Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



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/Ricciflat_manifold > > The Ricci tensor vanishing does not imply the Riemann tensor does . > > > Also ,don't confuse space with spacetime . Space is only a 'slice' of > > spacetime . In itself it can be flat, while still being in a curved > > spacetime . The metric of space is threedimensional , and embedded > > in the four dimensional metric of spacetime. Even factoring out the > > gravitational effects (which predominantly affect the timetime > > 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 nsphere 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 . > > > > At least, you admit your own version of cosmology is purely > > > speculation. The socalled 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_note2 > > > ><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 original Magellan radar imaging of 36 confirming radar scans/pixel, that can always be 100% verified).
?GuthVenus? 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in question: https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow/5630418595926178146
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth# http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/?Guth Venus?, GuthVenus



