Riemann's Problems with curved space

???, [Edited to remove an error as to quote origin]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b> i.e. the vertical component of the action vector remains straight while the lateral component is bent closer to the center of the spherical frame than it would otherwise have been ... or ... the probability of any action occurring will be similarly skewed. This accelerates the particle in that direction.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">So you do believe in inertial drives after all. LOL</font id="yellow">


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Physics does not forbid the appearance of momentum so long as an equal and opposite momentum is produced ... Electromagnetism seemingly produces equal and opposite momentums out of nothing but no one regards this as magic.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">HeHeHe. []Lets see if I can formulate this. "N"

---

&gt;(+m)+(-m) HeHeHe[]</font id="yellow">



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />So you do believe in inertial drives after all. LOL ...
HeHeHe. []Lets see if I can formulate this. "N"

---

&gt;(+m)+(-m) HeHeHe[]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">?? Are you mixing up your sources? -|Tom|-

Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>?? Are you mixing up your sources? -|Tom|-</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Am I off point? Please clarify your response.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Mac: You quoted someone else and addressed your remarks to me. Why? -|Tom|-

Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Mac: You quoted someone else and addressed your remarks to me. Why? -|Tom|-</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sorry. This is strange. I can't even find the quote in this string. I did believe it had your signature but in the event I mis-read something I'm removing your name. I had responded via e-mail apparently it has been placed in the wrong area.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The first phenomenon was existence. But one unit of substance in a void cannot have properties other than existence because they must all be relative to something, and there is no other "something". So the one unit of substance simply meant existence there, leaving non-existence elsewhere. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is getting closer to the nitty-gritty.You put in one thing ... then two. I put in a third and a fourth and fifth ... and so on ... ending up with infinity. Therefore, existence is fundamentally (at base) a simple integer count.

Why did you assume that existence didn't run off in the same way ... from a beginning?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I started there and built a universe, and mentally stood back and watched in amazement as the answers start to unfold in front of my mind's eye.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Me too ... all for different reasons from a different starting position. My question was "Why is there something instead of nothing?" So, I started with that same "nothing" and looked for a reason for its impossibility ... (we're here so it must be impossible).

A philosophical/sociological/psychological question:

How many of the Earth's 100 billion people (who have lived so far) do you think started with that "nothing" and built a non-religious, mechanical model of the universe, i.e. from "scratch"? Certainly, no historic figure in any science left any evidence of such an attempt (though I suspect Newton may have been badly burned here). My guess, based on my experience is ... that the number is less than "6". Since there are admittedly many forks in the road (well actually there is no road but what you make) ... I suppose it's to be expected that no agreement is presently obtained ;o)