The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

Well first I would like to say that, "we really don't know", if a very humble thing to admit and shows honesty, rather than just assume you know the answer.I'll do my best to answer but the question is a bit confusing. Space does not consist of any 'properties', so to ask what properties does it have, is nonsensical. But, here's a better way to look at it.First, ask yourself, "How do we know it's curved?" Well we observed light curve.Then, ask yourself "What would cause that light to curve?"..."Something has to be distorted to cause a massless photon to curve?"Well it turns out that mass density, or mass energy in GR terms, distorts the geomerty(R) or the space/time around it and causes anything with energy to curve. How much distortion? Well it's equal to the Gravitational(G) Constant times the Energy(E) density of an object.The equation looks like this (R = GE). It's alot more complicated than just that since the geometry of space/time(R) is a collection of 16 numbers called the Matrix, or Tensor. I haven't figured all this shit out myself either.Now, here's where it gets confusing a bit, the mass object has energy density because it is in motion thru space. Think of it as a boat going through water causing waves. The same way water distorts when it hits the boat and follows the curves of the boat; so to does space when an energy density is in motion.So, lets recap.

• 1. We see light curve, known as gravitational lensing.
• 2. We can caulculate how much curvature based off of energy density(mass of the object).
• 3. And we know that motion causes the energy density to curve the space around it.

• Keeping all of this in mind, lets try to put it into perspective for you.

Space is a thing, it experiences distortion and causes anything around it to curve, but it's not a thing in the physical sense. The effect of gravity is basically the distortion, the warped spacetime, the curvature.In Newtonian physics gravity was thought to be a force. In GR gravity is no longer a force it is the curvature of spacetime. When 2 objects fall, they are not falling because there is a force behind them, they are falling because they are following the curvature of spacetime. That is why they fall at equal times. And Einstein predicted this.And Buz there is alot of mathematics that equates all of this perfectly.Time is also affected by the effect of energy density on space, since it is spacetime, together. And there is a formula that equates the difference in time from a clock on Earth and one at high altitudes, GPS satalites use this formula.So as you can see, well I hope you can see, physicist do see an observable effect on spacetime, plus can calculate the geometry of the curvature of spacetime to make predictions and hit it dead on every time. Spacetime is something, in the sense that the effects on it affect other things, that is why I told you that it doesn't have any 'properties'. And with the theory of GR we can understand this phenomenon, and we should be happy to do so because we are the only species on the planet, and for all we know the universe, that has been able to do this. It has solid math, it is beyond accurate in it's predictions, and is used everyday by humans...it's time to show it a bit of respect Buz, don't you think? At least try to learn about it and not question things beyond your ability to comprehend. This stuff is not easy to just grasp, believe me I know, but it is understandable once you change your concept of what you think you know about space Buz.Hope this helped.--Onifre

---

"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

Yes, I am aware of this. I should have detailed my use of the word "inaccurate".Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Their coupling to the stress energy of matter. I don't know how much use that is but it's the answer. Let's be realistic and not suggest that all this unintuitive stuff from theoretical physics was just be made up to be confusing or semi-mystical. I mean it would be bone stupid if anybody stayed in the subject if it was so obviously a pile of nonsense.
Rather one should take the more realistic view that physics, like most academic subjects, has been progressing over the few hundred years and because of this its terminology is largely disconnected from standard English. Also it has discovered genuinely new things and since those things were not known before there is no way to imagine them in pre-existing mental frameworks.Let us reduce this debate significantly, by providing an answer to this question:
If General Relativity is incorrect and so fatally incorrect as you imply, why does it match experiment perfectly?Your own answer to this question would help in addressing your objections.

Onifre, your response here has been helpful and forthright for me to have a better understanding of the curvature controversy, though it has not been at all helpful so far as my acceptance of spacetime curvature. I'll respond point by point for my reasons why: Thanks for being honest and forthright, though, I find this extremely problematic for your POV in that this is extremely paramount to the whole BBT, your argument for space curvature, and space expansion.Imo, so long as "we don't know," you have no more empirical evidence that the BBT happened, and space curves or expands than theists have that Jehovah, god exists.After all, if the BBT happened orginating space curvature and expansion, the Biblical god, Jehovah, allegedly existing in the cosmos and allegedly having so existed eternally as well as the whole Biblical record is myth.A LOT RESTS ON THIS DEBATE RELATIVE TO WHAT TRUTH IS! Mmmm, no, Onifre, since every existing thing has properties, it is nonsensical to allege that something existing has no properties whatsoever. If it has no properties it does not exist. Just as I've been arguing all along - what is being observed is not space curvature. It's something else being observed as curving and not space perse. Again, as I've been arguing - it's geometrics on paper and in the mind. It's all alleged property-less spacetime and geometric math. It's illusional and defies reality. Ya, and even the physics guru, Richard Feynman admits that he doesn't fully understand some of what he accepts relative to complicated aspects of QM etc. LOL! Mmm, needing some clarification here. Is the mass object the warped photon or is it a regional mass object in motion warping the photon? I assume, the latter.I need some time to think about and address the rest of your message.I have been often reminded in this thread that I have been demonstrating no ability whatsoever to comprehend any of this. Well, it appears that some aspects of what we've been arguing relative to logic and reason vs GR, QM and math are also not being altogether comprehended by physics gurus who study and practice physics. So the debate goes on as to what is logically and sensibly true vs. what is quantitatively and Generally relative true.

---

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

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?

Wait, don't get confused here. You said that many in this forum have given you the "I don't know" answer. I only commented on those peoples honesty in telling you "hey, I don't know", instead of bullshitting you about the whole thing.What I explained to you about spaces' properties creates no problem since I derive my answers from physical laws and observable tests. This is not my PoV, this is what is taught to physics students, which by the way I am one so im not an expert by any means. Im trying my best to convey what I am being taught. There are experts in this forum who will correct any of my mistakes, even though I usually don't venture into areas of physics that I don't understand yet, so I don't think there will be any big discrepancies. You seemed to be asking for physical properties in the last post. Space does not have any physical properties that we can refer to that make sense to us, space does however, have geometric properties that can be distorted making it,(space), a thing. In that sense it's properties can make sense to us. Also, in that sense a property of space would be it's curvature. I need you to step outside the box here with me sir. I think you are the one who is defying my reality Buz, sorry I had to throw in a joke with all the tension in this thread.Let me answer from the first point you make, Yes. I would not say alleged. But, yes it's geometric, and that is also it's property, and it can be warped by energy density. We visually observe this phenomenon so you can't just say "no thats bullshit". There is no clarification needed, you just missed the point of my analogy. The point was to show you a different way of thinking when you are thinking about spaces' properties. The property is the curvature that is placed on it by an object.The boat analogy was to compare the affects of an object in the water, to the water, to those placed on space by an object in space, on space. That way you can understand what is meant by space having properties.---------------------------------------------------------------------Just a bit of advice Buz, you might be better off trying to open up your mind to these new concepts. Honestly, you gain nothing by just claiming that space is not curved. You are simply denying yourself the ability to comprehend this stuff by sticking to your illusionary concepts of a flat space.Question: If space is not curved, then what prevents Earth, or any other planet for that matter, from falling straight into the Sun?*Hint: the answer is the curvature of spacetime, but I'll let you research it.--Oni

---

"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

Nobody is adding a 4th spatial dimension. Get this misapprehension out of your head.To see the curvature of the 3D bar you would need to see it from the point of view of a 4th spatial dimension. That is not the same as saying that there is a 4th spatial dimension or that this vantage point is at all physically possible.That is why we talk about the perspective of a being living in a 2D surface of a balloon analogy. Because our 3D vantage point is equivelent to the 4D perespective we would need to see the 3D surface of the 4D sphere that is the model for our universe.Anyway. I am damn sure you are not going to understand any of that. But please just bear in mind that I am not claiming a 4th spatial dimension

Buz would you do me the favor of watching the first 8 minutes of this lecture. Listen to what the professor is say carefully, this may help you understand why you're not grasping this and why you need to let go of your current way of thinking.Enjoy,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuqh9QfNITo Moderator: The lecture is off topic but I feel the first 8 minutes of the lecture will help Buz realize that his logical human senses of space, do not help make sense of the obscurity of space.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I was about to ask you one more question but I see Son Goku has asked it in Message 378.I think it is worth re-iterating. So Buz why does GR work so well if it is so flawed? Can your "model" even pretend to be actually useful in any practical way at all? Could we use your model to make the calculations required for the GPS system for example? The answer has to be no. That is why your "model" is effectively worthless.We look forward to you answer to SG's question.

Buz, this attitude is surprising and somewhat unique. One of the founders of modern cosmology and originators of a commonly used description of the universe (the Friedmann-Lematre-Robertson-Walker metric) is Georges Lematre. You can read about him here, where you will see that he was a Jesuit priest, very active in the church, definitely believed in god and christian doctrine, and yet was one of the originators of the BBT and the mathematics that describe it. He (if he were still alive) and many other christian cosmologists who have no trouble believing in god and a closed, curved universe would find your statement to be confusing or just a non sequitur, and would chalk it up to ignorance of modern geometry, or of christianity, or both.____________________________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.

Buz, after almost 400 posts (And I'm not sure why this topic hasn't been closed. New rules?) I think it is time to either spit or get off a shot. So lets do an actual, real experiment to test your flat space theory against Einstein's curved space theory. This is a simple experiment you can do in your own home using materials you can but at your local hardware store for a few dollars*. First, build two super precise cesium atom clocks accurate to one part per trillion. Next, take the two clocks to your local airport and synchronize them exactly. Next, arrange a series of airline flights that will take you around the world and return you to your local airport. Take one of the clocks with you on these flights. When you finally get back to your airport, compare the two clocks. If you and Isaac Newton are right, the two clocks will still show the exact same time (to within that one part per trillion accuracy). If Einstein and his equations are right, the clock that went around the world will be behind the stay-at-home clock by many nanoseconds. Let us know how the experiment came out. Show all your work.*Well, ok, it may cost more than a few dollars and you have to leave your house, so you might want to get a few close friends involved.This experiment has been performed, of course, and the traveling clock did not just come up slower that the stay-at-home clock, it differed by exactly the amount predicted by Einstein's equations! (If I weren't so lazy, I would find you a web reference, but I'm sure one of our more active contributors will be happy to provide that.) What these equations say is happening is that both clock start at the same point in space-time (your local airport and the time at which you synchronize them at the beginning of the experiment), but then travel slightly different paths to wind up together at a final point in space-time (again at your airport and the time at the end of the experiment when you compare the clocks). The stay-at-home clock follows a sort of straight path while the traveling clock follows a sort of slightly corkscrewed path, a little longer in space and a little shorter in time.Please let us know when you have repeated this simple experiment so that we can announce to the world the Buzsaw has scientifically disproved the existence of god.-------------------------------------------------------
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.

It doesn't surprise me that Lamitre had no problem with the BBT relative to the Biblical record. The majority of theists who claim to believe in an eternal God, including all YECs are equally as thoughtless regarding this problem. They just don't think. The Bible says God, his host of angels, other beings and his celestial abode are in the cosmos/heavens. If the heavens, including all space and time are a few thousand years or even billions of years old, then the Biblical god, Jehovah is a youthful temporal god, a mere few thousands or billions of years young. That's totally nonsensical!So yes, AIG, Buzsaw is somewhat unique, but I don't know why you're so surprised.

---

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

Is it? Can't an omnipotent god be youthful and temporal if he wants to be? Who are we mere humans, seeped in sin and ignorance, to think that god is reducible to understanding by our logic, as you are doing by labeling as nonsensical any statement pertaining to god? I could, with equal (and equally blasphemous) logic insist that god came into being exactly 13.7 billion or 6,000 years ago because that's precisely when he chose to come into existence! How is my assertion any more or less valid than yours? A youthful, temporal god resolves many of the philosophical conflicts we've had on these pages. Perhaps, Buz, you're just getting to old to entertain the exciting new ideas that will lead us to true enlightenment.

OK, what I asked was what properties of space.... Your answer: Their (space properties) coupling to the stress energy of matter. (added embolded notation mine)You evaded my question, Son Goku. To my question of what properties of space and time allow for them to be curved, your evasive response: space and time's properties coupling to the energy of matter.
But coupling to space and matter is what (abe: those properties) allegedly allow space to do, not what those properties are. An analogy would be, if you join a team, (abe: being a member of a team) is not a property of you as a human, it is something; an activity that you, (abe: the human,) has decided to join up to.Note: I haven't forgotten your question but I need you to answer mine forthrightly first. Fair enough?So we're back to square one. Son Goku, what properties of space allow for it to be curved/warped by energy and matter? I assume a forthright answer would be we really don't know. Do you agree with Onifre that this is correct? Edited by Buzsaw, : rephrase for clarity

---

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

AIG, you need to pay attention to what I said. I said that the Biblical god, Jehovah according to the Biblical record is an eternal god. So if folks who say they believe the record believe in a temporal universe they're obviously mistaken since there would be no space in which he could exist eternally. Savvy?

---

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