Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: "Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:49:25 -0500
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_q6dnUY1mIkWU4zZRVnytA@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:-LydnWDJO83IPozZnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Last I checked, airplanes don't fly through the ground. Then again, who
knows what you see - you seem pretty deranged.
I never said airplanes fly on the ground,
You really need to start to read and comprehend at the same time.
You might wake up out of your abstract and actually find some
reals again.
What are you going on about here?
The plane is limited in the planes (pun intended) it can move. For the
purpose of the plane (and within orders of magnitude) it can only go in
two dimensions. This means you need a way of abstracting the way it can
move.
Do you have a problem with this?
Well, I have a slight problem with it.
A plane can easily move in 3 dimensions.
but basically I have no other problem with it and yes
the plane is limited but if you actually read what I have stated
you would read that I am stating it is still not the shortest "distance"
the difference being the shortest path or shortest distance.
I have not stated the shortest path is not a geodesic and only
the morons that don't actualyl read are gathering such from what
I state.
No, you ignore the reality of the situation (as always).
I do not such thing.
I know the shortest path is the geodesic. but that is simply
not the shortest distance.
Why such a simple thing is ignored is complete ignorance only.
It boils down to this.
A geodesic is not the shortest distance between two points.
It may be the shortest path but it is not the shortest distance
Simple as that.
Only fools would argue against such.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: T Wake
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- References:
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- From: T Wake
- Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- Prev by Date: Re: A new theory with two postulates
- Next by Date: How to build a nuclear bomb without radioactive material.
- Previous by thread: Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- Next by thread: Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading