Originally posted by KellyJayEinstein and other great scientists already did that. They showed us that a Newtonian view of space time was wrong and 'common sense' is wrong. You may not like it, but careful, repeated experiments have shown that Einstein was right.
....you have to twist the realm of common sense....
Einstein showed us that everything is relative, even time. There is no perfect straight line that we can use as a rule to measure other straight lines with. So there has to be some better method for defining things.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree straight lines are difficult to create, the larger the line the
Einstein and other great scientists already did that. They showed us that a Newtonian view of space time was wrong and 'common sense' is wrong. You may not like it, but careful, repeated experiments have shown that Einstein was right.
Einstein showed us that everything is relative, even time. There is no perfect straight line that we can use as a rule to measure other straight lines with. So there has to be some better method for defining things.
easier to see the flaws in it; however, simply because it may be
beyond our abilities to make the 'perfect' straight line it does not
take away from the fact that straight is there, and again if you
draw a line where the ends, end up connecting you have not drawn
a straight line, you drew a circle.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…I've been sticking to one point; it was that you and others here have
[b]…but when they bend they are not straight, the long and short of my point. READ
MY POSTS AGAIN, I have not changed positions.
.…
Yes, I have read your post again and, yes, you haven’t changed your “position” -Your position is to ignore whatever I say. To words of this effect, I pointed out that to say “but when they bend they are not st ...[text shortened]... but you just idiotically ignore this (perhaps in the hope nobody notices that you ignore this?).[/b]
said in this universe you can have a straight line and it will come back
and connect to itself. Which I have denied, and you now are calling me
and idiot! .…
Firstly, I wasn’t talking about “a straight line coming back to itself” in my last post.
Secondly, I am not calling YOU as a person an idiot; I am calling your action of sticking to the same “point” as idiotic because, in the context of what I am actually saying in my posts, that “point” is clearly irrelevant -you are simply ignoring what I am saying in my posts. I don’t think you are an “idiot” because I think you must know that endlessly repeating the same obsolete irrelevant “point” is idiotic!
It is highly antisocial and rude to continually ignore other peoples questions and what other people are saying and yet expect everyone else to answer your questions and take into full account what you say.
I pointed out that to endlessly repeatedly state that “a line that is bend is not straight” is not an “argument” that 4-dimensional curvature of space cannot exist thus this “point” of yours is irrelevant to the issue: -do you deny this?
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are yet to tell me any reasonable method for determining whether a line is straight. You simply make vague references to is such as 'see the flaws in it'.
I agree straight lines are difficult to create, the larger the line the
easier to see the flaws in it; however, simply because it may be
beyond our abilities to make the 'perfect' straight line it does not
take away from the fact that straight is there,
You said you would answer the question, but you have not. Why don't you at least openly decline to answer instead of avoiding it in silence?
I will ask again: how do you measure the flaws in a line? How do you know whether a line is straight?
and again if you
draw a line where the ends, end up connecting you have not drawn
a straight line, you drew a circle.
Kelly
Not true at all. A circle has its own definition which is most definitely not equivalent to 'a line whose ends are connected'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadhow do you measure if a line is straight?
You are yet to tell me any reasonable method for determining whether a line is straight. You simply make vague references to is such as 'see the flaws in it'.
You said you would answer the question, but you have not. Why don't you at least openly decline to answer instead of avoiding it in silence?
I will ask again: how do you measure the flaws in a lin ...[text shortened]... wn definition which is most definitely not equivalent to 'a line whose ends are connected'.
if you see a straight line, can you or not say that it is straight? just because space is curved and most cannot see that curvature that doesn't mean you can't have the concept of straight in 3d and curbed in higher dimensions.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziThat is precisely the point twhitehead was implying 🙂
how do you measure if a line is straight?
if you see a straight line, can you or not say that it is straight? just because space is curved and most cannot see that curvature that doesn't mean you can't have the concept of straight in 3d and curbed in higher dimensions.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonif that is his point then i don't feel he is barking at the right tree.
That is precisely the point twhitehead was implying 🙂
kelly is under the impression that nothing can be in more than one state. that a line cannot be bent and straight, that schrodingers sylvester cannot be both dead and alive, that einstein's relativity is wrong.
we need to address the issue of kelly's method of arguing, which is avoiding questions he doesn't understand and not taking the time to research our claims. until he does that, you are just confusing him and you practically force him to use his safety answer "yeah but a line cannot be both straight and bent"
Originally posted by KellyJay…you draw a line where the ends, end up connecting you have not drawn
I agree straight lines are difficult to create, the larger the line the
easier to see the flaws in it; however, simply because it may be
beyond our abilities to make the 'perfect' straight line it does not
take away from the fact that straight is there, and again if you
draw a line where the ends, end up connecting you have not drawn
a straight line, you drew a circle.
Kelly
a straight line, you drew a circle.
. .…
That would mean, according to your definition of a circle, a square is a circle!
I think you need to study some geometry (and that is not sarcasm -I am serious).
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf you could identify a straight line by 'seeing' it, then you are essentially claiming that light travels in straight lines are you not? But it is a known fact that two beams of light can diverge and then converge (gravitational lensing) which clearly contradicts Kellys assertion that straight lines cannot do that. So Kelly cannot use the path of light as a 'straight edge'.
how do you measure if a line is straight?
if you see a straight line, can you or not say that it is straight? just because space is curved and most cannot see that curvature that doesn't mean you can't have the concept of straight in 3d and curbed in higher dimensions.
Originally posted by twhiteheadyou can identify a straight line by the system of reference used. a line on a perfect sphere is straight for all people living on that sphere who don't realize their surface is curbed.
If you could identify a straight line by 'seeing' it, then you are essentially claiming that light travels in straight lines are you not? But it is a known fact that two beams of light can diverge and then converge (gravitational lensing) which clearly contradicts Kellys assertion that straight lines cannot do that. So Kelly cannot use the path of light as a 'straight edge'.
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnd if they realize it? Then what?
you can identify a straight line by the system of reference used. a line on a perfect sphere is straight for all people living on that sphere who don't realize their surface is curbed.
What would they measure to identify a straight line?
On the Cartesian plane, we can identify whether a line is the shortest distance between two points by trigonometry. But what happens if you measure out a triangle and find that the angles don't add up to 180 degrees or if the lengths of the sides of a right angled triangle do not obey the Pythagorean theorem? Then you are faced with the reality that we do not live in the Cartesian plane and space is not flat. A non-flat surface may have more than one shortest distance between two points, rendering such a definition for 'straight' rather inadequate.
Originally posted by twhiteheadyes, but only if they realize it. by looking in higher dimensions you realize you have a different geometry and your previous rules don't apply anymore.
And if they realize it? Then what?
What would they measure to identify a straight line?
On the Cartesian plane, we can identify whether a line is the shortest distance between two points by trigonometry. But what happens if you measure out a triangle and find that the angles don't add up to 180 degrees or if the lengths of the sides of a right angled ...[text shortened]... st distance between two points, rendering such a definition for 'straight' rather inadequate.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo, but thanks for playing.
[b]…you draw a line where the ends, end up connecting you have not drawn
a straight line, you drew a circle.
. .…
That would mean, according to your definition of a circle, a square is a circle!
I think you need to study some geometry (and that is not sarcasm -I am serious).[/b]
Kelly