Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry


"T Wake" <taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Gb2dnbxwRvUGe4zZRVnyjA@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZLKdnd-qqsKlRYzZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"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.

It is more limited in its ability to move up or down than its ability to
move forward or backwards. Given inflight refuling the plane can continue
to orbit the planet until it breaks down.

If it descends more than about 20,000 feet there is an small problem.

Why?
I have seen jets come close to a few meters off the ground without
any problems.
They also can turn left and right so this 2D limit you give them is
complete bull*** to begin with.


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.

But here your ability to understand is limited. The representation is
there to show an example in limited planes. We are limited to movement
within three dimensions. This is why you are confused about relating
issues to other dimensions.

No, this is where you again ignore the actual facts I state.
I state the shortest distance is not the shortest path.
Simple as that.
Distance is not limited to where a plane can fly.
You are completely lost in geodesic world.


As soon as you learn to create abstract representations you will be able
to realise what general sciences have known for quite some time.

I understand geodesics, it is you that has lost the reality and
has lost the understanding of "shortest distance".


How do you visualise the expansion of large scale structures on a
cosmoligical scale?

Who cares.
I am talking about the shortest distance between two points.
Why would you want to change the subject now?


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.

You twist and turn like a jellied eel.

No.
I am still stating the same things I have stated from
the beginning of this stupidity you show about
a geodesic and how it is simply not the shortest "distance".


What are you trying to state?

The shortest physical distance is shorter than a geodesic path
always.
It is really sad you can't even think about such a fact.


It depends on how many dimensions you can move through.

It would for moving on a certain path, but the distance between
two points does not have to follow a path of a geodesic.
Do you really have this much problem with knowing the difference
between the shortest "distance" and the shortest "path"?
Sheesh
We better never let you try to make tunnels..
LOL




.

Loading