Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry

"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mfednbq44fbgao_ZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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?
I can't stand that guy.

Yet you have so much in common.

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.

Well, you state you are fine with the airplane analogy yet you fail to
understand its limitiations when it comes to describing reality.

I think the cosmological expansion situation, being real, may suit our needs
better. Dont you?

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?

Expansion in three directions implies no centre.

The oldest light waves do not tell us where the centre of the universe is.

Do you suggest otherwise?

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.

So can you explain to me then how the line between the two objects,
recessing in three dimensions still looks straight in three dimensions
please.

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.

The dot is not a straight line. It is a dot.

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?

We are talking about a theoretical construct. Do you know what the word
theoretical means?

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.

Well, if you say so it must be true.

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.

No you don't. You have an idea of how things should be and refuse to accept
any development of theories. Your ideas of science fall down drastically at
the cosmological and the quantum scale. Sadly, you have no way of
conceptualising either situation, nor the equipment to study them, so you
dismiss their existence.

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.

Why do you think he can be brought back to life? Are you reading too much
fiction?

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.

Well, its interesting that in the last few months I have not seen any one
convince you of the error of your ways. The only people you react to in
anything resembling a cordial manner are other crackpots who share your
pre-conceived notions about how things should be.

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.

But true. You probably have less than 55 years to live. I have even less.

Nice to know that you think so niceley.

Its not nice or nasty. It is simply the case.

You can forget the rest of this converstaion because
now you are just losing it.

Ok.

Bye bye
Have fun in your rubber *** world.

What rubber *** world?


.

Loading