Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Re: closed universe, flat space?
Posted: Apr 25, 2013 11:38 AM

On Apr 25, 6:35 am, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 7:34 am, Dan <dan.ms.ch...@gmail.com> 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 .

>
> > Also ,don't confuse space with space-time . Space is only a 'slice' of
> > space-time . In itself it can be flat, while still being in a curved
> > space-time . The metric of space is three-dimensional , and embedded
> > in the four dimensional metric of space-time. 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 .

>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
>
> > Space can be predominantly flat (provided it's free from strong
> > gravitational effects) , while still being embedded in a curved space-
> > time .

>
> > > Write down the metric for n-sphere please.  <shrug>
>
> > origin when going around it . Generalize . Or better yet, use Google
> > to figure out the metric .

>
> > > 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 .I
> > speculate that the sun will rise tomorrow .
> > All science has origin in rational speculation.
> > 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

>
> > ><shrug>
>
> > I find it much easier to read your post with this image in mindhttp://www.bittersweetcandybowl.com/candybooru/_images/1b9e551d747b18...
>
> > If you post had a point to make, I don't see it. <shrug>
>
> It begs the question. What is more reality, space or time?   TreBert

The extreme complexity of code yet undetected within DNA should beg
the ultimate question as to where such complexity started, because it
sure as hell didn't originate on Earth, as from any amount of complex
chemical or raw element interactions that has been uncovered, or much
less artificially devised from scratch without a great deal of applied
physics and technology that nature simply couldn't possibly simulate.

Just like those extremely odd geometrical formations identified on
Venus can't be easily explained away, other than by applied naysay,
FUD, obfuscation and/or absolute ignorance.

Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement software,
as to viewing this one small but rather interesting mountainous area
of Venus, using your independent deductive expertise as to enlarge or
magnify this extensively mountainous terrain of Venus that I?ve
focused upon, really shouldn?t be asking too much. Most of modern
PhotoZoom and numerous other photographic software variations tend to
accomplish this enlargement process automatically (including iPhone
and Safari image zooming), although some extra applied filtering and
thereby image enhancing for dynamic range compensations (aka contrast)
can further improve upon the end result (no direct pixel modifications
should ever be necessary, because it?s all a derivative from the
that can always be 100% verified).

?GuthVenus? 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question: