What is the shape of Universe?

Painius asks,

What was Copernicus before he realized that the math of Ptolemy was
crap?

It was perfectly good math applied to describe a premise that was crap.
Just as now, perfectly good math is used to describe the crap premise
that space is universally-isotropic and devoid of *density gradients*.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius asks,

What was Copernicus before he realized
that the math of Ptolemy was crap?

It was perfectly good math applied to describe a premise that was crap.
Just as now, perfectly good math is used to describe the crap premise
that space is universally-isotropic and devoid of *density gradients*.

Okay, i'll give you that one. Ptolemy's geometry was
actually a true feat of genius! He was actually able to
"prove" to others that geocentrism was correct. And
he was able to do so in a way that went uncontested
for hundreds of years!

It kind of tickles me, though, that you have sort of
made yourself a "defender of math" in this case. g

(gotcha!)

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting
to be known." Carl Sagan

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

Painius wrote,

Ptolemy's geometry was actually a true
feat of genius! He was actually able to
"prove" to others that geocentrism was
correct. And he was able to do so in a
way that went uncontested for hundreds
of years!

...you have sort of made yourself a
"defender of math" in this case. g

Tarnation, i never once have ever proclaimed to be "against math" as
it's used in the pragmatic 'applied sciences' (eg., electronics,
aviation, all branches of engineering etc.). But stridently and
vehemently as ever i holler against the *Primacy of Math* wherein the
math actually "becomes" the mechanism it's putatively desribing (eg.,
where "space-time" became the surrogate and euphamism FOR the reality).
Since "space-time" substitutes FOR the verboten spatial medium, it
cannot contain *density gradients* and is therefore 'flat'. GR's 'flat'
space-time works just fine locally, that is, within the bounds of the
solar system. But it runs WILDLY off the rails when a density gradient
enters the picture (such as at deep cosmological distances). Thus GR
needs an upgrade from its present 'flat' status.

The upgrade should be called GR2, thus recognizing and preserving GR's
dignity and time-proven 'local' integrity. But GR2 can happen ONLY when
the reality of the spatial medium is recognized, allowing relativity for
the first time to _explain the mechanism_ of gravity whose effects GR
merely *described* as the "bending of space-time".

To the sloganeers of "The Math IS the Big Picture", nay,
nein, nyet. Non. The math merely *describes effects* of the Big Picture.
And when the Big Picture is falsely perceived (eg., geocentrism, the
VSP), perfectly good math is wasted on describing the false premise.
Indeed it creates an ever-growing need for the fixits and kludges that
define the present state of cosmology.. unendingly "adding epicycles".

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote,

Ptolemy's geometry was actually a true
feat of genius! He was actually able to
"prove" to others that geocentrism was
correct. And he was able to do so in a
way that went uncontested for hundreds
of years!

...you have sort of made yourself a
"defender of math" in this case. g

Tarnation, i never once have ever proclaimed to be "against math" as
it's used in the pragmatic 'applied sciences' (eg., electronics,
aviation, all branches of engineering etc.). But stridently and
vehemently as ever i holler against the *Primacy of Math* wherein the
math actually "becomes" the mechanism it's putatively desribing (eg.,
where "space-time" became the surrogate and euphamism FOR the reality).
Since "space-time" substitutes FOR the verboten spatial medium, it
cannot contain *density gradients* and is therefore 'flat'. GR's 'flat'
space-time works just fine locally, that is, within the bounds of the
solar system. But it runs WILDLY off the rails when a density gradient
enters the picture (such as at deep cosmological distances). Thus GR
needs an upgrade from its present 'flat' status.

The upgrade should be called GR2, thus recognizing and preserving GR's
dignity and time-proven 'local' integrity. But GR2 can happen ONLY when
the reality of the spatial medium is recognized, allowing relativity for
the first time to _explain the mechanism_ of gravity whose effects GR
merely *described* as the "bending of space-time".

To the sloganeers of "The Math IS the Big Picture", nay,
nein, nyet. Non. The math merely *describes effects* of the Big Picture.
And when the Big Picture is falsely perceived (eg., geocentrism, the
VSP), perfectly good math is wasted on describing the false premise.
Indeed it creates an ever-growing need for the fixits and kludges that
define the present state of cosmology.. unendingly "adding epicycles".

As usual, we are in agreement on just about all of it,
except perhaps the "primacy of math" issue. The part
about substituting the math for the reality seems so, so
true, though. Here we have several people interpreting
GR as "gravity is not a force", it's merely an interaction.
And this proves to me that you are correct on this issue.
At least for those who swallow the screed that gravity is
not a force.

However, as i've said many times, if you take away the
math from those three so-called "sciences", which are
in reality, at least to me, merely subsets of science--
theoretical physics, astrophysics and cosmology, and
heck, throw in quantum physics as well--take away the
math and there's little or nothing left. *That's* why it's
in a state of "primacy". Math *IS* the prime tool of
those sub-disciplines. They have little else to use to
point them in, hopefully, the right direction.

Those three sciences are *the* imaginary, and, dare i
say it? the *philosophical* part of astronomy and the
physical sciences. I would even go so far as to say the
scientists in those "primacy of math" disciplines most
likely use a lot more "intuitive extrapolation" than you
give them credit for. But that's just me. Defender of
the "bad guys" of science. g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "If we can conquer space, we can conquer
childhood hunger." Buzz Aldrin

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net