# Re: There's no 3-legged animal

From: George Hammond (ghammond@mediaone.net)
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 10:59:01 EDT

• Next message: George Hammond: "Re: There's no 3-legged animal"

george murphy wrote:
>
> 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.
>

[Dr. Murphy]
> 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,

[Hammond]
Dr. Murphy has made an egregious amateur error. His "constant
curvature spaces" already PRESUME the existence of a
"locally Euclidean metric" (i.e. that the metric reduces to the
Euclidean metric for small differential distances...
i.e. is "locally Euclidean").
The fact that the title of the book he quotes from is
_Riemannian Geometry_ certainly would tell one that, since
the Riemannian Metric is DEFINED as a metric which reduces
to the Euclidean (Lorentzian in 4D) Metric for dx -> 0.
BTW one really shouldn't be so presumptuous as to tell people
that they are wrong without knowing what one is talking about
Dr. Murphy. It's quite rude.

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

```--