beginning of time.... (a proof for eternity?)

Originally posted by KellyJay
I said straight has no curves, if a dimension forces it to bend, it isn't
straight any more where it is bending.
Kelly

I see you are carefully avoiding answering the question. I shall take it that you don't have an answer.
So, since we cannot ever determine whether or not a line is straight (by your definition, it is a pretty meaningless and useless definition is it not?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You require tools like plum lines and levels,
point being straight up and down can be achived.
Kelly

No it cannot. There is no such thing as 'straight up and down' within normal space when using your definition of straight. Therefore a plum line or spirit level will not help you. In fact the direction of 'up' is different for every point on the earths surface.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No it cannot. There is no such thing as 'straight up and down' within normal space when using your definition of straight. Therefore a plum line or spirit level will not help you. In fact the direction of 'up' is different for every point on the earths surface.

As always there must be a point of reference with an up or down,
you can build a modern house without plum lines and levels, and
you'll regret it. My definition of straight does not require an up or
down, since a straight line can point in any direction. Straight
doesn't depend upon direction; it only requires a lack of bending,
curves, angles and other anomalies that would distract from
being straight.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Can you give me an example of when and where the shortest route between two points on the surface of a chess board is not a straight line?
-and if you are talking about the shortest route a chess piece can take around obstacles (i.e other chess pieces) then that doesn’t count because the shortest route in the context of my definition means the shor ...[text shortened]... s and points defined within those dimensions and not objects that exist within those dimensions.

a1 is the square you want to get to, you may start marching from
a8, b8, c8, d8, e8, f8, g8, h8 and move one square at a time all
moving towards a1, will they not all get there at the same time and
isn't it true they will not all be moving in a straight line the full way.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As always there must be a point of reference with an up or down,
you can build a modern house without plum lines and levels, and
you'll regret it. My definition of straight does not require an up or
down, since a straight line can point in any direction. Straight
doesn't depend upon direction; it only requires a lack of bending,
curves, angles and other anomalies that would distract from
being straight.
Kelly

I see you did not actually disagree with anything in my post.

I also notice that you are yet to give any reasonable method of determining whether something is straight (by your definition).

So, if I present to you a section of a circle and tell you it is straight by your definition, how will you know whether or not it is? Is there any type of measurement, trigonometry etc that can be performed that will determine whether or not it is straight?

Originally posted by KellyJay
a1 is the square you want to get to, you may start marching from
a8, b8, c8, d8, e8, f8, g8, h8 and move one square at a time all
moving towards a1, will they not all get there at the same time and
isn't it true they will not all be moving in a straight line the full way.
Kelly

…isn't it true they will not all be moving in a straight line the full way. …

In which dimension?
-again, you just idiotically ignore the context of the dimension.

In everyday English we would simply say that was a straight line because normally in everyday English we would obviously ignore the very slight 4-dimensional curvature caused by the chess board presumably being in the gravitational field of the Earth.
But the fact remains, although that line is straight in 2 and 3 dimensions, it is not straight in the 4th dimension -and that is a scientific fact. General relativity says so:

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:ypvLAUyLzJEJ:www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/Intro/lec22_gr.ps+General+relativity+4-dimensional+curvature+gravity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=uk&lr=lang_en

Scroll down to where it says “22.2 CURVATURE AND SHORTEST PATHS” and read (if you actually want to comprehend anything).
Also read: under “22.3 EINSTEIN’S THEORY OF GRAVITY (1915)”
And under “22.4 TESTING GR: 1. THE ORBIT OF MERCURY”
And under “22.5 TESTING GR: 2. BENDING OF LIGHT”
-this really leaves no doubt over the fact that there is very powerful evidence that curvature of spacetime is real.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…isn't it true they will not all be moving in a straight line the full way. …

In which dimension?
-again, you just idiotically ignore the context of the dimension.

In everyday English we would simply say that was a straight line because normally in everyday English we would obviously ignore the very slight 4-dimensional curvature caused ...[text shortened]... o doubt over the fact that there is very powerful evidence that curvature of spacetime is real.[/b]

The direction does not alter if something is straight or not, only the
fact that if it bends, or curves those types of things do. If you want to
create a 4th dimensional curve, placing anything it will mold itself to
that dimension as people's lines around the earth mold their lines to
that. Any straight edge shows you a straight line, it you find a bend
or curve in it, there it will not be straight.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The direction does not alter if something is straight or not, only the
fact that if it bends, or curves those types of things do. If you want to
create a 4th dimensional curve, placing anything it will mold itself to
that dimension as people's lines around the earth mold their lines to
that. Any straight edge shows you a straight line, it you find a bend
or curve in it, there it will not be straight.
Kelly

…The direction does not alter if something is straight or not,
. …

So is a line that is straight in 3-dimensions but bent in 4-dimensions “straight” or “bend”?
-it makes no difference which way you answer this:

If you call it “straight”, how does that change the fact that it is bent in 4-dimensions ?

If you call it “bent” then you admit it is bent in 4-dimensions.

So whether or not you say it correct to call such a line “straight” or “bent” is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it is bent in 4-dimensions
-so what is your argument against the fact of 4-dimensional curvature of space now?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…The direction does not alter if something is straight or not,
. …

So is a line that is straight in 3-dimensions but bent in 4-dimensions “straight” or “bend”?
-it makes no difference which way you answer this:

If you call it “straight”, how does that change the fact that it is bent in 4-dimensions ?

If you call it “bent” then you a ...[text shortened]... dimensions
-so what is your argument against the fact of 4-dimensional curvature of space now?[/b]

Let me use little words.
A line that is straight does not have bends or curves in it, where it
does it isn't straight.

If you want to say a line is in two places at once and in one it has
a bend in it, it isn't straight where it is bent. Where it isn't bent it is
straight. Not denying things can be altered, but if you alter a
straight line to where it is bent or curved, again read this carefully,
it is not straight where it is bent or curved.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Any straight edge shows you a straight line, it you find a bend
or curve in it, there it will not be straight.
Kelly

Are you saying that one can determine whether something is straight by comparing it to something else that is straight? But how do you know that the first item is straight? You are yet to tell me how I can tell if something is straight.

So if I tell you that the Greenwich meridian along the surface of the earth is straight, you have no way to prove me wrong other than personal incredulity?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Let me use little words.
A line that is straight does not have bends or curves in it, where it
does it isn't straight.

If you want to say a line is in two places at once and in one it has
a bend in it, it isn't straight where it is bent. Where it isn't bent it is
straight. Not denying things can be altered, but if you alter a
straight line to where ...[text shortened]... or curved, again read this carefully,
it is not straight where it is bent or curved.
Kelly

depends on your system of reference.

a man sitting in a chair in a moving train is also moving from the view of the cow that watches the train speed by.

but that same man is also completely motionless from the view of another man sitting in a chair in the said train.

so it is possible that the man is both moving and standing still.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Let me use little words.
A line that is straight does not have bends or curves in it, where it
does it isn't straight.

If you want to say a line is in two places at once and in one it has
a bend in it, it isn't straight where it is bent. Where it isn't bent it is
straight. Not denying things can be altered, but if you alter a
straight line to where ...[text shortened]... or curved, again read this carefully,
it is not straight where it is bent or curved.
Kelly

…A line that is straight does not have bends or curves in it, where it
does it isn't straight.. …

Ok, so I take it this means you say that a line that is straight in 3-dimensions but bent in 4-dimensions is simply “bend” not “straight” .
-and, just like I pointed out in my previous post; if you call it “bent” then you admit it is bent in
4-dimensions.
-so what is your argument against the fact of 4-dimensional curvature of space now? (you have non)

…If you want to say a line is in two places at once...…

What are you talking about? -who said or implied anything about a line being in “two places at once“?
is a line on a surface of a sphere in “two places at once“? -if so, explain how so.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…If you want to say a line is in two places at once...…

What are you talking about? -who said or implied anything about a line being in “two places at once“?
is a line on a surface of a sphere in “two places at once“? -if so, explain how so.[/b]

Now this is KJ retorics in its prime.

When he is cornered he has two alternatives:
(1) Admit that he was wrong or doesn't understand the background of the discussion, or
(2) Continue to argue with the same words, over and over, again and again, and hope that noone will notice.

In either case it is obvious that he is desperately afraid that he has lost the discussion (even if it is dead lost from the beginning). But there is a actually third alternative according to KJ retorics:
(3) Change the subject by introduce a new fact which has nothing to do with the foregoing discussion. Then he has nothing to lowe, becase the discussion is now over another thing. He hopes that the weak parts of his previous discussion will be forgotten. He's done it before, he'll do it again.

The new thing introduced by KJ is wether or not a line can be at two places at the same time. Don't fall for this. Ask the same question again, and again if needed, if a stratght line in 3-d can be bent in 4-d, that's the way how to make someone using KJ retorics to admit that he is wrong, doesn't know what he is talking about.

I preview another atack of KJ, this time at me. Don't fall for this either. He is extremely embarrassed when he understands that his strategy is studied, examined, and understood. Don't let his discussion about this with me make the core point be forgotten. That he doesn't know anything about multidimensional spaces and its properties.

He has previous non-answered questions we have forgot about. Please, read this thread from the beginning and ask him these questions again. Show him that he doesn't like to answer questions, but he loves to ask questions to you in order to you perhaps forget the previous unanswered questions. Don't make him happy about this.

The diskussions with KJ kind of people is most often futile. I'm interested of this thread and others where KJ is discussing of my interest of psycology and retorics only.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you saying that one can determine whether something is straight by comparing it to something else that is straight? But how do you know that the first item is straight? You are yet to tell me how I can tell if something is straight.

So if I tell you that the Greenwich meridian along the surface of the earth is straight, you have no way to prove me wrong other than personal incredulity?

Is the essence of this mini debate that in theory a straight line is actually completely straight (ie in computer models or geometry) but in real terms it cannot be straight? Are you all arguing about theoretical straightness versus reality?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…A line that is straight does not have bends or curves in it, where it
does it isn't straight.. …

Ok, so I take it this means you say that a line that is straight in 3-dimensions but bent in 4-dimensions is simply “bend” not “straight” .
-and, just like I pointed out in my previous post; if you call it “bent” then you admit it is bent in ...[text shortened]... at once“?
is a line on a surface of a sphere in “two places at once“? -if so, explain how so.[/b]

I'm not arguing there isn't a curve in any dimension, I'm saying if you
place a line around a circle you do not have a straight line you have
a circle, if you place a line within a dimension that is purely curved,
it is never going to be straight in that dimension, because that
dimension forces it to be curved. It is the same argument I have been
making about the someone drawing a line on a globe from Chicago
to New York, or pick you cities on the globe. The definitions of straight
do no chance simply because you are changing the conditions where
you place your lines.
Kelly