/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11087400
The 3D shape is a surface of constant proper time along the 4D shape. Everything in the universe is 4D, this is known and has been taught in the undergrad physics curriculum for many decades. Furthermore, there is no general relativity in less than four dimensions, and we have ABSOLUTELY NO DATA about happens between a given surface of constant proper time and what we can see on the past light cone. You might as well write "here be monsters" between the past light cone and the hypersurface of the present because we have no idea what goes on there. I agree that dark matter is a better guess for the anomalous rotation, but the data has convinced me that there is no dark matter, and the only theories of dark matter which haven't already been ruled out by what we can see on the past light cone are completely fucking retarded and contrived, and when you compared those "dark matter" theories which are no yet ruled out to my "dark geometry" suggestion, my opinion is that dark geometry is a lot more reasaonable and more consistent with what is usually called "physical." I mean... "the dark matter chameleon field?" Are you fucking kidding me?

>then it must be because of lensing
That's completely not true, there's a million things it could be. It's even more not true because lensing is a classical optical effect and you can change it. All you can do with lensing is to calculate the Sachs-Wolfe effect and the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect.

Your suggestion "it can only be lensing" ignores the obvious truth: it can be any of an infinite number of things that no one thought of yet and whose fundamental principles are not yet fully understood. It's like saying, "My keys have to be around here somewhere!!!" The truth is, a burglar might have taken your keys while you were posting on 4chan.

>>11067596
It is the same and you are fucking retarded if you don't know the difference between the neighborhood and a number in the neighborhood.


>Your meme hats aren't included in it.
I agree. Hat is not a number. What is your point other than begging for the slow and long suffering of all of your people?

>exactly the same with respect to real numbers.
nice claim you have there. try proving it.

>>11067636
>What's a cut, what's a real line ?
I see you have chosen not to read Definition 2.2 or Remark 2.4. Maybe if you read the paper instead of shitting on it without reading it...

>How do I deduce the group & topological properties of R
You should do it in the way that seems best to you.

>Why is this an axiom/definition, and not a property of a particular topology you are constructing ?
So... you're asking me why I put the definition of "diverges" in a definition?

>you never really define addition, multiplication, or open sets in your work
I don't define addition and multiplication bcause I have axiomatized them. I don't define open sets because I use the standard definition about open balls.

>You have a very loose grasp on what limits and infinity mean
I use the Cauchy definition of the limit. Do you object? I define infinity. Do you deny it?

You're just an idiot who didn't even read the paper, and who will suffer for it later.