Relativistic Twins

[Kathegetes]

Originally Posted by chalsall

You have read Einstein? Newton?

Do any of you have "The Meaning of R..." by A.E. 5th Edition with "Non- Symmetric Field" ?
If in hand please type out entire last sentence on pg. 99. If not possible..."In the language of the general theory of relativity it (Euclidean at infinity) demands that the Riemann ...
I got it for Christmas. If you can't I have solved the problem and have the numerical value substitutions.
I would love to have P M by my favorite little yellow flower.

[Kathegetes]

Originally Posted by LaurV

hahaha, genial!

twin sister to squit Leibnizian philosophical monoid gems. When I get cyclically tensor my matrix commiserates as I scalar the walls kneeding my vector adding my cursors to the rotating hollow coriolis field of gendered relatives. Don't Mach. Try being a little G to a g.

[Kathegetes]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I think the signature and topology are much more important than the shape. Key to Einsteinian physics is the use of the Minkowski metric, with signature (-1, +1, +1, +1) or the like. (Actually how this is represented seems to be something of a holy war which I don't want to enter, but the point is that one coordinate differs from the others in sign.)

And the whole shebang. When it was little mostly, but now too. I posted a funny thing about arbitrary unit numbers for our atomic second and distance light goes in a second. I'm trying to stay out of trouble so they gave me a spot at the soap box. Please drop by and make faces. It would mean a lot to me.Also I put a recipe for some jello things.
One day pretty soon I put some curious math there. I intuited something from what you mentioned and made infinitely variable.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by davar55

By my interpretation of Occam's Razor, the simplest shape that
satisfies all physical phenomena and theory is most likely the
correct description of the shape of the Universe.

So we rule out the 4-d analog of a Klein bottle (what you called
twisted space), and rule out the 4-d analog of a doughnut or
torus (what you called a 3-torus), and take the simplest shape
that does the job, a skewed 4-sphere (which within my explanation
is just a 3-d sphere or 3-sphere Riemann-folded everywhere,
producing a 4th dimension (the skin) and which because of the
time dimension I labeled a super-hyper-sphere).

Originally Posted by davar55

I understand Einstein envisioned a "cylindrical space-time". This was
I think only a 3-d conceptualization of 4-d space-time, with time
being the axis of the cylinder. Do we know what 3-d spatial shape
this was supposed to represent? Not a sphere, and not a cylinder.

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I think the signature and topology are much more important than the shape. Key to Einsteinian physics is the use of the Minkowski metric, with signature (-1, +1, +1, +1) or the like. (Actually how this is represented seems to be something of a holy war which I don't want to enter, but the point is that one coordinate differs from the others in sign.)

The signature (+1,+1,+1,-1) goes without saying in relativity. The
topology is important, but people ask for the shape, which is quite
important. It allows us to determine that the Universe is finite.

[Kathegetes]

Originally Posted by chalsall

May I respectfully suggest that you might not be the right person to be asking trick questions?

A good friend of mine once advised: "Be responsible to the listening into which you are speaking.

.
I know I love it.
I thinking understand it.
I believe to remember it.
Will so do it.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Kathegetes

.
I know I love it.
I thinking understand it.
I believe to remember it.
Will so do it.

C-12. And counting....

[davar55]

Originally Posted by chalsall

C-12. And counting....

Carbon-twelve ? (Sorry I'm dense here.)

[davar55]

Originally Posted by davar55

The signature (+1,+1,+1,-1) (or its
equivalents) goes without saying in relativity. The topology of
the Universe s important, but people ask for the shape, which is
quite important. It allows us to determine that the Universe is finite.

Is the Universe finite or infinite? I put an argument to the effect
that the Universe is finite in the monograph, but I wonder if anyone
can argue the opposite.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by davar55

Is the Universe finite or infinite? I put an argument to the effect
that the Universe is finite in the monograph, but I wonder if anyone
can argue the opposite.

Perhaps a poll would decide the matter once and for all?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by davar55

Perhaps a poll would decide the matter once and for all?

By a vote of 1 to 0, with some abstentions, the Universe is spatially finite.

[kladner]

As in other circumstances, majority opinion does not determine reality. Just consider the legislative opinions enshrined in law regarding sea level rise.

http://boingboing.net/2013/08/22/nor...olicy-use.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...86217I20120703

Lawmakers in North Carolina, which has a long Atlantic Ocean coastline and vast areas of low-lying land, voted on Tuesday to ignore studies predicting a rapid rise in sea level due to climate change and postpone planning for the consequences.