# Re: There's no 3-legged animal

From: George Hammond (ghammond@mediaone.net)
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 16:36:25 EDT

• Next message: George Hammond: "[Fwd: The Horror of Hammond]"

george murphy wrote:
>
> 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
> > > > 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.
>
> 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."

[Hammond]
this is a fatuous and juvenile pedantic falsehood. Murphy has
simply deleted the 5 lines prior to the above quote which read:

=====
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
=====
Here the "Euclidean metric" is DEFINED AS A DIFFERENTIAL FORM, putting
the complete lie to Dr. Murphy's abusive reply.

> Whether
> or not Mr. Hammond knew that spaces of constant curvature have no "spatial
> distortion" (because the curvature is constant) I don't know.

[Hammond]
Every competent physicist knows that, and THEY ALSO KNOW that
that refers to ONLY RIEMANNIAN SPACES. Clearly Dr. Murphy is
not even aware that the SUBJECT of this discussion is "why
real space is Riemannian"... and that the answer is that you
CANNOT ROTATE A SOLID OBJECT IN A NON RIEMANNIAN SPACE.

> What he is
> doing now is simply an a posteriori job of covering his tail (pun
> intended).

[Hammond]
This is a an overt lie, and it is quite obvious that Dr. Murphy
is scientifically incompetent to discuss this subject and can't
even understand it. And that what he obviously wants to do
is abuse somebody from the bully pulpit. Frankly, he's barking
up the wrong tree, and I suggest he go back to his "watershed"
or "wheel of God" tautologies and not attempt to lock horns
with a competent scientist and a serious person like me.

> Of course I had no expectation that Mr. Hammond would admit that
> he was wrong in any degree,

[Hammond]
Because of course I'm not, as any competent scientist in Relativity
would tell you. You on the other hand are grossly incompetent, and
on top of that are apparently used to getting your way. Sorry,
not this time.

> or that I would get any civil response to my
> post.

[Hammond]
Nothing uncivil about my posts to ASA, which is more than I can say
about some people on this list.

> Any attempt to carry on a decent conversation with him in
> fruitless.

[Hammond]
You got that one right, now that you have been exposed as being
a scientific incompetent, and apparently more interested in
pedant tautologies on Scriptural matters. I suggest you steer
clear of serious and competent scientific discussion.. perhaps
confining your remarks to Biology or Genetic or the other
non-mathematical subjects.

> My only purpose in pointing out his mistake was to let others
> on the list know that his mathematical competence is flawed.

[Hammond]
I have made no mistake... it is obviously YOU who don't understand
the difference between NON-RIEMANNIAN geometry and RIEMANNIAN
geometry.

> 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.

[Hammond]
Obviously an inbred humility which Murphy seems to lack.

> They may
> know that his use of psychometry is nonsense,

[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion, which we may assume is as erroneous as

> 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

[Hammond]
That's a laugh and obviously a braggarts claim, seeing as how
you have just shot yourself in the foot in a discussion of one
of the most WELL KNOWN FACTS of the LORE AND LEGEND OF RELATIVITY,
which is Weyl's historic discovery that a solid object cannot be rotated
in any NON-RIEMANNIAM (e.g. non-Euclidean) space. Every competent scientist
in Relativity knows this as well as the back of his hand and it is
constantly
cited in the literature.... and there you sit trying to DISPROVE IT...
sir your more entertainment than a cuckolded Bull Elephant.

> of the theory, and
> that he has given no indication that he has any grasp at all of serious
> theology.

[Hammond]
More unsupported assertions.

> 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."

[Hammond]
More unsupported assertions, and personal opinions of
an incompetent, and a tautologist. Ironically, I think
it was Pauli who collaborated with Weyl in the investigation
of why Real Space cannot be non-Riemannian (Euclidean space part).
And here Murphy continues to insist that rotation in a Riemannian space
proves rotation is possible in a non-Riemannian space. What
arrogant foolishness, how can we trust any of his opinions if
he would have the bravado to assert such a foolish thing and
attempt to back it up with fraudulent claims and verbal abuse
of a competent scientist and attempt to suppress an important
and historic scientific discovery? What cheek!

>
>
> Shalom,
>
> George

Sayanara,

George

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

```--