The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

Isn't the above based on hypothetical assumptions applicable particularly to one or two dimensional surfaces, i.e. assumed particle QM hypothesis relative to 2M time and radius? Edited by Buzsaw, : remove word

---

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

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

---

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

Rrhain, I've said enough that I think you know what my position is. You're quote mining phrases so as to obfuscate it. For that reason I'm not responding to your messages unless they correctly relate to my position which I am becoming weary of repeating.

---

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

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.

1. That is "has to follow the curvture of space" is based on assumed and hypothetical GR and QM physics which is debatable.2. Your bogus summarization of my position is a classic spin job.

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

No, it is based on the idea that OUR space is three-dimensional.

quote:

---

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

---

It is an honest attempt to understand your argment - which you have NEVER clearly explained,despite my requests. If it is wrong on any point then please explain.I predict that you won't because are simply lying.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

See, Rrhain? This is a classic example of how you obfuscate my position time and again. This is why your messages receive no responses from me.You know full well what my position is on GR as per the message you quoted. I repeat; GR and QM can be useful to science but [b]can also be used/abused by science to establish what is considered to be factual.You know my position on space curvature. 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, so long as it is assumed hypothesis and so long as it is debatable.

---

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

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.

It has nothing to do with mystique. The old Newtonian model of space was, in Einstein's time, found to be inaccurate. GR rectified that by describing gravity as the curvature of space-time. GR gives more accurate results than Newtonian mechanics.Every test done with GR since has confirmed that space-time itself undergoes curvature.Have a look at this link. It has a great explanation of the concept."If gravity is a "curvature of space" rather than a force, why do a ball and bullet follow different paths?"Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

The thing is that you are failing to grasp what any of us are talking about. The bar is straight by any observational or measurable method you care to name.MINI UNIVERSE MODEL
Lets assume that the universe is effectively spherical in shape but lets also, for the sake of argument only (please don't start telling me I am obfuscating reality}, imagine that the universe is of manageable proportions.Lets imagine that the entire 4D spherical universe has a circumference comparable to the length of your living room. Lets extend our bar in that universe. What do we see?We do not see a bar that curves round a horizon. We do not see a curved bar. No we see a straight bar that extends off into infinity. If we look behind us we see the same straight bar extending off into infinity as well. In 3D space the bar is as straight as straight can be and that is exactly what you will see. In fact what you will be seeing is the same bar repeated at regular intervals as far as you can see.Only if you somehow remove yourself into a fourth spacial dimension will you see the curvature of 3D space and the bar curving round on itself. Alas I am not aware that anyone can even imagine this non-mathematically.That is why we talk about 4D. That is why we use 2D surface models for explanatory purposes. That is why your definition of "straight" is insufficiant. Our straight bar is as straight as yours by any measure or observation you care to name. It even looks straight to the naked eye in the 3D universe.Weird? Yep. Counterintuitive? Yep. Commonsense defying? Yep. But that says more about our limited perception than the truths of nature. Go figure.Happy to be corrected by any of our resident experts if I have got this completely wrong or even vaguely wrong.

Actually Rick, the orbiting of the planets predicted by GR are almost exactly the same as those predicted by the Newtonian theory of gravity. The biggest deviation was Mercury because it is closest to the Sun and feels the most gravity.Edited by onifre, : spelling, as alwaysEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"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

4D spatial dimensions?? But only three of them are spatial, plus one time dimension. This is problematic in that no matter how much time you allow for the bar, (abe: time) not being a spatial dimension as are the other three, the bar remains the same, uncurved.What GR, QM and math appears to be accomplishing is mystifying what your model described above demonstrates, i.e. reality by adding a non-spatial dimension to the three spatial dimensions, applying a lot of complicated math, QM and GR to the mix of dimensions in order to conjure up an obvious impossibility being that the bar's ends are capable of rejoining.This all reminds me of the professional trick illusionist magician who cleverly performs apparent amazing feats which appear super-natural. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add word

---

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

This raises one of the other unanswered problematic questions (abe: which I've been) repeating and receiving no satisfactory answers to:
What properties of space and time allow for them to be cuved/warped by dense mass gravity??? So far it appears that the answer is we don't really know. Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted

---

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