Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence: Open vs. Closed Universe
Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:15:03 -0500 (EST)

In a message dated 11/27/97 10:19:32 AM, you wrote:

<<The spatial geometry of a closed universe is at a given time
equivalent to a three-sphere (S^3): it is bounded, the integral of the
volume of space exists and is finite and it has no "edges" (if you
move straight forward in any direction you will eventually end up
where you started).

I don't see why people have any problems with this. :-)

[While I'm at it, and cutting and pasting equations from Dyson, the
metric of an open universe is

ds^2 = R^2 [dpsi^2 - dchi^2 - sinh^2 chi dOmega^2],


t = T_0 (sinh psi - psi),

R = c T_0 (cosh psi - 1),

and 0 < psi < infinity 0 < chi < infinity. This universe lasts forever
and has infinite volume.]>>

"If you move straight forward in any direction you will eventually end up
where you started."
"This universe lasts forever and has infinite volume."
I just wanted to put your two statements in close proximity so perhaps
you could see the foolishness of your argument. Please tell me how I
end up where I started in infinite volume. Actually, don't bother. Physicists
have been using all sorts of incredible equations to justify and rationalize
their feelings and mystical philosophies from the first day they were able to
and it would be painful for me to watch a man of your intelligence continue
in this tradition. My hope is that you will research Objectivist Epistemology
recognize it as a powerful immune system for your brain and implement it
so you can go on to apply your admirable mental capacity to challenges that
will increase your happiness(and of course my selfish reasons are to benefit
from the products or services of a happy, rational person that will be so
valuable in a free society--should we ever see a free society on earth.)