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

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?

Along the lines of the earth means it isn't straight since the earth
isn't straight. Take a ring off you finger if you are wearing one, you
can hold it up to your eyes and make it appear to be straight, but
you can also show yourself it is really a circle by holding it another way.
Kelly

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?

I'm saying that would depend on how accurate you testing tools are if
which to compare lines and the degrees of curvature they may or
may not have. We have equipment that is much more accurate at
at electrical wave forms, it will always be a case of how good is your
test. Simply saying you can make something appear straight that isn’t
just shows you have a clue straight is a reality not an impossible
thing in the universe.
Kelly

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
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.

I disagree, you are worried about perspective not reality, it does not
matter what I think it is, if I hold up my wedding ring so I only see
one side that may appear to be a straight edge but it is not, it is
a ring and I'm only looking it from an angle that is giving me a
false impression.
Kelly

Originally posted by knightmeister
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?

Perspectives seem to more of an issue with them than reality.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
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
makin ...[text shortened]... no chance simply because you are changing the conditions where
you place your lines.
Kelly

…I'm not arguing there isn't a curve in any dimension,.. …

So what is the point of your argument?

…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.
...… (my emphasis)

Correct -that is what I have been implying all the long (i.e. you must take into account the context of the dimension) and nobody implied nor said that this was not the case -so what is your point?
(At least, in this comment, at last you are not ignoring the context of the dimension -a very small step forward)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I'm not arguing there isn't a curve in any dimension,.. …

So what is the point of your argument?

…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
dim ...[text shortened]... omment, at last you are not ignoring the context of the dimension -a very small step forward)

[/b]That straight means straight and if you bend it, it isn't straight any
more. I've been very consistent in my arguments, you cannot tell me
that simply because you bend a line in any dimension you now get to
call it straight still.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I'm not arguing there isn't a curve in any dimension,.. …

So what is the point of your argument?

…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
dim ...[text shortened]... omment, at last you are not ignoring the context of the dimension -a very small step forward)

You have not been following the discussion well if you think that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That straight means straight and if you bend it, it isn't straight any
more. I've been very consistent in my arguments, you cannot tell me
that simply because you bend a line in any dimension you now get to
call it straight still.
Kelly[/b]

…because you bend a line in any dimension you now get to
call it straight still.
…

When did I say or imply that? What I implied was that IF that is what you are saying -so what? -what difference does that make to the argument? -in what way is that an “argument” that you cannot have a line that is straight in 3-dimensions but not in 4-dimensions? -it is totally irrelevant whether you call it “straight” or “bent”, the line can still exist either way. Read my posts again.
What is your "argument" now?

Originally posted by KellyJay
That straight means straight and if you bend it, it isn't straight any
more. I've been very consistent in my arguments, you cannot tell me
that simply because you bend a line in any dimension you now get to
call it straight still.
Kelly[/b]

the properties of an object depend very much on a number of things, on the observer, on the tools of measurement used. i already given you the guy standing still on a moving train, what more do you want? just because you do not understand and do not accept einstein's relativity doesn't mean it is untrue. we tried to explain the concept to you yet you still refuse to listen and you base your argument on language logic, ignoring the fact that sometimes physics can give you facts that cannot be explained with the existent words.

what do you call a guy standing still on a moving train? is he moving? is he standing still? you cannot say that if a guy is standing still he cannot be moving and if he is moving he is not standing still because in each affirmation we are using a different system of reference. he is standing still in reference to the train and he is moving in reference to the cow that just stopped grazing to watch the 9 o'clock TGV speed by.

a line is straight if you draw it on a piece of paper(2D). it is still straight in the 2D surface of the earth if you draw it there. it is bent in the 3D model of the surface of the earth. and it is more complex in 4D, not to mention 5,6 and so on when we figure out string theory.

just because you cannot grasp a concept doesn't mean it is not true. your course of action is to document yourself on the science we use to argument this and see if you can find flaws in THAT. you are know ignoring a whole chapter of physics and you simply use knowledge that an English major would have.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying that would depend on how accurate you testing tools are if
which to compare lines and the degrees of curvature they may or
may not have. We have equipment that is much more accurate at
at electrical wave forms, it will always be a case of how good is your
test. Simply saying you can make something appear straight that isn’t
just shows you have a clue straight is a reality not an impossible
thing in the universe.
Kelly

You are totally missing my point (probably intentionally).
We have do not have any instrument that can test whether or not a line is straight according to your definition - not even approximately. I have asked repeatedly what sort of test would be carried out and you have not answered.
So if there is no test, then it is not a case of the equipment not being accurate enough but simply there being no instrument at all.

I was expecting you to say that a straight line can be identified with light, or trigonometry, or some such thing, but you have avoided giving any such answer, which leads me to believe you do not really have any idea how to begin to identify a straight line and would probably resort to intuition or some such.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are totally missing my point (probably intentionally).
We have do not have any instrument that can test whether or not a line is straight according to your definition - not even approximately. I have asked repeatedly what sort of test would be carried out and you have not answered.
So if there is no test, then it is not a case of the equipment not b ...[text shortened]... ea how to begin to identify a straight line and would probably resort to intuition or some such.

You are quick to paint me in a bad light.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…because you bend a line in any dimension you now get to
call it straight still.
…

When did I say or imply that? What I implied was that IF that is what you are saying -so what? -what difference does that make to the argument? -in what way is that an “argument” that you cannot have a line that is straight in 3-dimensions but not in 4-di ...[text shortened]... bent”, the line can still exist either way. Read my posts again.
What is your "argument" now?[/b]

I don't care about putting lines in the 4th dimension, put them in,
and if you want to say doing so makes them bend, GREAT, but when
they bend they are not straight, the long and short of my point. READ
MY POSTS AGAIN, I have not changed positions.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are quick to paint me in a bad light.
Kelly

you are doing that yourself. you are not a bad person. but when you don't grasp a certain domain, you might want to consider researching our claims before you use totally inadequate methods of debate.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you are doing that yourself. you are not a bad person. but when you don't grasp a certain domain, you might want to consider researching our claims before you use totally inadequate methods of debate.

Yea, that is the way of it isn't it, it seems that if I disagree with the
assumptions being made I'm making myself out to be something
less than the next guy. At least you don't (here) turn it into a personal
judgment call.
kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are quick to paint me in a bad light.
Kelly

For good reason. You are quick to avoid answering critical questions. That to me always indicates dishonesty. I can think of no other reason why you would do so.
In this case you simply wont tell me how someone could identify whether a line in space is straight. If you simply don't know then I would have far more respect for you than if you instead carefully avoid the question every time it is asked.