Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: closed universe, flat space?
Replies: 48   Last Post: May 5, 2013 2:45 PM

 Search Thread: Advanced Search

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Koobee Wublee Posts: 1,417 Registered: 2/21/06
Re: closed universe, flat space?
Posted: Apr 25, 2013 1:26 PM
 Plain Text Reply

On Apr 25, 4:34 am, Dan <dan.ms.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Let?s look at spacetime. According to GR, it is the curvature of
> > spacetime that causes gravity. So, spacetime is curved around a
> > gravitating mass. In free space, the Einstein tensor vanishes which
> > means the Ricci tensor also vanishes which mean the Riemann tensor
> > also vanishes. So, you have vanished Riemann tensor in curved
> > spacetime. That means the curvature tensors really do not address the
> > curvature thing. The field equations are merely differential
> > equations that allow you solve the local geometry and nothing more.
> > <shrug>

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci-flat_manifold
> The Ricci tensor vanishing does not imply the Riemann tensor does .

There is still no mathematical proof showing that null Ricci tensor
with non-vanishing Riemann tensor. Even if you are right, Riemann
tensor does not play a role in the final interpretation of
differential geometry. The Riemann tensor represents only one of the
steps from the Christoffel symbols to the field equations. <shrug>

> Also ,don't confuse space with space-time .

Consider that already done. <shrug>

> Even factoring out the
> gravitational effects (which predominantly affect the time-time
> component of the metric tensor, not it's space components ) ,we still
> have to consider the expansion of the universe .

So, the flatness of cosmology is not the same flatness when discussing
gravitation. Now, Koobee Wublee is with you. <shrug>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

So, the flatness of cosmology is determined through how much of
negative mass density is in vacuum. If there is more negative mass in
vacuum, the universe will expand its acceleration just like
antigravity of the Newtonian system. Koobee Wublee find that very
amazing that the self-styled physicists would choose to embrace
negative mass density in vacuum while vehemently denying the Aether.
<shrug>

> Space can be predominantly flat (provided it's free from strong
> gravitational effects) , while still being embedded in a curved space-
> time .

Koobee Wublee is also very amazed that the solutions to the FLRW
metric would be interpreted as expansion of space while the
Schwarzschild metric would be interpreted as the geometry that
determines how an object is going to behave --- same mechanism in
mathematics but interpreted in two drastically different ways. If
there is not enough or no negative mass density in vacuum, Koobee
Wublee supposes space would collapse back onto itself dragging all
objects in space along with it, no? So much for the scientific axiom
that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and whenever.
<shrug>

> > Write down the metric for n-sphere please. <shrug>
>
> If the earth were perfectly round , you would return to your point of
> origin when going around it . Generalize . Or better yet, use Google
> to figure out the metric .

No, Koobee Wublee cannot generalize an ordinary 3-dimensional object
with the profoundness of curved space where space is able to curve
back onto itself. Please present the metric. <shrug>

> > At least, you admit your own version of cosmology is purely
> > speculation. The so-called experts believe in their speculated
> > ?reality? more whole heartedly.

>
> First, don't underestimate the value of rational speculation .

You also need to distinguish rational speculations from the irrational
ones. <shrug>

> I speculate that the sun will rise tomorrow .

You actually have a very good chance of being right, and it is
supported by history. <shrug>

> All science has origin in rational speculation.

?All science came out of a sea of irrational speculations plus a tiny
trace of rational one, but scientific methods when properly applied
allow science to find just that rational one. <shrug>?
--- Koobee Wublee, 2013

> Second, the most commonly accepted model of the universe is flat (in
> space) and infinite.Observations confirm
> the universe 'flat with only a 0.4% margin of error' .
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe#cite_note-2

Yes, more speculations on speculations. What else is new with
cosmology? <shrug>

> I find it much easier to read your post with this image in mind
> http://www.bittersweetcandybowl.com/candybooru/_images/1b9e551d747b18...

When reading the posts from most of the self-styled physicists, the
following image comes in mind:

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/BenitoAndrocles.jpg

> If you post had a point to make, I don't see it. <shrug>

It is amazing that you certainly have spent a lot of energy engaging
with the point you have claimed not to see. <shrug>

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.