If Euclidian Space is flat (all other space is curved), haven't we developed all our science on a special case

Question

Euclidean space is the one place where all space is flat and orthogonal. However, this is a special case of curved space (where the curve is zero). Therefore, to me, all our succeeding mathematics and science measured constants are based on a special case. For example does gravity act at 32 ft/sec/sec if space is curved? no, only where space is flat. I believe that the proper methodology of the metrics of space is rotational (i.e. x, y, z all rotate (twist) about the origin). For example, light does not project linearly from origin outward at C 186,000 mi/sec, but rotates about the origin at a particular (angular) velocity. For example, the value of C can be found to be 144,000 min of arc per second. Other metrics of time-space would then be similarly re-calculated to have rotational metrics. Bruce Cathie (NZ mathematician) then proposes that these metrics of light, mass, and gravity can be seen to create harmonics of each other. Thoughts?

Answer 1

Since Einstein, the possibility of curved spacetime has been central to our understanding of gravity. I'd suggest that you look up books on general relativity.

Answer 2

Just a couple of commets. First about gravity. Read a book. Gravity itself is a local curvature of spacetime much more pronounced than any general curvature caused by a non-Euclidean structure to spacetime. And, as outlined in the general theory of relativity, has been shown to provide highly accurate measurements of the effects of gravity. Plus, even if space is non-Euclidean, on scales of significance to us it is perfectly reasonable to use flat approximations just like for it is still reasonable to use Newton type calculations when those of relativity are much more accurate. This detail of accuracy is generally lost on the scales that humans ordinarily deal with.

Now your rotation stuff. Uh, huh? a "min of arc per second" does not translate into "mi/sec". But how do you propose to use this? A start that we currently think of as being say 4 light years away translates into a distance that we can understand. What does this rotation stuff translate into that has some sort of similar meaning such as an actual distance?

I looked up this Bruce Cathie guy. Where do these people come from? Have you gone to the web sites that claim all the laws of physics are wrong? Or that EInstein didn't have a clue? This guy saw a flying saucer. A couple of things from the first link that came up (I don't know if he wrote the first one but whoever did is pretty stupid):

"I realised that an all-out atomic war was an impossibility. Both sides could precalculate well in advance the time and positions of atomic attack. Plus the fact that only certain geometric locations could be detonated anyhow. A logical war cannot be considered under these circumstances. This could be the explanation for the proliferation of conventional weapons in modern warfare."

I have worked with nulcear weapon allocation programs and other things of this nature. So let us look at some of things this says.

"I realised that an all-out atomic war was an impossibility. Both sides could precalculate well in advance the time and positions of atomic attack." WHAT DOES THE SECOND SENTENCE HAVE TO DO WITH THE FIRST? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. AND NO YOU CAN NOT PRECALCULATE THE TIME AND POSITIONS OF ATOMIC ATTACK. IF BY "POSITIONS" HE MEANS TARGETS THEN THERE ARE EXTENSIVE TARGET DATA BASES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPILED. FOR MOST TARGETS ANYONE CAN DO THIS. AS FAR AS TIME, ALL YOU CAN DO IS GUESS SINCE YOU ARE NOT PRIVY TO THE OTHER SIDES ATTACK PLAN. ALL YOU CAN DO IS MAKE A BEST ESTIMATE.

"Plus the fact that only certain geometric locations could be detonated anyhow. " NOW HOLD ON THERE BOY. I CAN DROP A NUKE AT ANY POINT ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH (WITHIN THE CIRCULAR ERROR PROBABLE OF THE WEAPON SYSTEM THAT IS).

Anyway, iditiotic ramblings.

Now onto the NZ guy and what he says. First of all, although my search was rather short, I do not see any sort of acedemic credentials. Not a BS let alone an MS or a PhD. Or any references to articles published in accepted scholarly journals that must meet peer review before being accepted. Of course when you are talking "The Harmonic Conquest of Space" there probably aren't too many peers for that.

And now for a good one. "My life changed dramatically in 1952. This was the year that I saw my first UFO. " Not just one but the FIRST. Granted he may have seen some unidentified atmospheric effect or some man made object or who knows. But UFO? These people and there UFO crap get on my nerves. SHOW ME A REAL UFO AND A UFO DUDE OR SHUT UP!

As for you. Get some books on relativity, astronomy, physics, cosmology and let the real stuff swamp you and not some interent dork that hasn't a clue about the real world.

My thoughts? Complete waste of time to read nonsense like this other than it might provide some amusement at just how stupid people can be and yet try to sound so profound. To anyone with just a little knowledge this stuff is easily seen to be the utter crap that it is. I was walking through Georgetown in DC one night and this homeless guy - who incidentally we gave some food to - handed us a nine or ten page document on this theories of the moon, the solar system and the universe. Homeless guy on the street. Maybe he moved to NZ.

Answer 3

Hardly. When I was in high school, they had a semester course on spherical geometry, so your assertion about Euclidian space is suspect. Gravity would act at 32 ft/sec^2 in spherical space, except that the vector would be directed to the center of the space rather than to a flat surface; but that is a matter of convenience rather than an an error. As for your value of C, isn't 144,000 minutes of arc several circles of travel?
I think Bruce ought to go back to Middle Earth and think the whole thing over.

Answer 4

Euclidian gemometry is only good for flat space. However, when have you ever noticed the curvature of the Earth's surface in your everyday lifes? For all intention and purposes of normal life, especially for geometry tests, flat space is a good enough assumption.

Answer 5

Isn't it odd how some people can read one theory and jump over to the next theory trying to interconnect the two? Quite possibly the two cannot be interconnected and the entire process is falacious.

Answer 6

I was about to write exactly the same as Captain Mephisto. Honest, I was.

Isn't the Internet great for spreading sensationalist views and claiming them as truths, based on the opinions of one "scientist"?

Answer 7

So we really can go back in time?