Some questions on GR from a layman

On Mar 8, 9:55 am, PD wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:28 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

Just take a ball, connect any three points with great circles, and
measure the angles. That's all you gotta do.

You get distorted triangles. shrug

Not at all.

The so-called triangles you can draw on the surface of a sphere is not
true triangles. The ancient Greeks have already shown so. shrug

PD, please try to catch up on 2,500-plus years of mathematics.
shrug

On Mar 8, 10:13 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:22 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

This is a fine example of embracing mysticism among the Einstein
Dingleberries.

Put down the crackpipe. Nobody is talking about Einstein but you.

Hey, you are the one who gets all bent out of shape when Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is mentioned. You are the one
who is obsessed whenever Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar is mentioned. shrug

After producing these identifiable triangles described by simple
Euclidean geometry, the sum of all the angles involved do not add up
to 180 degrees. Duh! Claiming these triangles reside in curved space
is rather stupid. shrug

Such seamless turnabout.

What is it that you don’t understand in the very simple geometry of
triangles? How the hell did they even graduate you from high school,
college dropout?

On 3/9/11 12:39 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The so-called triangles you can draw on the surface of a sphere is not
true triangles. The ancient Greeks have already shown so.shrug


Background for Koobee
Quantum Man: Richard Feynman's Life in Science

The sum of angles in a triangle is 180° or π radians (at least in
Euclidean geometry; this statement does not hold in non-Euclidean
geometry).

On 3/9/11 12:43 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:


What is it that you don’t understand in the very simple geometry of
triangles? How the hell did they even graduate you from high school,
college dropout?



Background for Koobee
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Triangle.html

The sum of angles in a triangle is 180° or π radians (at least in
Euclidean geometry; this statement does not hold in non-Euclidean
geometry).

On 3/9/11 12:39 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:


The so-called triangles you can draw on the surface of a sphere is not
true triangles. The ancient Greeks have already shown so.shrug



Background for Koobee
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Triangle.html

The sum of angles in a triangle is 180° or π radians (at least in
Euclidean geometry; this statement does not hold in non-Euclidean
geometry).

On Mar 8, 10:43*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 8, 10:13 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 8, 9:22 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
This is a fine example of embracing mysticism among the Einstein
Dingleberries.

Put down the crackpipe. Nobody is talking about Einstein but you.

Hey, you are the one who gets all bent out of shape when Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is mentioned. *You are the one
who is obsessed whenever Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar is mentioned. *shrug

After producing these identifiable triangles described by simple
Euclidean geometry, the sum of all the angles involved do not add up
to 180 degrees. *Duh! *Claiming these triangles reside in curved space
is rather stupid. *shrug

Such seamless turnabout.

What is it that you don’t understand in the very simple geometry of
triangles? *

Triangles on spherical surfaces don't have interior angles that add up
to 180, despite your protests otherwise.

How the hell did they even graduate you from high school,
college dropout?

Think whatever you want of my education. A piece of paper won't make
you respect me.

On Mar 8, 10:47 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/9/11 12:39 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Why double posting? Too much caffeine? Or just about to be driven
off the cliff from the darkside of science?

The so-called triangles you can draw on the surface of a sphere is not
true triangles. The ancient Greeks have already shown so.shrug

Background for Koobee
Quantum Man: Richard Feynman's Life in Science

This is a discussion of science not some biography of a self-styled
physicist, OK? shrug

The sum of angles in a triangle is 180° or π radians (at least in
Euclidean geometry; this statement does not hold in non-Euclidean
geometry).

And yours truly is not denying that. It is the Einstein Dingleberries
who are bringing up non-triangles that don’t add to 2 pi to justify
the significance of curved space. Yours truly maintains that you
cannot tell you are in curved space since how curved up space is is
all relative. This is the same reason why the FitzGerald-Lorentz
contraction of SR is not detectable. shrug

"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
Polemic Eric Gisse wrote:
snip Erice's dropout crap

KW wrote:
Erice, What is it that you don’t understand in the very
simple geometry of triangles? How the hell did they
even graduate you from high school, college dropout?

The so-called triangles you can draw on the surface of a sphere is not
true triangles. The ancient Greeks have already shown so. shrug

hanson wrote:
Let me repeat your epic and operative 2-liner above
for the benefit of all those Einstein Dingleberries:

|||KW||| "Triangles on a sphere are not straight line triangles"
|||KW||| "Triangles on a sphere are bent line triangles"
|||KW||| "Triangles on a sphere are not classic triangles"
|||KW||| "Triangles on a sphere are 3-dimensional triangles"
|||KW||| "Triangles on a sphere are not true triangles"

On Mar 8, 10:39*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:55 am, PD wrote:

On Mar 7, 11:28 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Just take a ball, connect any three points with great circles, and
measure the angles. That's all you gotta do.

You get distorted triangles. *shrug

Not at all.

The so-called triangles you can draw on the surface of a sphere is not
true triangles. *The ancient Greeks have already shown so. *shrug

PD, please try to catch up on 2,500-plus years of mathematics.
shrug

Why not? Can you identify which of Euclid's proofs fail for the
surface of a sphere?

On Mar 9, 12:39*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:55 am, PD wrote:

On Mar 7, 11:28 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Just take a ball, connect any three points with great circles, and
measure the angles. That's all you gotta do.

You get distorted triangles. *shrug

Not at all.

The so-called triangles you can draw on the surface of a sphere is not
true triangles.

As I've just explained, that is simply an incorrect statement. A
triangle is a three-straight-sided polygon in a 2D space. The case
mentioned (and which you've snipped) is exactly that.

*The ancient Greeks have already shown so. *shrug

No, they didn't.


PD, please try to catch up on 2,500-plus years of mathematics.
shrug

Exactly. Some stuff has been done since the ancient Greeks, which you
probably need to catch up on.