'ter

It seems that someone, albeit incorrect, is at least somewhere, generally on the right line !!!! Bon soir Gentlemen - I have homework to do for my Nursery School teacher. See ya - 'ter

I think I just got taken up with the flow of general abounding enthusiasm.

And not forgetting that the Ricci tensor in 3 space time dimensions implies the vanishing of the Riemann curvature tensor but that in higher dimensions, that aspect doesn't hold true.

Well that would depend on your views on Riemannian geometry and its impact on positive scalar curvature? In particular on the injectivity radius and ones view on diffeomorphism?

"Insulting" - waddaya mean insulting - where's the insult? Telling someone to "lighten up a bit" could hardly be called insulting - can it? I think you'd be better off considering "lighten up a bit" as a challenge to the science behind gravitational forces mate?

I think you boys need to lighten up a bit !!!

I said "CORRECT" and not 'incorrect' in my piece - may I suggest a new pair of spectacles and that you lighten up a bit?

THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO POINTS IS A STRAIGHT LINE – OR IS IT? Being men of Science I feel confident that you will be more than pleased to hear of one of my more recent scientific postulations, a postulation that I have submitted to the world's scientific communities. Their response is as yet lacking and I can well imagine that this is due to the fire I have lit under various highbrow Scientific Royal and less ennobled Societies around the world. I daresay that deep mulling and great concern is underway. I thought it only just to lay before you my postulation and allow you to dwell upon it and who knows, should you wish to share this with former and current scientific colleagues, well please feel free. My scientific postulation takes into account of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the maxim concerning straight lines and points, the cosmos and human fallibility in general. As an afterthought, it might be as well for you to also know that when at school I took General Science and tended to more concentrate on the social sciences at that time. Law as a first degree; Engineering degrees followed later and only then after altering my O and A level certificates. The degree of understanding the word “alters,” being somewhat subjective and metaphysical in nature as far as I’m concerned. Anyway, here goes: Let us accept that we are hardly, if at all, ever right about anything and that inaccuracies abound around us; take Heisenberg’s scientific uncertainty principle as just a foundation point. Let us also take a moment to consider two fundamentals such as the straight line and the shortest distance between two points. Considering Heisenberg’s principle, Heisenberg basically said that there is a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties can be precisely defined or clearly understood. An example is given concerning a moving particle and its momentum. The less precisely its momentum is known, the more precisely the particle’s position can be known and vice-versa. "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line" we are told by modern day highbrow scientists and mathematicians. We can consider that distance and points are essentially physical properties. But we are also told that both the Earth and Space is curved, and additionally that both space and time aren’t constants. Therefore, looked at in terms of the above, that the Earth and Space are curved, wouldn't it be more correct to say, "surely that apparent straight line would in fact be curved," or put another way, appearing straight it is actually "bent," but that at the same time and given our more modern day approach to many things where we must apply greater human tolerance in our thinking and in our general mode of behaviour we could say: "Well yeah alright, we'll say he's straight but let's face it, we all know that in reality he's as bent as a nine bob / nine euro note." And hence Heisenberg is once again proved correct. The more he insists on saying he’s straight, the less we believe him. However, one must admit that the vice versa is still open to question but then we’re never really accurate about anything, are we?