Date: Apr 25, 2013 2:50 PM Author: dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com Subject: Re: closed universe, flat space? > 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>

http://sgovindarajan.wikidot.com/ricciflatmetrics

> 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>

I have no idea what you're talking about . And I'm pretty sure you

have no idea what you're talking about .

"Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to

curve" -John Archibald Wheeler

>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>

Ether isn't needed in General relativity . It's a deterministic theory

where you have no arrow of time apart from the expansion of the

universe. Like a 3d holographic movie. It doesn't matter how you play

it or view it . An object moving at constant velocity can consider

itself at rest . Whether or not any notion of 'absolute space' of

'absolute time' will be needed in a unified theory is beyond the scope

of this discussion .

> 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>

Here's the metric for a 3-sphere . Add an additional time dimension

(an extra row and column in the metric tensor with -1 in the corner

and zero in the other entries ) and you're ready to calculate

trajectories .

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/d/3/5d3493e432ad0bdab4e10a3896368856.png

> ?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

What methods count as 'scientific'?

Also ,you had to find the most reliable source to quote , right? And

you call me a 'self-styled physicists' . You're not deserving of the

title, however , you do qualify for hypocrite .

> It is amazing that you certainly have spent a lot of energy engaging

> with the point you have claimed not to see. <shrug>

It's always worthwhile to see if meaningful dialogue and understanding

can be achieved . Since, in the present case , it is impossible, rest

assured that I won't repeat the same mistake , and not waste any more

energy .