On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> are straight lines.

You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
Colorado as a rectangle. But since getting you to grasp non-Euclidean
geometry is almost as successful as teaching a toddler brain surgery,
further effort to teach you is worthless.

(and one difference is, the toddler could possibly grow up and actually
become a brain surgeon one day)

Am 26.01.2022 um 21:04 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 26.01.2022 um 14:41 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 26.01.2022 um 10:26 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>>> Mass and matter are different things, because the first is a quantity
>>>>>> and the latter a thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mass can be used for matter interchangeably in English.
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes.
>>>>
>>>> But not in physics.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>
>>> Matter is that which has mass and occupies volume in physics. Also in
>>> physics, matter consists of interacting fermions.
>>>
>>
>> mass is a measure, for which we use the unit 'kilogram'.
>>
>> 'Matter' is the name we give to 'stuff'. That is something like
>> 'material object'.
>>
>> Both terms don't - NOT even remotely - address the same thing.
>
> I didn’t say they did. I just told you what matter means in physics.

I have to appologize, because I actually meant Micheal Moroney mainly
and you, who assited him.

He wrote:

"Mass can be used for matter interchangeably in English. "

I wanted to explain, why this is wrong.

I think, it is so phantastically wrong in physics, that I'm allowed to
write something bad.

But what he wrote is apparently common practice in modern physics, what
is a reason to be sceptic about it.

But if 'm' in E=m*c² does not address matter, than what else?

IOW: what does this equation say?

E and m denote scalar non-negative measures, which are used in
engineering and physics.

m is a measure for inertial behaviour of material objects and E is
associated with some sort of transformation or change.

So: E and m do not measure the same quantity and are not related to the
same thing (and are no things themselves).

TH

>> mass is one of the attributes of a material object, but not the only one.

On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
> > are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> > are straight lines.
> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
> Colorado as a rectangle.

And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.
And poor stinker Python not only stopped to insist that
2+2=sqrt(7) in his ring, but also impudently lie he never did...
I sometimes convince someone.

On 1/27/2022 1:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>>> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
>>> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
>>> are straight lines.
>> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
>> Colorado as a rectangle.
>
>
> And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.

So, drunken janitor, if that map has 4 perfectly straight borders and 4
perfectly right angles, how can you explain how Colorado doesn't have 4
straight lines as borders?

> I sometimes convince someone.
>

About the only thing you can convince anyone of is that you must be a
charter member of the Room Temperature IQ club. And none of that
Fahrenheit monkey business, either.

On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 09:02:54 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/27/2022 1:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
> >>> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> >>> are straight lines.
> >> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
> >> Colorado as a rectangle.
> >
> >
> > And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> > are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.
> So, drunken janitor, if that map has 4 perfectly straight borders and 4
> perfectly right angles, how can you explain how Colorado doesn't have 4
> straight lines as borders?

It's simple, stupid Mike: anyone can draw anything as a "map of
Colorado". Yeah, Colorado is often mapped as a rectangle, Mercator's
map has many advantages, but many maps are mapping it differently,
too.
And - see - you're now convinced that Colorado doesn't really have
4 straight lines as borders... Sometimes I succeed in convincing
even such a stubborn idiot as you are.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 26.01.2022 um 21:04 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 26.01.2022 um 14:41 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>> Am 26.01.2022 um 10:26 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>>>> Mass and matter are different things, because the first is a quantity
>>>>>>> and the latter a thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mass can be used for matter interchangeably in English.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But not in physics.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matter is that which has mass and occupies volume in physics. Also in
>>>> physics, matter consists of interacting fermions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> mass is a measure, for which we use the unit 'kilogram'.
>>>
>>> 'Matter' is the name we give to 'stuff'. That is something like
>>> 'material object'.
>>>
>>> Both terms don't - NOT even remotely - address the same thing.
>>
>> I didn’t say they did. I just told you what matter means in physics.
>
>
> I have to appologize, because I actually meant Micheal Moroney mainly
> and you, who assited him.
>
> He wrote:
>
> "Mass can be used for matter interchangeably in English. "
>
> I wanted to explain, why this is wrong.
>
> I think, it is so phantastically wrong in physics, that I'm allowed to
> write something bad.
>
> But what he wrote is apparently common practice in modern physics, what
> is a reason to be sceptic about it.
>
> But if 'm' in E=m*c² does not address matter, than what else?
>
> IOW: what does this equation say?
>
> E and m denote scalar non-negative measures, which are used in
> engineering and physics.

Yes.

>
> m is a measure for inertial behaviour of material objects and E is
> associated with some sort of transformation or change.
>
> So: E and m do not measure the same quantity and are not related to the
> same thing (and are no things themselves).

That’s ok. F=ma is a relation between force and acceleration, and those are
not identical things either. The equality does not mean “These are two
things of identical semantic content.” If it did, it would be a useless
tautology. What the equation means is something in fact interesting: “These
two different quantities are related in nontrivial way, such that the
numerical value of one can systematically related to the numerical value of
the other. This means that if you know the numerical value of one, then you
can determine the numerical value of the other through this relation.”

The same thing is true of Gauss’ law, which relates a scalar property of
the electric vector field to a scalar charge density. This is an
interesting relation precisely because electric field is not charge, but
you can relate the two in a nontrivial way that is always true.

>
>
> TH
>
>
>>> mass is one of the attributes of a material object, but not the only one.
>
>

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

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>>> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
>>> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
>>> are straight lines.
>> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
>> Colorado as a rectangle.
>
>
> And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.
> And poor stinker Python not only stopped to insist that
> 2+2=sqrt(7) in his ring, but also impudently lie he never did...
> I sometimes convince someone.
>
>

Well, two of Colorado’s state borders are straight and two are not, which
is different than what you were trying to tell me.

So is your objective to claim that you are correct, or that I was wrong? If
it is entirely satisfying to you that I am occasionally wrong, then be
satisfied. This of course does not mean that I am always wrong.
You, on the other hand, seem hell-bent on insisting that you are always
right and that everyone else here is always wrong, and that’s a bad sign
for you psychologically.

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

On 1/27/2022 3:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 09:02:54 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/27/2022 1:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
>>>>> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
>>>>> are straight lines.
>>>> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
>>>> Colorado as a rectangle.
>>>
>>>
>>> And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
>>> are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.
>> So, drunken janitor, if that map has 4 perfectly straight borders and 4
>> perfectly right angles, how can you explain how Colorado doesn't have 4
>> straight lines as borders?
>
> It's simple, stupid Mike: anyone can draw anything as a "map of
> Colorado". Yeah, Colorado is often mapped as a rectangle, Mercator's
> map has many advantages, but many maps are mapping it differently,
> too.

If it's a map of Colorado, and it's a rectangle but Colorado doesn't
have 4 straight lines as borders, how can that be, janitor? Are you
telling us the map drawers are deliberately distorting Colorado into a
rectangle for some evil purpose?

> And - see - you're now convinced that Colorado doesn't really have
> 4 straight lines as borders... Sometimes I succeed in convincing
> even such a stubborn idiot as you are.

And once again, you have convinced nobody of anything other than that
you are the halfbrain around here. And do you realize that much of my
posts on this topic were devil's advocate posts? To try to get you and
others to have a clue on non-Euclidean geometry such as earth's surface
mapping? Oh no, you'll run to a dictionary and claim I'm some demon
working for Satan personally or something.

On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 16:17:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/27/2022 3:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 09:02:54 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 1/27/2022 1:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
> >>>>> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> >>>>> are straight lines.
> >>>> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
> >>>> Colorado as a rectangle.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> >>> are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.
> >> So, drunken janitor, if that map has 4 perfectly straight borders and 4
> >> perfectly right angles, how can you explain how Colorado doesn't have 4
> >> straight lines as borders?
> >
> > It's simple, stupid Mike: anyone can draw anything as a "map of
> > Colorado". Yeah, Colorado is often mapped as a rectangle, Mercator's
> > map has many advantages, but many maps are mapping it differently,
> > too.
> If it's a map of Colorado, and it's a rectangle but Colorado doesn't
> have 4 straight lines as borders, how can that be, janitor?

https://pl.depositphotos.com/115567992/stock-illustration-july-05-2016-the-character.html
How can it be, stupid Mike? How can Trump have bigger head than
legs?

> Are you
> telling us the map drawers are deliberately distorting Colorado into a
> rectangle for some evil purpose?

No, stupid Mike, they are deliberately distorting Colorado
into a rectangle for some good purpose. As an idiot, of
course, you can't distinguish.

> > And - see - you're now convinced that Colorado doesn't really have
> > 4 straight lines as borders... Sometimes I succeed in convincing
> > even such a stubborn idiot as you are.
> And once again, you have convinced nobody of anything other

You said Colorado has 4 straight borders, You've
stopped saying THIS nonsense. You've been
convionced, stupid Mike. Sorry.

On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 15:46:46 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
> >>> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> >>> are straight lines.
> >> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
> >> Colorado as a rectangle.
> >
> >
> > And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> > are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.
> > And poor stinker Python not only stopped to insist that
> > 2+2=sqrt(7) in his ring, but also impudently lie he never did...
> > I sometimes convince someone.
> >
> >
> Well, two of Colorado’s state borders are straight and two are not, which
> is different than what you were trying to tell me.

I've only convinced you about 2 of them. You're an idiot
and convincing you to anything is extremly hard, but
I partially succeeded. With some help of another, slightly
more competent idiot, I admit.

Am 27.01.2022 um 15:46 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 26.01.2022 um 21:04 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 26.01.2022 um 14:41 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Am 26.01.2022 um 10:26 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>>>>>>>> Mass and matter are different things, because the first is a quantity
>>>>>>>> and the latter a thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mass can be used for matter interchangeably in English.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But not in physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TH
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matter is that which has mass and occupies volume in physics. Also in
>>>>> physics, matter consists of interacting fermions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mass is a measure, for which we use the unit 'kilogram'.
>>>>
>>>> 'Matter' is the name we give to 'stuff'. That is something like
>>>> 'material object'.
>>>>
>>>> Both terms don't - NOT even remotely - address the same thing.
>>>
>>> I didn’t say they did. I just told you what matter means in physics.
>>
>>
>> I have to appologize, because I actually meant Micheal Moroney mainly
>> and you, who assited him.
>>
>> He wrote:
>>
>> "Mass can be used for matter interchangeably in English."
>>
>> I wanted to explain, why this is wrong.
>>
>> I think, it is so phantastically wrong in physics, that I'm allowed to
>> write something bad.
>>
>> But what he wrote is apparently common practice in modern physics, what
>> is a reason to be sceptic about it.
>>
>> But if 'm' in E=m*c² does not address matter, than what else?
>>
>> IOW: what does this equation say?
>>
>> E and m denote scalar non-negative measures, which are used in
>> engineering and physics.
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> m is a measure for inertial behaviour of material objects and E is
>> associated with some sort of transformation or change.
>>
>> So: E and m do not measure the same quantity and are not related to the
>> same thing (and are no things themselves).
>
> That’s ok. F=ma is a relation between force and acceleration, and those are
> not identical things either. The equality does not mean “These are two
> things of identical semantic content.” If it did, it would be a useless
> tautology. What the equation means is something in fact interesting: “These
> two different quantities are related in nontrivial way, such that the
> numerical value of one can systematically related to the numerical value of
> the other. This means that if you know the numerical value of one, then you
> can determine the numerical value of the other through this relation.”
>
> The same thing is true of Gauss’ law, which relates a scalar property of
> the electric vector field to a scalar charge density. This is an
> interesting relation precisely because electric field is not charge, but
> you can relate the two in a nontrivial way that is always true.

Well, thanks.

This one of the few occasions, where I have not received insults.

TH

>

On 1/27/2022 11:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 16:17:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/27/2022 3:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 09:02:54 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/2022 1:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
>>>>>>> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
>>>>>>> are straight lines.
>>>>>> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
>>>>>> Colorado as a rectangle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
>>>>> are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.
>>>> So, drunken janitor, if that map has 4 perfectly straight borders and 4
>>>> perfectly right angles, how can you explain how Colorado doesn't have 4
>>>> straight lines as borders?
>>>
>>> It's simple, stupid Mike: anyone can draw anything as a "map of
>>> Colorado". Yeah, Colorado is often mapped as a rectangle, Mercator's
>>> map has many advantages, but many maps are mapping it differently,
>>> too.
>> If it's a map of Colorado, and it's a rectangle but Colorado doesn't
>> have 4 straight lines as borders, how can that be, janitor?
>
> https://pl.depositphotos.com/115567992/stock-illustration-july-05-2016-the-character.html
> How can it be, stupid Mike? How can Trump have bigger head than
> legs?
>
>
>> Are you
>> telling us the map drawers are deliberately distorting Colorado into a
>> rectangle for some evil purpose?
>
> No, stupid Mike, they are deliberately distorting Colorado into a rectangle

Why not just make a map of Colorado that is not distorted, janitor? What
good can be done where an east-west road near the northern border is the
same length as an east-west road near the southern border if it isn't?

>>> And - see - you're now convinced that Colorado doesn't really have
>>> 4 straight lines as borders... Sometimes I succeed in convincing
>>> even such a stubborn idiot as you are.
>> And once again, you have convinced nobody of anything other
>
> You said Colorado has 4 straight borders, You've
> stopped saying THIS nonsense.

Yet on that map, it DOES have 4 straight borders! Take another swig of
vodka and explain that!

> You've been
> convionced, stupid Mike. Sorry.

Convinced that you're drunk? I've been convinced of that for a long time.

On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 15:03:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/27/2022 11:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 16:17:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 1/27/2022 3:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 09:02:54 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 1/27/2022 1:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
> >>>>>>> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> >>>>>>> are straight lines.
> >>>>>> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
> >>>>>> Colorado as a rectangle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> >>>>> are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.
> >>>> So, drunken janitor, if that map has 4 perfectly straight borders and 4
> >>>> perfectly right angles, how can you explain how Colorado doesn't have 4
> >>>> straight lines as borders?
> >>>
> >>> It's simple, stupid Mike: anyone can draw anything as a "map of
> >>> Colorado". Yeah, Colorado is often mapped as a rectangle, Mercator's
> >>> map has many advantages, but many maps are mapping it differently,
> >>> too.
> >> If it's a map of Colorado, and it's a rectangle but Colorado doesn't
> >> have 4 straight lines as borders, how can that be, janitor?
> >
> > https://pl.depositphotos.com/115567992/stock-illustration-july-05-2016-the-character.html
> > How can it be, stupid Mike? How can Trump have bigger head than
> > legs?
> >
> >
> >> Are you
> >> telling us the map drawers are deliberately distorting Colorado into a
> >> rectangle for some evil purpose?
> >
> > No, stupid Mike, they are deliberately distorting Colorado into a rectangle
> Why not just make a map of Colorado that is not distorted, janitor?

Because an Euclidean sphere can't be mapped on an Euclidean
plane without a distortion, stupid Mike. If you had some
competence in math you would know.

> > You said Colorado has 4 straight borders, You've
> > stopped saying THIS nonsense.
> Yet on that map, it DOES have 4 straight borders!

Yet on that drawing
https://pl.depositphotos.com/115567992/stock-illustration-july-05-2016-the-character.html
Trump has the head bigger than legs, stupid Mike.
Nothing to explain. It's just a drawing.

> > You've been
> > convionced, stupid Mike. Sorry.
> Convinced that you're drunk? I've been convinced of that for a long time.

Sure, and you've been also convinced that Colorado doesn't
have 4 straight-line borders.

On 1/28/2022 9:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 15:03:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/27/2022 11:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 16:17:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/2022 3:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 09:02:54 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/2022 1:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
>>>>>>>>> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
>>>>>>>>> are straight lines.
>>>>>>>> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
>>>>>>>> Colorado as a rectangle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
>>>>>>> are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.
>>>>>> So, drunken janitor, if that map has 4 perfectly straight borders and 4
>>>>>> perfectly right angles, how can you explain how Colorado doesn't have 4
>>>>>> straight lines as borders?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's simple, stupid Mike: anyone can draw anything as a "map of
>>>>> Colorado". Yeah, Colorado is often mapped as a rectangle, Mercator's
>>>>> map has many advantages, but many maps are mapping it differently,
>>>>> too.
>>>> If it's a map of Colorado, and it's a rectangle but Colorado doesn't
>>>> have 4 straight lines as borders, how can that be, janitor?
>>>
>>> https://pl.depositphotos.com/115567992/stock-illustration-july-05-2016-the-character.html
>>> How can it be, stupid Mike? How can Trump have bigger head than
>>> legs?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are you
>>>> telling us the map drawers are deliberately distorting Colorado into a
>>>> rectangle for some evil purpose?
>>>
>>> No, stupid Mike, they are deliberately distorting Colorado into a rectangle
>> Why not just make a map of Colorado that is not distorted, janitor?
>
> Because an Euclidean sphere can't be mapped on an Euclidean
> plane without a distortion, stupid Mike. If you had some
> competence in math you would know.

Of course a sphere cannot be mapped to a plane, janitor! A sphere is 3
dimensional while a plane is 2 dimensional.

What you should have said is that a non-Euclidean surface of a sphere (2
dimensional) cannot be mapped to a Euclidean plane (2 dimensional)
without distortion, because the sphere surface is curved in the third
dimension while a plane isn't. And that's the basis of non-Euclidean
geometry, the effects of that difference.

>>> You've been
>>> convionced, stupid Mike. Sorry.

>> Convinced that you're drunk? I've been convinced of that for a long time.
>
> Sure,

You admit that you are a drunk? Good, that's a start for you.

> and you've been also convinced that Colorado doesn't
> have 4 straight-line borders.

Nope, I knew that all along as I torment you with non-Euclidean geometry.
>

On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 16:10:41 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/28/2022 9:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 15:03:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 1/27/2022 11:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 16:17:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 1/27/2022 3:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 09:02:54 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/27/2022 1:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
> >>>>>>>>> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> >>>>>>>>> are straight lines.
> >>>>>>>> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
> >>>>>>>> Colorado as a rectangle.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> >>>>>>> are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.
> >>>>>> So, drunken janitor, if that map has 4 perfectly straight borders and 4
> >>>>>> perfectly right angles, how can you explain how Colorado doesn't have 4
> >>>>>> straight lines as borders?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's simple, stupid Mike: anyone can draw anything as a "map of
> >>>>> Colorado". Yeah, Colorado is often mapped as a rectangle, Mercator's
> >>>>> map has many advantages, but many maps are mapping it differently,
> >>>>> too.
> >>>> If it's a map of Colorado, and it's a rectangle but Colorado doesn't
> >>>> have 4 straight lines as borders, how can that be, janitor?
> >>>
> >>> https://pl.depositphotos.com/115567992/stock-illustration-july-05-2016-the-character.html
> >>> How can it be, stupid Mike? How can Trump have bigger head than
> >>> legs?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Are you
> >>>> telling us the map drawers are deliberately distorting Colorado into a
> >>>> rectangle for some evil purpose?
> >>>
> >>> No, stupid Mike, they are deliberately distorting Colorado into a rectangle
> >> Why not just make a map of Colorado that is not distorted, janitor?
> >
> > Because an Euclidean sphere can't be mapped on an Euclidean
> > plane without a distortion, stupid Mike. If you had some
> > competence in math you would know.
> Of course a sphere cannot be mapped to a plane, janitor! A sphere is 3
> dimensional while a plane is 2 dimensional.

So is a cube - and can be mapped, stupid Mike.

>
> What you should have said

Your opinion of what I should have said doesn't
interest me a slightest bit, stupid Mike.

> >> Convinced that you're drunk? I've been convinced of that for a long time.
> >
> > Sure,
> You admit that you are a drunk?

No, stupid Mike, I admit you're convinced that I'm drunk.

> > and you've been also convinced that Colorado doesn't
> > have 4 straight-line borders.
> Nope, I knew that all

Nope, stupid Mike. Google keeps record.

On 1/28/2022 1:26 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 16:10:41 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/28/2022 9:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 15:03:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/2022 11:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 16:17:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/2022 3:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 09:02:54 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2022 1:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
>>>>>>>>>>> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
>>>>>>>>>>> are straight lines.
>>>>>>>>>> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
>>>>>>>>>> Colorado as a rectangle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
>>>>>>>>> are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.
>>>>>>>> So, drunken janitor, if that map has 4 perfectly straight borders and 4
>>>>>>>> perfectly right angles, how can you explain how Colorado doesn't have 4
>>>>>>>> straight lines as borders?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's simple, stupid Mike: anyone can draw anything as a "map of
>>>>>>> Colorado". Yeah, Colorado is often mapped as a rectangle, Mercator's
>>>>>>> map has many advantages, but many maps are mapping it differently,
>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>> If it's a map of Colorado, and it's a rectangle but Colorado doesn't
>>>>>> have 4 straight lines as borders, how can that be, janitor?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://pl.depositphotos.com/115567992/stock-illustration-july-05-2016-the-character.html
>>>>> How can it be, stupid Mike? How can Trump have bigger head than
>>>>> legs?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you
>>>>>> telling us the map drawers are deliberately distorting Colorado into a
>>>>>> rectangle for some evil purpose?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, stupid Mike, they are deliberately distorting Colorado into a rectangle
>>>> Why not just make a map of Colorado that is not distorted, janitor?
>>>
>>> Because an Euclidean sphere can't be mapped on an Euclidean
>>> plane without a distortion, stupid Mike. If you had some
>>> competence in math you would know.
>> Of course a sphere cannot be mapped to a plane, janitor! A sphere is 3
>> dimensional while a plane is 2 dimensional.
>
>
> So is a cube - and can be mapped, stupid Mike.

Try mapping a cube at a corner, janitor.

The rest of it is flat (locally Euclidean) and maps fine.
>
>>
>> What you should have said
>
> Your opinion of what I should have said doesn't
> interest me a slightest bit, stupid Mike.

It only matters if you want to try to be correct. Which you don't.
>
>
>>>> Convinced that you're drunk? I've been convinced of that for a long time.
>>>
>>> Sure,
>> You admit that you are a drunk?
>
> No, stupid Mike, I admit you're convinced that I'm drunk.

If you don't want to convince everyone that you are, don't act like one.
>
>
>>> and you've been also convinced that Colorado doesn't
>>> have 4 straight-line borders.
>> Nope, I knew that all
>
> Nope, stupid Mike. Google keeps record.

Yes It does. I've been playing devil's advocate all along, since I knew
full well what the issues are when trying to map a non-Euclidean surface
onto a flat map.

On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 23:58:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/28/2022 1:26 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 16:10:41 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 1/28/2022 9:23 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 15:03:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 1/27/2022 11:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 16:17:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/27/2022 3:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 09:02:54 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 1/27/2022 1:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 00:00:00 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2022 5:16 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, poor stinker, neither poor idiot Odd nor stupid Mike
> >>>>>>>>>>> are still insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> >>>>>>>>>>> are straight lines.
> >>>>>>>>>> You never did answer whether the MAP I referenced was itself showing
> >>>>>>>>>> Colorado as a rectangle.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And you're no longer insisting that the borders of Colorado state
> >>>>>>>>> are straight lines. Or are you, stupid Mike? You're convinced.
> >>>>>>>> So, drunken janitor, if that map has 4 perfectly straight borders and 4
> >>>>>>>> perfectly right angles, how can you explain how Colorado doesn't have 4
> >>>>>>>> straight lines as borders?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's simple, stupid Mike: anyone can draw anything as a "map of
> >>>>>>> Colorado". Yeah, Colorado is often mapped as a rectangle, Mercator's
> >>>>>>> map has many advantages, but many maps are mapping it differently,
> >>>>>>> too.
> >>>>>> If it's a map of Colorado, and it's a rectangle but Colorado doesn't
> >>>>>> have 4 straight lines as borders, how can that be, janitor?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://pl.depositphotos.com/115567992/stock-illustration-july-05-2016-the-character.html
> >>>>> How can it be, stupid Mike? How can Trump have bigger head than
> >>>>> legs?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you
> >>>>>> telling us the map drawers are deliberately distorting Colorado into a
> >>>>>> rectangle for some evil purpose?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, stupid Mike, they are deliberately distorting Colorado into a rectangle
> >>>> Why not just make a map of Colorado that is not distorted, janitor?
> >>>
> >>> Because an Euclidean sphere can't be mapped on an Euclidean
> >>> plane without a distortion, stupid Mike. If you had some
> >>> competence in math you would know.
> >> Of course a sphere cannot be mapped to a plane, janitor! A sphere is 3
> >> dimensional while a plane is 2 dimensional.
> >
> >
> > So is a cube - and can be mapped, stupid Mike.
> Try mapping a cube at a corner, janitor.
>
> The rest of it is flat (locally Euclidean) and maps fine.
> >
> >>
> >> What you should have said
> >
> > Your opinion of what I should have said doesn't
> > interest me a slightest bit, stupid Mike.
> It only matters if you want to try to be correct. Which you don't.

You're not become correct by repeating dumb, incompetent
crazies. Sorry, stupid Mike.

> >
> >
> >>>> Convinced that you're drunk? I've been convinced of that for a long time.
> >>>
> >>> Sure,
> >> You admit that you are a drunk?
> >
> > No, stupid Mike, I admit you're convinced that I'm drunk.
> If you don't want to convince everyone that you are, don't act like one.

Well, stupid Mike, you're convinced to many idiocies.
Why would anyone care?

> >
> >
> >>> and you've been also convinced that Colorado doesn't
> >>> have 4 straight-line borders.
> >> Nope, I knew that all
> >
> > Nope, stupid Mike. Google keeps record.
> Yes It does. I've been playing devil's advocate

A stupid idea of stupid Mike.