George Hammond wrote:
> 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
> > > [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.
> [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,
> 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.
No limitation to local properties was made in the original post, which
stated, "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." Whether or not Mr. Hammond knew that
spaces of constant curvature have no "spatial distortion" (because the curvature
is constant) I don't know. What he is doing now is simply an a posteriori job
of covering his tail (pun intended).
Of course I had no expectation that Mr. Hammond would admit that he was
wrong in any degree, or that I would get any civil response to my post. Any
attempt to carry on a decent conversation with him in fruitless. My only
purpose in pointing out his mistake was to let others on the list know that his
mathematical competence is flawed.
Persons like Mr. Hammond who claim to be multi-disciplinary experts can
often get undue credence because members of their audience have enough humility
to admit that they don't have expertise in all the different fields that the
purported polymath claims to have. They may know that his use of psychometry is
nonsense, but have little knowledge of math or theology & trust that the
supposed expert, who sounds as if he knows something about those fields,
actually does & thus that his arguments have some substance. Similarly for
theologians who know no psychometry, physicists who know no theology, &c.
I neither know nor have ever pretended to know more than a speck of
psychometry, & so make no attempt to judge that aspect of Mr. Hammond's claims.
What I can say with some competence is that his use of relativity theory
involves only superficial use of the language of the theory, and that he has
given no indication that he has any grasp at all of serious theology. Since all
three of those fields are supposed to be involved in the "scientific proof of
God," it's easy to see that that "proof" is valueless. In the words of Pauli,
"It's not even wrong."
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 17 2001 - 13:06:42 EDT