The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

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.Rick, do you have anything to say about the substance of my message, or are you here to debate the credentials of the contestants of this debate?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buz I hope you can understand that this statement of yours, defining space in a physics sense, is just gibberish.For you to refute spacetime curvature you must show how general relativity, which deals specifically with gravity, is wrong. But, before you do that you must first understand what it is that GR is implying about spacetime. That is where your universe falls apart. If you told a physics professor that a bar would over power the curvature, he would strike you about the head with said bar. And, btw, bended is not a physics term, I don't even think it's a word, period. I believe you meant bent. Oops you did it again, bent.And no, the physical properties of the bar do NOT change. Space is observed to be curved. A 10ft bar or a quintillion ft bar would still be striaght in principle, but not when observed by us in space. It's not to satisfy GR, GR explains what we observe. It would be to satisfy space.

---

"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

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?

Hypothetically accept?? 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. Why should I hypothetically accept otherwise??

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

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.

"Space is observed to be curved.""......straight in principle, but not when observed by us....."In the above two statements I see the word, observed.1. Observation of space = mystical and debatable GR etc relative of what it's properties are.2. Observation of a steel bar = Observable of something being physical, touchable, structurally rigid and observational by the naked eye with three spatial dimensions, structurally unchangeable without bending and undebatable relative to it's properties.ABE: It appears that to apply what is straight in principle to what is observably straight is to mystify actuality.BENDED: Defined by Merriam Webster as "a curved part of something." Edited by Buzsaw, : Add two statements

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

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.

No, observed as in gravitational lensing. Observable as in watching an energy such as light curve because of the effects on space by mass. The light, or photon, is NOT bending, it is going in a straight line through curved spacetime. And the beauty of it is that it's feeling no force! The photon is NOT turning, it's the space that's turning! Gravity my friend. You cannot deny that it exist. It, gravity, curves space, anything traveling in a straight line continues to do so feeling no force, and curve with space. I do not believe that it can be established that the 2 sides will touch though, at least I don't believe that they can touch, perhaps im not understanding something myself. Im really going to try an explain it easy. It remains in that form that you explained above, space is the curved property, the bar remains rigid and structually unchangeable.Now, here's the problem. To show you this you would need to understand the mathematical asspect of GR where conceptual explanations stop working. Im barely understanding it and im in class on this shit.This is why you've been asked to simple concede that you don't fully grasp this stuff an bow out of the debate.

---

"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

Is "straight" the shortest distance between two points in your "model" or not?Online Dictionary definition of straight: Extending continuously in the same direction without curving:That's what my model is.
Your question obscures that definition of my model so as to obfuscate my position in this debate. Nice try.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

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

Ah, thanks straggler. I didn't know he had established the topology. No wonder it's been so hard for him to grasp it, thats a complete sphere he has to conceptualize a bar curving.And since the bar is obviously hypothesized, there's no way to show him that it will curve other than showing him the math; which he will not understand.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Onifre, thanks for trying in a kindly manner, but imo, there's got to be something awry in physics when education is programming into your mind that sophisticated things like gravitational lensing can account for the two ends of my rigid straight bar's ends to ever join due to alleged space curvature whether it be in principle or by observation.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.I am absolutely 100% convinced logically and as per the Biblical account relative to God, of eternal space, of my concept of the properties of the bar relative to space, etc. Thanks again, my friend, for trying as you have, but I can never concede these things. I hope you understand that it is not dogged stubborness and bullheadedness that has driven me along these pages of debate.Again, I appreciate all of the time and effort everyone has given to this. 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.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

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.........

1. Somewhere in this thread, way back when, I gave this definition, so if you missed it it's not because it was not posted. I don't have time to look it up now.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.That's it for tonight/wee AM. Gota bathe and off to church tomorrow.