Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #385972 > unrolled thread

Is euclidean geometry falsified?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-16 01:07 -0700
    Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 04:20 -0700
      Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-16 04:36 -0700
      Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 12:16 -0500
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-20 22:38 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 23:23 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:36 -0500
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-21 07:02 -0700
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-21 07:06 -0700
              Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-22 11:52 +1000
                Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:50 -0700
    Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 06:37 -0700
    Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-17 10:12 -0500
      Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-17 17:34 +0200
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-18 03:11 -0700
      Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-17 17:55 +0200
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-18 13:00 +1000
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:54 +0200
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-20 10:56 +1000
              Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-19 23:09 -0700
                Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-20 19:19 +1000
                  Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 02:43 -0700
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-18 03:14 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-06-18 10:41 -0600
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:58 +0200
      Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 14:27 -0700
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-17 23:46 +0200
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 15:33 -0700
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:30 +0200
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 15:45 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-06-17 17:08 -0600
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:38 +0200
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 16:12 -0700
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-06-17 18:39 -0600
              Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:40 +0200
                Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:17 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-21 09:45 -0700
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:06 -0500
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-19 20:50 +0200
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-20 12:16 +1000
              Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-06-19 22:15 -0600
                Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-20 14:29 +1000
                  Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-19 23:27 -0700
                  Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 11:08 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-20 01:53 -0700
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 02:17 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 08:39 -0700
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 11:31 -0700
              Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-20 20:51 +0200
                Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 12:13 -0700
                  Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-20 21:44 +0200
                    Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 15:46 -0700
                      Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 23:10 -0700
                        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 09:04 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#385972 — Is euclidean geometry falsified?

Simple yes or no, please.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#385975

Resounding no. 

Mathematics aren't selected on their ability to model the world, they are selected for their internal consistency. As it happens, Euclidean geometry is internally consistent, and has found countless applications (including in nearly all engineering). 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385976

W dniu czwartek, 16 czerwca 2016 13:20:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Y napisał:
> Resounding no. 

One vote for no.

> 
> Mathematics aren't selected on their ability to model the world, they are selected for their internal consistency.

:)
Are You very sure You know the criteria Euclid used
for his selection?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386298

On 6/16/2016 6:20 AM, Y wrote:
> Resounding no.
>
> Mathematics aren't selected on their ability to model the world, they are selected for their
> internal consistency. As it happens, Euclidean geometry is internally consistent, and has
> found countless applications (including in nearly all engineering).
>
> -y
>

When you say "Mathematics aren't selected on...", can you explain 
selected for what?

Riemannian geometry is just as internally consistent as Euclidean 
geometry. So what would then be the selection criteria?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386358

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 3:16:03 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/16/2016 6:20 AM, Y wrote:
> > Resounding no.
> >
> > Mathematics aren't selected on their ability to model the world, they are selected for their
> > internal consistency. As it happens, Euclidean geometry is internally consistent, and has
> > found countless applications (including in nearly all engineering).
> >
> > -y
> >
> 
> When you say "Mathematics aren't selected on...", can you explain 
> selected for what?
> 
> Riemannian geometry is just as internally consistent as Euclidean 
> geometry. So what would then be the selection criteria?


In mathematics, models are selected via proof (i.e. internal consistency). In science, mathematics are selected via evidence and the ability to measure predictions. 

The selection criteria for Reimannian geometry in science, which is also internally consistent mathematically, is ability to demonstrate accuracy when being used to make predictions about the world. You couldn't derive this from how I explained it ? 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386363

W dniu wtorek, 21 czerwca 2016 07:38:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Y napisał:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 3:16:03 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 6/16/2016 6:20 AM, Y wrote:
> > > Resounding no.
> > >
> > > Mathematics aren't selected on their ability to model the world, they are selected for their
> > > internal consistency. As it happens, Euclidean geometry is internally consistent, and has
> > > found countless applications (including in nearly all engineering).
> > >
> > > -y
> > >
> > 
> > When you say "Mathematics aren't selected on...", can you explain 
> > selected for what?
> > 
> > Riemannian geometry is just as internally consistent as Euclidean 
> > geometry. So what would then be the selection criteria?
> 
> 
> In mathematics, models are selected via proof (i.e. internal consistency). 

Bullshit. Mathematics can't even prove the consistency
of Peano arithmetics.

|In science, mathematics are selected via evidence and the ability to measure predictions. 

Bullshit. Your idiot Guru read Lewis Caroll or Edwin Abbott,
or some other pseudomathematical fantasy fashionable at the
moment, and wanted to be trendy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386381

On 6/21/2016 12:38 AM, Y wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 3:16:03 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 6/16/2016 6:20 AM, Y wrote:
>>> Resounding no.
>>>
>>> Mathematics aren't selected on their ability to model the world, they are selected for their
>>> internal consistency. As it happens, Euclidean geometry is internally consistent, and has
>>> found countless applications (including in nearly all engineering).
>>>
>>> -y
>>>
>>
>> When you say "Mathematics aren't selected on...", can you explain
>> selected for what?
>>
>> Riemannian geometry is just as internally consistent as Euclidean
>> geometry. So what would then be the selection criteria?
>
>
> In mathematics, models are selected via proof (i.e. internal consistency). In science,
> mathematics are selected via evidence and the ability to measure predictions.
>
> The selection criteria for Reimannian geometry in science, which is also internally consistent
> mathematically, is ability to demonstrate accuracy when being used to make predictions about the
> world. You couldn't derive this from how I explained it ?

OK, so just to catch up here, you cannot disprove Euclidean geometry 
mathematically, because it is internally consistent. But the mathematics 
of Riemannian geometry is selected scientifically because of its 
accuracy in making predictions about the world -- that is, on its 
ability to accurately model the world.

>
> -y
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386384

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 11:36:07 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/21/2016 12:38 AM, Y wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 3:16:03 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 6/16/2016 6:20 AM, Y wrote:
> >>> Resounding no.
> >>>
> >>> Mathematics aren't selected on their ability to model the world, they are selected for their
> >>> internal consistency. As it happens, Euclidean geometry is internally consistent, and has
> >>> found countless applications (including in nearly all engineering).
> >>>
> >>> -y
> >>>
> >>
> >> When you say "Mathematics aren't selected on...", can you explain
> >> selected for what?
> >>
> >> Riemannian geometry is just as internally consistent as Euclidean
> >> geometry. So what would then be the selection criteria?
> >
> >
> > In mathematics, models are selected via proof (i.e. internal consistency). In science,
> > mathematics are selected via evidence and the ability to measure predictions.
> >
> > The selection criteria for Reimannian geometry in science, which is also internally consistent
> > mathematically, is ability to demonstrate accuracy when being used to make predictions about the
> > world. You couldn't derive this from how I explained it ?
> 
> OK, so just to catch up here, you cannot disprove Euclidean geometry 
> mathematically, because it is internally consistent. But the mathematics 
> of Riemannian geometry is selected scientifically because of its 
> accuracy in making predictions about the world -- that is, on its 
> ability to accurately model the world.
> 
> >
> > -y


See I would say you missed something here, because Riemannian geometry needn't necessarily be used to model the world and might have applications including those that may not even be related to physics. As I understand it, Reimannian geometry wasn't created for physics per se, but Einstein neatly found applications for it with GR. It is used in other fields. 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386385

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 11:36:07 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/21/2016 12:38 AM, Y wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 3:16:03 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 6/16/2016 6:20 AM, Y wrote:
> >>> Resounding no.
> >>>
> >>> Mathematics aren't selected on their ability to model the world, they are selected for their
> >>> internal consistency. As it happens, Euclidean geometry is internally consistent, and has
> >>> found countless applications (including in nearly all engineering).
> >>>
> >>> -y
> >>>
> >>
> >> When you say "Mathematics aren't selected on...", can you explain
> >> selected for what?
> >>
> >> Riemannian geometry is just as internally consistent as Euclidean
> >> geometry. So what would then be the selection criteria?
> >
> >
> > In mathematics, models are selected via proof (i.e. internal consistency). In science,
> > mathematics are selected via evidence and the ability to measure predictions.
> >
> > The selection criteria for Reimannian geometry in science, which is also internally consistent
> > mathematically, is ability to demonstrate accuracy when being used to make predictions about the
> > world. You couldn't derive this from how I explained it ?
> 
> OK, so just to catch up here, you cannot disprove Euclidean geometry 
> mathematically, because it is internally consistent. But the mathematics 
> of Riemannian geometry is selected scientifically because of its 
> accuracy in making predictions about the world -- that is, on its 
> ability to accurately model the world.
> 
> >
> > -y
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables



btw, did you see the result of my ball and peg board experiment OB ? I was wondering when you were going to rip it to pieces, and was kind of hoping for your input. 


-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386446

On 22/06/2016 12:06 AM, Y wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 11:36:07 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 6/21/2016 12:38 AM, Y wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 3:16:03 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/2016 6:20 AM, Y wrote:
>>>>> Resounding no.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematics aren't selected on their ability to model the world, they are selected for their
>>>>> internal consistency. As it happens, Euclidean geometry is internally consistent, and has
>>>>> found countless applications (including in nearly all engineering).
>>>>>
>>>>> -y
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When you say "Mathematics aren't selected on...", can you explain
>>>> selected for what?
>>>>
>>>> Riemannian geometry is just as internally consistent as Euclidean
>>>> geometry. So what would then be the selection criteria?
>>>
>>>
>>> In mathematics, models are selected via proof (i.e. internal consistency). In science,
>>> mathematics are selected via evidence and the ability to measure predictions.
>>>
>>> The selection criteria for Reimannian geometry in science, which is also internally consistent
>>> mathematically, is ability to demonstrate accuracy when being used to make predictions about the
>>> world. You couldn't derive this from how I explained it ?
>>
>> OK, so just to catch up here, you cannot disprove Euclidean geometry
>> mathematically, because it is internally consistent. But the mathematics
>> of Riemannian geometry is selected scientifically because of its
>> accuracy in making predictions about the world -- that is, on its
>> ability to accurately model the world.
>>
>>>
>>> -y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
>
> btw, did you see the result of my ball and peg board experiment OB ? I was wondering when you were going to rip it to pieces, and was kind of hoping for your input.
>
>
> -y
>

I looked at it. There is some vague resemblance to an interference 
pattern, but that's as far as it goes. You'd have to construct a 
mathematical model of what's going on to see whether you have anything 
more than just a superficial similarity.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386750

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 11:52:22 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/06/2016 12:06 AM, Y wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 11:36:07 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 6/21/2016 12:38 AM, Y wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 3:16:03 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 6/16/2016 6:20 AM, Y wrote:
> >>>>> Resounding no.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mathematics aren't selected on their ability to model the world, they are selected for their
> >>>>> internal consistency. As it happens, Euclidean geometry is internally consistent, and has
> >>>>> found countless applications (including in nearly all engineering).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -y
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> When you say "Mathematics aren't selected on...", can you explain
> >>>> selected for what?
> >>>>
> >>>> Riemannian geometry is just as internally consistent as Euclidean
> >>>> geometry. So what would then be the selection criteria?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In mathematics, models are selected via proof (i.e. internal consistency). In science,
> >>> mathematics are selected via evidence and the ability to measure predictions.
> >>>
> >>> The selection criteria for Reimannian geometry in science, which is also internally consistent
> >>> mathematically, is ability to demonstrate accuracy when being used to make predictions about the
> >>> world. You couldn't derive this from how I explained it ?
> >>
> >> OK, so just to catch up here, you cannot disprove Euclidean geometry
> >> mathematically, because it is internally consistent. But the mathematics
> >> of Riemannian geometry is selected scientifically because of its
> >> accuracy in making predictions about the world -- that is, on its
> >> ability to accurately model the world.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> -y
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> >
> >
> > btw, did you see the result of my ball and peg board experiment OB ? I was wondering when you were going to rip it to pieces, and was kind of hoping for your input.
> >
> >
> > -y
> >
> 
> I looked at it. There is some vague resemblance to an interference 
> pattern, but that's as far as it goes. You'd have to construct a 
> mathematical model of what's going on to see whether you have anything 
> more than just a superficial similarity.
> 
> Sylvia.

Done that now.. found some cool stuff too.

-y 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385983

El jueves, 16 de junio de 2016, 4:07:52 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl  escribió:
> Simple yes or no, please.

Absolutely no.

Euclidean geometry is taken for granted by 1686 Newton and 1905 Einstein.
Considered as part of a physical theory, it is surely the one with the highest
experimental support.

Every instant, since already almost four decades, Euclidean geometry is used in
all GPS receptors. Every time a body position in the GPS ECI is determined with 
a very high accuracy, Euclidean geometry receives an additional experimental 
support (jointly with 1686 Newton's mechanics and 1905 Einstein's Relativity).

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386056

On 6/16/16 6/16/16 - 3:07 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> Simple yes or no, please.

That's like asking:

	Does 2+2 = chartreuse? Simple yes or no, please.

When you don't know what the words you use actually mean, you cannot formulate a 
sensible question.

Euclidean geometry is mathematics, and thus is not subject to falsification (aka 
refutation), which is a concept from SCIENCE, not math.

To re-formulate your question in the realm of science:

     In what domain does Euclidean geometry provide an accurate model for
     the world we inhabit?

It does provide an accurate model, insofar as it goes (which is not very far in 
physics). Euclidean geometry does not include the notion of time [#], so its 
domain consists only of spatial measurements made in a locally inertial frame, 
made simultaneously in that frame. This excludes all dynamical processes, 
mechanics, electrodynamics, gravitation, etc. -- everything we call "physics".

	Experimentally, measurements in a non-inertial frame, and
	measurements made over very large distances do NOT agree
	with Euclidean geometry. For those, more subtle and complex
	geometries are needed, and experimentally they must be
	consistent with relativity. We don't (yet) know whether
	Euclidean geometry, or indeed any geometry at all, applies
	at very small scales approaching the Planck scale.

	[#] One could, by fiat, apply Euclidean geometry to a 4-D
	spacetime. This is easily refuted, as it would imply that
	time behaves EXACTLY like space, which it clearly does not.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386062

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:n7udnWz8heXXjvnKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...

On 6/16/16 6/16/16 - 3:07 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> Simple yes or no, please.

|That's like asking:
|Does 2+2 = chartreuse? Simple yes or no, please.
|When you don't know what the words you use actually mean, you cannot 
formulate a
|sensible question.

No, poor idiot, it isn't. When you don't know what the words I use actually 
mean,
you cannot formulate a sensible answer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386122

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 1:34:49 AM UTC+10, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:n7udnWz8heXXjvnKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 
> On 6/16/16 6/16/16 - 3:07 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > Simple yes or no, please.
> 
> |That's like asking:
> |Does 2+2 = chartreuse? Simple yes or no, please.
> |When you don't know what the words you use actually mean, you cannot 
> formulate a
> |sensible question.
> 
> No, poor idiot, it isn't. When you don't know what the words I use actually 
> mean,
> you cannot formulate a sensible answer.



No one can understand the words you use, because they are completely senseless, and so sensibility may not apply to them. 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386065

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:n7udnWz8heXXjvnKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...


|Experimentally, measurements in a non-inertial frame, and
|measurements made over very large distances do NOT agree
|with Euclidean geometry.

And how do you call a theory providing predictions that don't agree
with  measurement?

BTW. You have a theory X that says "mathematics theories don't
give falsifiable predictions".
You see that EG, for sure a mathematical theory, gives such
predictions.
So, your theory X is   ...?

IT IS OBVIOUSLY CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE IT"S WRITTEN IN HOLY BOOKS OF GREAT GURUS!!!!!!!!

Right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386112

On 18/06/2016 1:55 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:n7udnWz8heXXjvnKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
> |Experimentally, measurements in a non-inertial frame, and
> |measurements made over very large distances do NOT agree
> |with Euclidean geometry.
>
> And how do you call a theory providing predictions that don't agree
> with  measurement?

Euclidean geometry is not a theory; it's a set of axioms from which 
theorems (not theories!) can be derived. The statement "Euclidean 
geometry accurately models the world" is a theory, and it's also easily 
refutable. But that doesn't falsify Euclidean geometry itself.

You're seriously muddling the concepts.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386157

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:dsjrqlFg5n0U1@mid.individual.net...

|Euclidean geometry is not a theory; it's a set of axioms from which
|theorems (not theories!) can be derived. The statement "Euclidean
|geometry accurately models the world" is a theory, and it's also easily
|refutable. But that doesn't falsify Euclidean geometry itself.

Madame, get conscious.
Take almost any of its theorems. Pythagorean? Is it possible
to measure 3 distances and one angle,  calculate a*a+b*b and
test, whether it is c*c or is it impossible.

What you're doing is - common, pathetic word tricks intended
to protect what The Gurus told You against what You can see.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386255

On 19/06/2016 5:54 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:dsjrqlFg5n0U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> |Euclidean geometry is not a theory; it's a set of axioms from which
> |theorems (not theories!) can be derived. The statement "Euclidean
> |geometry accurately models the world" is a theory, and it's also easily
> |refutable. But that doesn't falsify Euclidean geometry itself.
>
> Madame, get conscious.
> Take almost any of its theorems. Pythagorean? Is it possible
> to measure 3 distances and one angle,  calculate a*a+b*b and
> test, whether it is c*c or is it impossible.

If the axioms hold, then so does Pythagoras, since that it is a theorem. 
If you find by measurement that Pythagoras does not hold, then that just 
tells you that your geometry is not Euclidean. It says something about 
your geometry, but it has nothing to say about the validity of Euclidean 
geometry.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386270

W dniu poniedziałek, 20 czerwca 2016 02:56:15 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else 

> > Madame, get conscious.
> > Take almost any of its theorems. Pythagorean? Is it possible
> > to measure 3 distances and one angle,  calculate a*a+b*b and
> > test, whether it is c*c or is it impossible.
> 
> If the axioms hold, then so does Pythagoras, since that it is a theorem. 
> If you find by measurement that Pythagoras does not hold, then that just 
> tells you that your geometry is not Euclidean. 

And if  you find by measurement that no flogiston exists,
it just tells you that your world is not flogistonian.
Nothing else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web