Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry


"T Wake" <taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Nq-dnbkgHJAPf4_ZRVny2Q@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:CIqdnWfPGJpK3I_ZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"T Wake" <taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Jr2dnSRvP_ksvI_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx

However, this is because you are too blinkered to look outside your
three dimensional world.

I look outside it a lot, but mostly it is only because I am watching
SciFi.

Ok. Good for you. I am pleased that your ignorance will remain intact. It
reduces the chance that you will be able to significantly interact with
the human race - other than trolling on USENET. Here, you are just a
harmless crank who can be ridiculed. This keeps us both happy.

Do you hang out with Jeff Relf and share ideas for jokes?

Jeff Relf?
The crackpot that uses physics of Einstein to say aliens know how
to create spacetime wormholes?
LOL
I can't stand that guy.
:)


Yes, you are correct. I meant to say the left /right and forward /
backward are limited.

Well now you goofed again, but who cares.

Yep. Everyone makes mistakes. When I get something wrong I have no dramas
with correcting myself - or being corrected by others as appropriate.

I am the same way.
and I have actually been corrected and stated my bad many times on this
group.


You remind me of conversations with my daughter when she was six.

I never said the plane was limited to two dimensions. This is an analogy
trying to use objects that are familiar to you and to help ease
understanding. Obviously it wont work.

That said, the plane can move in three dimensions yet cant follow your
shortest distance. If the plane was a thinking, reasoning creature like
yourself it would doubt the existance of your "shortest distance" and
spend months arguing the toss about this weird thing you had made up.

But T Wake,
Again you are ignoring what I stated,
I never said anything like the plane could follow the shortest distance I
am
talking about, I merely stated the shorter distance can always be
measured because measurement is not limited to the geodesic ruling.
Hence the shortest path of the geodesic is not the shortest physical
distance
and never could be since it is curved.

I never said you stated anything other than what you stated. You try to
argue against things that either havent been said or dont exist.

The conversation is centring on the ability to rationalise movement in a
variety of dimensions simultaneously. This is done by creating an analogy
(i.e. something which is representative of - not a complete description
of) of the real world with less dimensions of movement. Obviously the
airplane analogy requires too much imagination for you to be happy with.
We can use others.

No,
I am fine with the airplane analogy, it is you that does not get how
there are no such limitations of surface measurement to the universe.
So I laugh at such limitations.
LOL


Can you, without resorting to a two dimensional analogy explain how the
cosmological expansion of large scale structures takes place in all
directions and implies no centre?

Where are you getting that the expansion implies no center?
Are you saying you can't find the oldest light waves?


Can you also tell me, without use of less or more than three dimensions,
how you determine the shortest possible distance between two objects that
are recessing in three dimensions simultaneously?

Why would I need more than 3D? a straight line does such.


Yup, straight in three dimensions.
Such "straightness" is the shortest distance always.

Can you show me a representation of this line which moves straight between
point A and point B in all three dimensions please.

You said you know how to use a 3D animation program,
make a straight line with it and look at from 3 different planes.
One plane might look like a dot, the other 2 will look like straight lines.
Why don't you get such about a straight line is what I think is pretty
ignorant of reality.


No,
that is the shortest "path" it can take.
again you are losing the reality of "measurement".
The shortest "distance" between two points is always
a 3 dimensionally straight line.

Only if you are talking about a three dimensional object.

Yup, in other words, everything in this universe.
Or have you discovered a non 3 dimensional object that exists
in this universe?


Because I am not going to jump aboard the geodesic loss of reality train
like you have.

What train is that then? Why do you assume that I have lost "reality"
here? Where have I disagreed with the fact that in our three dimensional
existence the shortest distance is in a straight line?

Because you are ignoring the reality of it.


I am not limiting my understanding, I am using it.

Sadly this is true. You are not limiting your understanding and you are
using it.

However your understanding is limited which is causing you problems.

No,
my understanding is not limited at all,
It is reality that is limiting it because I seperate science
from scifi, unlike you seem to do.

You are the one limiting something.
you are limiting reality to a surface.

You stated the universe was four dimensional yet you only allow three
dimensions of movement.

Time is not a physical dimension.
Time was invented by humans to time things that occur
in the 3D reality of the universe.


As I stated previously this is fine by me. You are more than welcome to
exist in your seventeenth century world. It will keep you happy and
allow you to explain all the things you experience.

I am sorry you think it is 17th century.
It is still true today. nothing has ever proven otherwise.

Ok. As I said you are correct. All the worlds scientists and
mathematicians are wrong. The Nobel prizes will be returned soon, I am
sure.

What?
You love to twist way off into your own little twist land all the time huh?
Next you will think I am saying Einstein should be dug up and stripped
of his nobel after we bring him back to life to tell him he was wrong.



In fact it was true way before the 17th century also.
And it will be true always unless you can prove it wrong

No one can prove anything to you.

That is not true.
many people that use brains in this group have proven stuff to me.
Not my fault you can't do such.


and that will take a lot more than just talking about geodesics.

Yes. Fortunately you will die soon enough.

That is very grim of you.
Nice to know that you think so niceley.
You can forget the rest of this converstaion because
now you are just losing it.
Bye bye
Have fun in your rubber *** world.


.

Loading