# Re: There's no 3-legged animal

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
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
> 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.

Shalom,

George

George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"

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