The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

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.

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.

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.

Buzsaw responds to RickJB:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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?

---

​

My position is not that GR is not useful and/or scientific. It is that the mystique of it can allow for it to be used and/or abused for the basis of assumed hypothesis which is debatable.

---

You're missing the point:One of the way in which GR is being used right now is to show that space curves. Without taking into account the curvature of space, GR doesn't work.How do you reconcile your claim that GR works with your claim that spce doesn't bend? The two go hand-in-hand.

quote:

---

In this respect, imo, it is being unduly credited for establishing what is considered to be factual, though beyond what is logical and reasonable.

---

Would you agree that what we can directly observe is necessarily "logical and reasonable"? So if we see a "straight" object curving, it would necessarily be "logical and reasonable" that space is curving, right? Well, we did that back in 1919 with the eclipse. We observed a star that was physically behind the sun appearing as if it were off to the side. The paths of the photons were "straight" because that's the definition of "straight": The path a photon takes.And yet, the photons were curved. So since it was the path that was curved since those paths were straight by definition, then it must mean that space was curved.We can directly observe this. Why would you have us deny it? Is the definition of "straight" incorrect? 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 responds to me:

quote:

---

I've said enough that I think you know what my position is.

---

If I did, I wouldn't still be asking questions. You still haven't defined what "straight" is let alone describe an experiment you could run to test your hypothesis. All this despite very simple yet direct questions to you to do so or at least suss out some details.Suppose we have a definition of "straight." It doesn't really matter at this part since apparently you want to remain in the realm of a thought experiment. So we've got a definition of "straight." We then compare your bar to this definition of "straight" and determine that it is "straight."We then examine the ends of the bar and find that they meet.What does that tell us about the nature of space such that a "straight" bar has its ends meet?You seem 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."How might we test your claim? What sort of experiment could we run upon something that is "straight" to see if it curves? Physics came up with just such an experiment back in 1919 during the eclipse.What's yours? What is your definition of "straight" and how would you go about testing 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:

---

That is "has to follow the curvture of space" is based on assumed and hypothetical GR and QM physics which is debatable.

---

When we can see it happen with our own eyes, how is it "debatable"? We can directly watch straight things bend. Are you saying we're not actually seeing it? That they're not "straight"? It's time to show your work, Buzsaw.What is the definition of "straight"? If it isn't the path a photon takes, what is it?

quote:

---

Your bogus summarization of my position is a classic spin job.

---

Then help us out. Answer the questions that have been put to you. Show your work.What is the 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 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

How do you reconcile your claim that GR works with your claim that spce doesn't bend? The two go hand-in-hand.

---

​

See, Rrhain? This is a classic example of how you obfuscate my position time and again.

---

Huh? Message 362: Are you not saying by this that GR works? If you aren't saying that GR works, then what exactly are you saying? Help us out. Show your work. Message 343Are you not saying by this that space does not curve? If you aren't saying that space does not curve, then what exactly are you saying? Help us out. Show your work.So since we have two direct statements from you saying that GR works and that space doesn't curve, how do you reconcile this with the fact that GR works because space curves? The two go hand-in-hand.

quote:

---

I repeat; GR and QM can be useful to science

---

But the very reason GR is useful is because space curves. We can directly measure it. We can take a straight object and watch it bend.What does this mean? That it isn't "straight"? Well, that requires a definition of "straight," would you not agree? If it isn't the path a photon takes, what is it?

quote:

---

but can also be used/abused by science to establish what is considered to be factual.

---

You mean like your insistence that space isn't curved? But if we can directly observe and measure that curvature, how is that anything but "factual"?Help us out. Show your work. What experiment could be run that would establish your claim that space does not curve and thus straight objects do not bend? Physics already ran this experiment back in 1919:"Straight" is defined as the path a photon takes. To test the claim that space curves around massive objects, you wait for a solar eclipse. This is because a star is a tremendously massive object and it will be easier to see the result we are looking for. During the eclipse you look near the edge of the solar disk for stars that should be, were space uncurved, behind the sun.That is, the sun is physically in the way. If you were to look in the direction of the star, you'd not see it because the sun is physically blocking the view.But if we see that star appearing off to the side of the sun such that it looks to us like the sun is not in the way, then that is evidence that space is curving. The photons paths are straight. That's the definition of "straight": The path a photon takes. So if the path the photon takes curves, then that necessarily means that space curved.And that's exactly what we saw. The eclipse of 1919 showed a star to the side of the solar disk that should not have been able to be seen because of the physical locations of the star, the sun, and the earth.But we saw it.Why would you have us deny that?

quote:

---

You know my position on space curvature.

---

Apparently not because you are claiming that I am obfuscating it. So help us out. Simple, direct question:Does space curve? Yes or no.I am currently of the opinion that you think space does not curve because you said, "To concede this debate would to be for me to agree that space has properties capable of curving." If this does not mean you think space doesn't curve, help us out by giving a simple, direct answer to the simple, direct question:Does space curve? Yes or no.

quote:

---

You know also, if you've been reading me, that imo, it's application to establishment of space curvature as factual in mainline science goes beyond it's capability of establishing fact so long as it moves beyond a reasonable measure of sensible logic

---

Huh? You mean the eclipse in 1919 didn't happen? Nobody ran the experiment? The photographs we have of the sun during that eclipse that established we were, indeed, seeing the light from the star that was behind the sun were faked?Help us out. Show your work.

quote:

---

so long as it is assumed hypothesis and so long as it is debatable.

---

Direct observation is "debatable"? Why? What is your point of contention? Is it the definition of "straight"? Well, that would require you giving an actual definition which you have yet to do. If it isn't the path a photon takes, what is it?What sort of experiment do you propose we run to test your claim?

---

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.