Re: There's no 3-legged animal

From: george murphy (
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 10:08:55 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: There's no 3-legged animal"

    George Hammond wrote:

    > TZ wrote:
    > >
    > > I have 1 question..........
    > > whats this got to do with physics, and maths and physics relativity?
    > [Hammond]
    > I'm not the one who started crossposting this thread to the
    > math and physics NG's, but since I started the thread on
    > [alt.sci.proof-of-god] I'll be glad to answer your question.
    > The average idiot (PhD) assumes that the reason animals
    > have a minimum of 4-LEGS (notice there are no 3-legged
    > animals) is because of "Darwinian Natural Selection".
    > This of course is SHEER PEDANTIC PHD IDIOCY. As Hammond
    > has pointed out time and again, the reason for it is:
    > The Euclidean Metrical property of Real Space
    > It is an EXPERIMENTAL FACT that the Metric of Real Space
    > is EUCLIDEAN:
    > ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
    > As Weyl, Einstein, Riemann and others discovered a long time ago,
    > the EUCLIDEAN METRIC (pure quadratic metric) is the ONLY metrical
    > form that will allow the rotation of a solid object in space without
    > it blowing up (fragmenting) due to spatial distortion. If you had
    > any metric other than the EUCLIDEAN (also called Pythagorean,
    > Cartesian and Riemannian) you would not be able to physically rotate
    > a solid object in real space... certainly a major inconvenience.

            This is wrong. Any space of constant curvature is homogeneous and
    isotropic. I.e., a positively or negatively curved space has the same
    group of motions (translations & rotations) as does a flat space (zero
    curvature) of the same dimensionality. (See, e.g., Eisenhart, Riemannian
    Geometry, section 27.) It is easy to demonstrate this on a 2-sphere.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 17 2001 - 10:08:53 EDT