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 years
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
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 straig
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
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, if not the path followed
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.
-
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 o
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
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 wouldn't say that if you lived
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 of Ireland.
>
> I'm told that
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
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 more dangerously down, any
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
par
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
gravi
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 wor
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.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/lis
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 raving lunatics who make
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 tr
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
>>
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
>
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
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 ha
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 radi
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 t
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
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 2:26:21 PM UTC+12, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:11:39 PM UTC+12, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> I have some _extremely_ strong views about absolutes (they come from the
>>> Crea
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
It has been prophesied that God will
eventually write a Version 2 of the universe which will have most of the
known glitches in Version 1 fixed.
Well, He did release a Religion 2.0 and sent His son
to install it, but some users resisted the upgrade and
crucified him before
On Monday 12 September 2016 12:26, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
> wrote:
>> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:11:39 PM UTC+12, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> I have some _extremely_ strong views about absolutes (they come from the
>>> Creator of the Un
Rustom Mody :
> And in the same vein, a non-messianic interpretation of the core
> Christian teaching:
> http://themindunleashed.org/2015/11/you-are-god-the-true-teachings-of-jesus.html
The link's message ("You are God") comes close to theosis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Ortho
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 4:42:39 PM UTC+5:30, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> On 9/11/2016 10:26 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > No, God isn't part of the universe, any more than an author is part of
> > his novel.
> >
> as any fiction writer will tell you, the author is found in one or more
> of
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:12:02 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> "Eric S. Johansson" :
>
>> On 9/11/2016 10:26 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> No, God isn't part of the universe, any more than an author is part of
>>> his novel.
>>>
>> as any fiction writer will tell you, the author is found in one or m
"Eric S. Johansson" :
> On 9/11/2016 10:26 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> No, God isn't part of the universe, any more than an author is part
>> of his novel.
>>
> as any fiction writer will tell you, the author is found in one or
> more of their characters.
God created us in his image. IOW, God is
On 09/12/2016 03:11 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
I could not agree more with what you said above, so I hope this will put the
discussion in better perspective, especially when people here trying to be
overly absolute in their views (which was
On 9/11/2016 10:26 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> No, God isn't part of the universe, any more than an author is part of
> his novel.
>
as any fiction writer will tell you, the author is found in one or more
of their characters.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 11/09/2016 21:30, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
On 10.09.2016 15:00, Chris Angelico wrote:
Some things are absolute hard facts. There is no way in which 1 will
ever be greater than 2, ergo "1 is less than 2" is strictly true, and
not a matter of opinion. If you hear someone trying to claim
otherwise,
Il 12/09/2016 04:26, Chris Angelico ha scritto:
So whoever created the Universe also created the Creator...
No, God isn't part of the universe, any more than an author is part of
his novel.
your logic is based on the assumption that the _existance_ itself,
i.e. the mere presence of something,
On 2016-09-12 03:26, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
wrote:
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:11:39 PM UTC+12, Chris Angelico wrote:
I have some _extremely_ strong views about absolutes (they come from the
Creator of the Universe) ...
By “Universe
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:11:39 PM UTC+12, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> I have some _extremely_ strong views about absolutes (they come from the
>> Creator of the Universe) ...
>
> By “Universe” do you mean “everything that exists
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:11:39 PM UTC+12, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I have some _extremely_ strong views about absolutes (they come from the
> Creator of the Universe) ...
By “Universe” do you mean “everything that exists”? So if the Creator exists,
then the Creator, too, must be part of
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>
> I could not agree more with what you said above, so I hope this will put the
> discussion in better perspective, especially when people here trying to be
> overly absolute in their views (which was the quote about).
>
Strange that you thin
On 10.09.2016 15:00, Chris Angelico wrote:
Some things are absolute hard facts. There is no way in which 1 will
ever be greater than 2, ergo "1 is less than 2" is strictly true, and
not a matter of opinion. If you hear someone trying to claim
otherwise, would you let him have his opinion, or woul
On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:00:47 AM UTC+12, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>> You might have heard of: "There are no such things as facts, just opinions.
>
> Yes, I've heard that. It is false.
It’s very easy to see why: start by asking wh
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 6:30:47 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Redirecting to python-list as I don't believe this belongs on -ideas.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>> > You might have heard of: "T
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 6:30:47 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Redirecting to python-list as I don't believe this belongs on -ideas.
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> > You might have heard of: "There are no such things as facts, just opinions.
> > Every
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 6:30:47 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Redirecting to python-list as I don't believe this belongs on -ideas.
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> >> On 08.09.2016 04:00, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:43:
Redirecting to python-list as I don't believe this belongs on -ideas.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>> On 08.09.2016 04:00, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:43:59PM +0200, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>>
>>> BUT experienced devs also need to recognize and r
46 matches
Mail list logo
