Re: More Importantly (A Flat Space?)

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Cosmology XVII ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by sol on April 25, 2003 at 21:35:15:

In Reply to: Re: More Importantly posted by Coppernicus on April 25, 2003 at 12:55:45:

As far as spacetime Gravity topology is concerned, I think it is a wonderfully fascinating way to look at it, from a spacetime geometry perspective, but perhaps not the easiest way to describe what is Gravity. The idea of gravity being "holes" in space topology is an interesting illustration, and perhaps correct, but it does not address whether or not this gravity effect is equal throughout the cosmos

It is essential that this graduation in thinking spoken to in the EM considerations are addressed. Maxwell raised these issues for us, but before this, Sacherri having tried to prove the parallel lines of the fifth postulate false came to a conclusion and stumbled upon something. Gauss, found the same thing. Not to buck the trend of Euclid or anything, Guass kept it to himself. He understood then?

So how did he come to the conclusion that a deviation exists from a flat space? Both Bolyai and Lobachevetsky, like sacherri( jesuit priest)set out to prove the fifth postulate as false.

By proving that a infinite number of lines could be drawn through a point near a given without any lines intersecting and brought forward the undrstandig of negative curvature.

Why then would we find a Riemann, use a positive expression?

So we understand indeed, that such movement is real in what is understood of geometrical propensities to movement, that we might have understood something of these "holes" and the way in which you have explained, what it is, that is understood by me?

There is no way to speak of shape, if we did not understand these three points of reference, had we not recognized the intuitive levels we had found in relation to those k values.

The fact that we could spoken about, the universe in a grandiose scheme of things and understand how such expansions could exist, what made it unlikely that such process might have not been consider in those moments and half moments within this universe?

Without this move to non euclidean geometries, how would we have ascertain what Einstein understood?

From a lame brane perspective:) it becomes clear what we could have deduced from the dimensional interpretation, this brane has come to signify. That we could have see the brane realization in a three d world and find these EM waves contained, what pray tell would have been indicated in the space, but to have understood these energies, throughout this universe, were roads maps to the understanding of what gravity speaks too. In not only recognizing the emmanations throughout that field, but have recognized it could have move beyond. How then would such mass expressiveness have been understod in this spacetime fabric? Gauss knew to use it, in the rays of light between three mountains. Yet any deviation from the flatness was not understood here.

Einstein in his own surveys found a appropriate line of understanding in his own repetition of moves here?

If we are to consider strings(energy) here, and the understanding of energy , what happens to this brane? The colliding branes are very revealing in what is undertsood of resonance that exist not only in the brane, but of what is beyond this sheet, to have interacted with another brane?

Intensities of gravitational fields must house within it, directions, that the matters must move too? The strength of these gravitational field depends, on the understanding of these lines and how we have detailled the move in those geometries.

If a blackhole is a measure of extreme elasticity, dilation, and gravity, what would have to be present for it to be so? Energy? So we no longer consider the matters here, but are drawn to the energies, for it is these that reveals the understanding and nature of the gravity. That in comparison, is like hiesenberg's uncertainty principle and yet like a bell curve the distance to the peak, is very demonstrative?