Logic wrote:
It will be a much better table if it follows the curvature of the Earth precisely
I think that the precision will be more be of the perpendicular and straight type
A curved one would I think be quite impractical so therefore not that much use
Logic wrote:
It will be a much better table if it follows the curvature of the Earth precisely
I think that the precision will be more be of the perpendicular and straight type
A curved one would I think be quite impractical so therefore not that much use
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:39 pm
Yes you can use Euclidian geometry for making your coffee table because you are not actually mapping four dimensional spacetime
You are just making a coffee table so no knowledge of non Euclidian geometry is required so you go ahead and make one right now
But Euclidian geometry only deals with 2 dimensions. If the Earth is not flat how can I use it?!?
Actually if reality is 2 dimensional, all physical phenomena (including the earth), is "flat".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:41 pm
The world can be 3 dimensional, and still be flat as "2 dimensional", if the 3rd dimension is viewed as a process of change.
Sure. You can do any many transformations with matrix maths.
Fundamentally though the number of dimensions is not so much about reality as the language and geometries necessary to describe it.
The Euclidean group for SE(3) is used for the kinematics of a rigid body, in classical mechanics. A rigid body motion is in effect the same as a curve in the Euclidean group. Starting with a body B oriented in a certain way at time t = 0, its orientation at any other time is related to the starting orientation by a Euclidean motion, say f(t). Setting t = 0, we have f(0) = I, the identity transformation. This means that the curve will always lie inside E+(3), in fact: starting at the identity transformation I, such a continuous curve can certainly never reach anything other than a direct isometry. This is for simple topological reasons: the determinant of the transformation cannot jump from +1 to −1.
Thanks, so Euclid did not address kinetics contrary to your suggestion.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:28 am
2. What is the relevance of the curvature of the Earth to Euclidean geometry?[/b]
Helllooo, pay attention! I am trying to build a coffee table. Do I need to take the curvature of the Earth into account or not? If not - why not?
OK, so the curvature of the Earth has no relevance to Euclidean geometry, contrary to what you suggested.
You should be told you're brain is farting.
EB
The Euclidean group for SE(3) is used for the kinematics of a rigid body, in classical mechanics. A rigid body motion is in effect the same as a curve in the Euclidean group. Starting with a body B oriented in a certain way at time t = 0, its orientation at any other time is related to the starting orientation by a Euclidean motion, say f(t). Setting t = 0, we have f(0) = I, the identity transformation. This means that the curve will always lie inside E+(3), in fact: starting at the identity transformation I, such a continuous curve can certainly never reach anything other than a direct isometry. This is for simple topological reasons: the determinant of the transformation cannot jump from +1 to −1.
Thanks, so Euclid did not address kinetics contrary to your suggestion.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:28 am
2. What is the relevance of the curvature of the Earth to Euclidean geometry?[/b]
Helllooo, pay attention! I am trying to build a coffee table. Do I need to take the curvature of the Earth into account or not? If not - why not?
OK, so the curvature of the Earth has no relevance to Euclidean geometry, contrary to what you suggested.
You should be told you're brain is farting.
EB
Actually Kinetics is premised in Particle A moving to Particle B, thus necessitating all atomism effectively existing as linearism and time. Euclidian geometry is the foundation for understanding time and relativity.
The Euclidean group for SE(3) is used for the kinematics of a rigid body, in classical mechanics. A rigid body motion is in effect the same as a curve in the Euclidean group. Starting with a body B oriented in a certain way at time t = 0, its orientation at any other time is related to the starting orientation by a Euclidean motion, say f(t). Setting t = 0, we have f(0) = I, the identity transformation. This means that the curve will always lie inside E+(3), in fact: starting at the identity transformation I, such a continuous curve can certainly never reach anything other than a direct isometry. This is for simple topological reasons: the determinant of the transformation cannot jump from +1 to −1.
Thanks, so Euclid did not address kinetics contrary to your suggestion.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:28 am
2. What is the relevance of the curvature of the Earth to Euclidean geometry?[/b]
Helllooo, pay attention! I am trying to build a coffee table. Do I need to take the curvature of the Earth into account or not? If not - why not?
OK, so the curvature of the Earth has no relevance to Euclidean geometry, contrary to what you suggested.
You should be told you're brain is farting.
EB
Thanks, so Euclid did not address kinetics contrary to your suggestion.
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:43 am
Helllooo, pay attention! I am trying to build a coffee table. Do I need to take the curvature of the Earth into account or not? If not - why not?
OK, so the curvature of the Earth has no relevance to Euclidean geometry, contrary to what you suggested.
You should be told you're brain is farting.
EB
Just as one thinks he can't get any dumber.
Did you really expect much from a speaking pigeon?
