Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

Marko Rauhamaa wrote: It is actually quite interesting how the brain forms an accurate idea of a straight line and, say, a circle. Whenever you get a new pair of glasses, the brain needs a recalibration and manages to do it within a week. I had an interesting experience in that area a few

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 15:31, Steve D'Aprano wrote: > Light follows geodesics, not straight lines. What is a straight line on a curved space if not a geodesic? That was actually what I was getting at. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 05:19 am, Random832 wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 15:06, Steve D'Aprano wrote: >> No, the horizon would still be horizontal. It merely wouldn't *look* >> horizontal, an optical illusion. > > I guess that depends on your definition of what a horizon is - and what > a

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On 09/15/2016 12:19 PM, Random832 wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 15:06, Steve D'Aprano wrote: No, the horizon would still be horizontal. It merely wouldn't *look* horizontal, an optical illusion. I guess that depends on your definition of what a horizon is - and what a straight line is, if

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

Random832 : > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 15:06, Steve D'Aprano wrote: >> No, the horizon would still be horizontal. It merely wouldn't *look* >> horizontal, an optical illusion. > > I guess that depends on your definition of what a horizon is - and > what a straight line is,

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 15:06, Steve D'Aprano wrote: > No, the horizon would still be horizontal. It merely wouldn't *look* > horizontal, an optical illusion. I guess that depends on your definition of what a horizon is - and what a straight line is, if not the path followed by a beam of light.

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 04:02 pm, Random832 wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 23:12, Steve D'Aprano wrote: >> Yes it does. Even an infinitely large flat plane has a horizon almost >> identical to the actual horizon. > > Your link actually doesn't support the latter claim, it goes into some > detail

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Steve D'Aprano wrote: >> Kanvas? > > Oh vorry about that, that'v a villy mivtake. I obsiouvly meant to type > Kansav. We're not in Kanvas any more, Toto! ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:45 pm, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2016-09-15, Steve D'Aprano wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 06:19 am, breamore...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> It is so blantantly obvious that the world is not flat I find this >>> discussion flabbergasting. >> >> You

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On 2016-09-15, Steve D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 06:19 am, breamore...@gmail.com wrote: > >> It is so blantantly obvious that the world is not flat I find this >> discussion flabbergasting. > > You wouldn't say that if you lived in Kanvas, or the west coast

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: And then there is Pratchett's Discworld... which is both flat and round (just not spherical) And it has a horizon -- if you go far enough you fall off the edge. -- Greg -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:04:26 -0700, Chris Kaynor wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:19 PM, wrote: > >> It is so blantantly obvious that the world is not flat I find this >> discussion flabbergasting. Anybody who has tried to take any form of >> vehicle up, or probably

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On 9/14/16 5:40 PM, Steve D'Aprano wrote: If you're going to criticise Asimov, don't criticise him for wrongly thinking that people in the Middle Ages believed in a flat earth. There's no evidence of that in his essay. I didn't mean to criticize Asimov, but the History Professors, one in

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 23:12, Steve D'Aprano wrote: > Yes it does. Even an infinitely large flat plane has a horizon almost > identical to the actual horizon. Your link actually doesn't support the latter claim, it goes into some detail on why it wouldn't if it were infinitely large due to

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:44 am, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 1:26:49 PM UTC+12, Chris Kaynor wrote: >> If you find somebody determined to not trust evidence such as the blue >> marble photos, it can be quite hard to prove that the world is not flat. > > A flat

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 1:26:49 PM UTC+12, Chris Kaynor wrote: > If you find somebody determined to not trust evidence such as the blue > marble photos, it can be quite hard to prove that the world is not flat. A flat world doesn’t have a horizon. --

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:19 PM, wrote: > It is so blantantly obvious that the world is not flat I find this > discussion flabbergasting. Anybody who has tried to take any form of > vehicle up, or probably more dangerously down, any form of hill knows > that. As for the

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 06:19 am, breamore...@gmail.com wrote: > It is so blantantly obvious that the world is not flat I find this > discussion flabbergasting. You wouldn't say that if you lived in Kanvas, or the west coast of Ireland. I'm told that a few years ago somebody accidentally dumped a

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 03:43 am, Dale Marvin wrote: > On 9/14/16 12:20 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Wednesday 14 September 2016 16:54, Rustom Mody wrote: >> >>> everything we know will be negated in 5-50-500 years >> >> I'm pretty sure that in 5, 50, 500 or even 5000 years, the sun will still >>

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 9:00:04 PM UTC+1, MRAB wrote: > On 2016-09-14 18:43, Dale Marvin via Python-list wrote: > > On 9/14/16 12:20 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> On Wednesday 14 September 2016 16:54, Rustom Mody wrote: > >> > >>> everything we know will be negated in 5-50-500 years

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On 2016-09-14 18:43, Dale Marvin via Python-list wrote: On 9/14/16 12:20 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Wednesday 14 September 2016 16:54, Rustom Mody wrote: everything we know will be negated in 5-50-500 years I'm pretty sure that in 5, 50, 500 or even 5000 years, the sun will still rise in

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On 9/14/16 12:20 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Wednesday 14 September 2016 16:54, Rustom Mody wrote: everything we know will be negated in 5-50-500 years I'm pretty sure that in 5, 50, 500 or even 5000 years, the sun will still rise in the east, water will be wet, fire will burn, dogs will

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 6:54:39 PM UTC+12, Rustom Mody wrote: > Yet we remain cocksure of our assumtions inspite of the repeated data > that everything we know will be negated in 5-50-500 years Let’s see, 500 years ago, people knew * That the world is round, and how to measure its

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Wednesday 14 September 2016 16:54, Rustom Mody wrote: > everything we know will be negated in 5-50-500 years I'm pretty sure that in 5, 50, 500 or even 5000 years, the sun will still rise in the east, water will be wet, fire will burn, dogs will have mammary glands and frogs[1] won't, and

Re: Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 10:52:48 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > (Unlike *our* divine revelation, which is clearly the truth, the whole truth, > and nothing but the truth, *their* divine revolution is illusion, error and > lies. All of the gods are myth and superstition, except