definition of "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.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

The bar goes through the energy, force and matter area of the infinite universe and into infinite space/area remaining uncurved and unbended

---

How can you tell? What can you do to determine if it remains "straight"? What is your definition of "straight"? If it isn't the path a photon takes, what is it?And if we directly observe it bending even though it is "straight," wouldn't that be evidence that space itself curves?

quote:

---

It would be indicative that perceived curvature applies to forces, energy and matter in space and not space itself

---

But if it is straight and yet still bends, what does that mean? You need to define what you mean by "straight." If it isn't the path a photon takes, what is it?

quote:

---

If space did indeed curve, the bar would overpower the curvature and remain uncurved and not bended.

---

How can that be? Why would something that exists in space not be affected by the curvature of the space in which it exists?At any rate, your claim requires a definition of "straight" which you still haven't provided. If it isn't the path a photon takes, what is it?

quote:

---

If the bar curves with alleged curved space, the length dimension of it remains straight in one direction and bends in the other direction.

---

Why? Why can't it curve in all directions? And how can you claim this without a definition of "straight"? If it isn't the path a photon takes, what is it?

quote:

---

The bar becomes a ring and no longer straight.

---

Why is it no longer "straight"? What do you mean by "straight"? If it isn't the path a photon takes, what is it?

quote:

---

You can't deny that the bar will be bended if it curves.

---

If the bar curves, yes. But we're letting the bar remain "straight" and instead are looking at the space the bar exists in. But, of course, that requires a definition of "straight" which you still haven't provided. If it isn't the path a photon takes, what is it?

quote:

---

That's the logic that I cannot just wave off and dismiss to satisfy GR science.

---

But GR works and it specifically requires space to curve. If space doesn't curve, how does GR work? Newtonian space, which does not curve space, cannot account for the direct observations we have made. It is now your responsibility to show your work.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.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Earth and the other planets occupy their area of he Solar System where they exist. Forces, energy and matter occupy the area/space of the Universe where they exist. Get the analogy? It's called realism.

---

It's good you put that laughing smiley in because that's exactly what physicists are doing.Question: How does the Casimir Effect work?

quote:

---

What BBT science does is to assign certain forces, energy which exist in space to be properties of space.

---

Like the Casimir Effect. How does your model explain it?

quote:

---

So why then has this debate gone over 10 rounds into overtime?

---

Because you keep refusing to answer simple questions directly asked.What do you mean by "straight"? If the definition of "straight" is not the path a photon takes, what is it?

quote:

---

If there was a KO in the first round, why am I still standing?

---

What makes you think you are? We're still waiting for you to define your terms and show your work.What do you mean by "straight"? If the definition of "straight" is not the path a photon takes, what is it?

quote:

---

debatable versions of GR and QM

---

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about: What are these "debatable versions"? You need to be specific and give details about what you mean. Define your terms and show your work.What about general relativity and quantum mechanics is "debatable"?Hint: This doesn't mean I'm saying there isn't anything to debate. It simply means I want to know what you think is debatable.

---

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:

---

The bar would go through that area and continue on into the infinite space of the universe straight and uncurved.

---

But how do you know it's "straight"? What do you mean by "straight"? If the definition of "straight" is not 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.

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.