What does that the universe in geometrically flat mean?

>From: Craig Tyler <tyler@mafalda.uchicago.edu>
>To: SII listserv post <science@lists.pdx.edu>
>Subject: [Fwd: conference questions]
>Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:12:11 -0500
>
>hi all. im only recently on this list, so i apologize if im saying things that
>were already written here.
>
> > > 1) What ideas from or attitudes about science have most clearly spread into
> > > broader culture?
> >
> > > 2) Why have these insights spread while others have not? (Here I'm trying
> > > to identify what happens at the dissemination channels that leads to either
> > > accurate or inaccurate notions being spread.)
>
>E=mc^2 is a good one. heres a few i just thought of, and possible reasons:
> atoms - because of the cool logo (nucleus with 3 orbiting electrons) and the
>bomb. (oddly though, i dont think nuclear physics ever got popular in this way -
>i think most people think of it as "splitting the ATOM" rather than the
>nucleus... maybe we already had atoms, so what is gained by subdividing further?
>either way, stuff is made of tiny parts.)
>
>DNA - because of the pretty, simple, visual image of the double helix, because of
>DNA-fingerprinting by detectives, and because genetics is very human and visible
>(kids look like their parents). also adequate assimilation of the notion of DNA
>comes just from knowing that it exists at all! there is SOME stuff that looks
>helical, and transmits genetic info, and it has a name.
>
>big bang - because its simple and grand: something like "universe spread out
>from a point, or an explosion."
>
>evolution - a recent scientific american article claimed that darwin had the
>greatest influence on scientific thinking in the world of any scientist in the
>last [some large number i forget of] years. survival of the fittest might be
>easily incorporated because its so simple (to the point of some large
>inaccuracies, i suspect?) and familiar in ordinary life.
>
>acids - (but not bases for some reason) are known for their destructive ability.
>
>i would speculate, then, that sexy and/or simple are the things that make science
>catch on. massive explosions, police procedures, competing for survival, tiny
>atoms, acids "melting" things. cute visuals help too (3-ringed atom, double
>helix picture, nuclear and biohazard symbols.
>
>these are good pieces of science to know: they are very simple, and to
>understand the full structure behind such a theory (take big bang for example)
>doesnt add all that much to it (the important part is that the universe started
>small and got big).
>
>we may discover with other ideas posted here, that science is more likely to be
>assimilated when its sexy, but it is can ONLY be assimilated if its extremely
>simple. (eg, it may be completely impossible to generate widespread awareness of
>contention that the universe is geometrically "flat").
>
>CT