Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry


"T Wake" <taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:zbmdnY_IccgXaYzZnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:NaOdnYeaEJAVcYzZRVn-pA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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?

Often the ground gets in the way. Try descending 20000 feet from 20000
feet ASL over the Himalayas.

Why though?
That would be silly of course.


I have seen jets come close to a few meters off the ground without
any problems.

It is normally called landing.

Actually, I have seen such without a landing.
and it was actually not by accident either.
It was called an air show.
:)


They also can turn left and right so this 2D limit you give them is
complete bull*** to begin with.

How does left and right, combined with forward and backward contradict the
2D limit?

up down = 1D
left right = 2D
forward backward = 3D
It can move in 3 directional planes (dimensions).
forward, left and down all at the same time
(that is 3D, not 2D)


Do you know what two dimensions means?

yes,
flat
area
length and width
or
height and length
or height and width
etc...
Are you forgetting about the third dimension?


And anyway, as stated the planes limit to move up and down is "more
limited" (drastically so in the example which includes in-flight refuling)
than its ability to move left/right forwards/backwards. It can fly
forwards for a theoretically unlimited distance. Its ability to climb
/descend is limited. Can you see what this means?

It is limited, yes.
but that means nothing and as I stated, I never
said a plane would not take a geodesic or close to it.
I stated the plane is not taking the shortest distance.
It may be taking the shortest path.. but again.
All I stated is that the shortest possible path is not the shortest
distance between two points?
Why don't you get that fact?


As a side note for credit points, you may want to ponder the fact that the
plane is always moving forwards - even when it goes "left and right."

forward (or backward like a helicopter could do) = 1 dimension
left or right is another dimension and
up or down is the 3rd dimension.
Why don't you get that?
It is simply not stuck in 2 dimensions like you are stating.


The shortest distance between two objects in a three dimensional world,
where the asset moving between the two objects is constrained in its
ability to move *may* well not be the same as the shortest path that asset
can move.

Distance is not constained by any path.
Why do you have so much trouble with that simple fact and
the simple statement that...
The shortest "distance" between 2 points is a straight line.


However, this does not in any way contradict the geometrical statements
previously made.

The shortest distance is always shorter than the shortest path
a geodesic takes.
I don't see what you see is wrong with what I state at all.


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".

Nope. However the idea is to represent higher dimensional situations in a
manner that people living in a three dimensional world can understand.

Now you are going SciFi.
That is sad.
There are only 3 dimensions of motion in the universe.
Some day. you might grasp that known fact.



See, its not a change of subject. It is a discussion about how this idea
you disagree with is actually sucessful in real world scenarios.

I do not disagree with the dang geodesic.
Sheesh are you are freaking dingbat or something?
I am only stating that the geodesic is not the shortest physical
distance between two points and can't be simple as that.
Sheesh!


The shortest physical distance is shorter than a geodesic path
always.

Prove it.

Euclid did long ago.
I need not do such now.
You need to prove it is not.
You have no proof it is not.



If string theory is correct and we live in an 11 dimensional universe, how
would you measure the distance between two objects in three dimensions?

ROFLOL
String theory is like swiss cheese mated with string cheese..
LOL


For a hypothetical two dimensional object how would you calculate the
shortest distance between two objects?

Who cares.
I live in a 3D universe.
not a hypothetical 2D moviescreen universe.


You are tied up in your three dimensional personal existance.

Nope,
I am not tied up at all,
I am free to measure and think in all three dimensions and
also add a fourth to time my motion through the 3D I physically
live in.


Do you really have this much problem with knowing the difference
between the shortest "distance" and the shortest "path"?

Nope.

Actually, you are proving you do have a problem with it.


Sheesh
We better never let you try to make tunnels..

I have built several. You had no say in the matter (fortunately).

So you ignored the geodesic or you built a curved tunnel
and people have to take a longer path because of your
ignorance of what "straight" is.


.

Loading