>A curved line cannot be ascertained as curved except by reference to
>what is straight. The universe is only non-euclidean because a non-
>euclidean space's lines are bent. But there is always an option for
>describing a straight line, no matter what the curvature of space.
>
>Kant fell out of favour when his synthetic a priori non-euclidean
>geometry was found not to be physically true. But it is physically
>true. If I walk in a straight line on a (bent) sphere I will come back
>to the same point I started from. It is no surprise, and I keep my
>straight line. An n non-Euclidean (bent) surface is just a device for
>bending all straight lines in n-1 ways.
>
>Non-euclidean geometry cannot be understood except by reference to
>what is straight, and straightness can always be represented.

>
> Kant fell out of favour when his synthetic a priori non-euclidean
> geometry was found not to be physically true.

> But it is physically
> true. If I walk in a straight line on a (bent) sphere I will come back
> to the same point I started from.

> If I walk in a straight line on a (bent) sphere I will come back
> to the same point I started from. It is no surprise, and I keep my
> straight line.

> On Sep 19, 3:41 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> Kant fell out of favour when his synthetic a priori non-euclidean
>> geometry was found not to be physically true.

>
> Nope, because Kant would drop change and or invent context, and or
> invent his own new and give multiple meanings (two or more identities
> allowing room for ambiguity) for concepts, just to suit his own
> stupidity.
>

>> But it is physically
>> true. If I walk in a straight line on a (bent) sphere I will come back
>> to the same point I started from.

>
> Oh so the line is only directionally straight? One directional?
>
> Why did you only make a reference in brackets to what is a very ...

> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:41:49 -0700, John Jones aol.com>
> wrote:
>

>>A curved line cannot be ascertained as curved except by reference to
>>what is straight. The universe is only non-euclidean because a non-
>>euclidean space's lines are bent. But there is always an option for
>>describing a straight line, no matter what the curvature of space.

>

>>Kant fell out of favour when his synthetic a priori non-euclidean
>>geometry was found not to be physically true. But it is physically
>>true. If I walk in a straight line on a (bent) sphere I will come back
>>to the same point I started from. It is no surprise, and I keep my
>>straight line. An n non-Euclidean (bent) surface is just a device for
>>bending all straight lines in n-1 ways.

>

>>Non-euclidean geometry cannot be understood except by reference to
>>what is straight, and straightness can always be represented.

> ...

> On Sep 19, 3:41 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>

>> If I walk in a straight line on a (bent) sphere I will come back
>> to the same point I started from. It is no surprise, and I keep my
>> straight line.

>
> Notice also how Kantian Jones is required to set himself a goal (to
> walk in a circle) to keep his Kantian nightmare alive. "A bent
> straight."
>
> But of course Kantian Jones would not want to talk about straight
> being anything but "dead straight" (no bends) if he wanted to plan a
> journey to the moon via the physically shortest distance and time.
>
> Straight means straight, "a bent straight line" borders on dishonest
> desperate context dropping piffle, but is required by Jones to suit
> his pre-set goal, i.e. walking in circles obviously following his
> Kantian mind.
> ...

>> Oh so the line is only directionally straight? One directional?

>
> Yes. I think it's the sort of straight line people prefer.
>

> On Sep 19, 3:41 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>

>> If I walk in a straight line on a (bent) sphere I will come back
>> to the same point I started from. It is no surprise, and I keep my
>> straight line.

>
> Notice also how Kantian Jones is required to set himself a goal (to
> walk in a circle) to keep his Kantian nightmare alive. "A bent
> straight."
>
> But of course Kantian Jones would not want to talk about straight
> being anything but "dead straight" (no bends) if he wanted to plan a
> journey to the moon via the physically shortest distance and time.
>

> A curved line cannot be ascertained as curved except by reference to
> what is straight. The universe is only non-euclidean because a non-
> euclidean space's lines are bent. But there is always an option for
> describing a straight line, no matter what the curvature of space.
>
> Kant fell out of favour when his synthetic a priori non-euclidean
> geometry was found not to be physically true. But it is physically
> true. If I walk in a straight line on a (bent) sphere I will come back
> to the same point I started from. It is no surprise, and I keep my
> straight line. An n non-Euclidean (bent) surface is just a device for
> bending all straight lines in n-1 ways.
>
> Non-euclidean geometry cannot be understood except by reference...