Discussion in 'Survival and Wilderness Skills' started by charlie, Apr 30, 2017.
Forget what compass is best and strive to never be anywhere you need a compass.
My go to compasses are the Suunto MC-2 NH USGS, and a small Sun miniComp2 as a back-up just to double check that the Suunto compass is working correctly.
I've had times when I did not believe one compass was working correctly.... a "that can't be north?!" moment.
I almost always need a compass. Every direction feels like 'North' to me. Unless I know what time it is, and can see the sun, my innate sense of direction is non-existent. I've just learned to live with it over the years.
Euclidean geometry states that the sum of the angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees. My question is can you have a triangle made up of three 90 degree angles?
Sure, as long as you are laying your triangle out on a sphere, like the Earth....
So all you folks that get lost easily just need to move to the south pole and then no matter what direction you go you're headed north.
So the conclusion is ol' Euclid is not as smart as everyone thought
A man should be able to tell the time with a compass. And direction with a pocket watch.
I have an uncanny sense of direction. And a horrible sense of time.
Isn't Euclidean geometry only 2 dimensional?
From what I've heard the theories / equations were taken taken by scholars to be absolute....then quite some time after Euclid someone came along and said "but what about a 3rd dimension?" and sort of rocked the boat on what everyone originally thought. Now, I may be wrong because I don't trust what I hear on this Chinese TV.
You got a new TV?
It all worked fine as long as the earth was flat....
No. Not according to the definition of a triangle.:
"a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles.""
Laying it out on a sphere the sides are no longer straight. They are curved. Euclid was right.))
And lest you get worried over what is a straight line:straight line - a line traced by a point traveling in a constant direction; a line of zero curvature; "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" line -
You need to take that up with Eienstein. There is no such thing as a straight line with no curvature in the universe.
WOW this thread has really gotten all scienthearetical what happened to what's the best device for finding North?
The rules and definitions we made for our standard geometry are the definitions I gave above. People can 'create' new definitions and manipulate geometry for fun but the old rules still apply and we still operate with those definitions and standards. In the hypothesis that you can wrap a triangle around a globe and achieve a triangle with 3- 90 degree angles the definitions of a straight line are ignored which makes the whole hypothesis invalid. The lines that make the true triangle actually travel through the earth's solid matter to make a straight line. Laying it on the surface creates an entirely different geometric form using curved lines.
Sorry but I don't buy it. It is an urban myth type thing,))
But there is no such a thing as a truly straight line. It works for 2 dimensional geometry but doesn't work for the universe. In theory I would agree with you but in reality I still say you need to take that up with Einstein. Here's a quick discussion on it: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3l18zs/how_can_there_be_no_straight_lines_in_space/
Here's all you need to know: Start at the North pole and set your compass on 180 degrees. Walk until you get to the Equator, then set your compass on 90 degrees and walk that azimuth as far as you want. When you get tired set your compass on 360 degrees and you will arrive back at the north pole where you started.
Here's you another good brain read, Mike: https://www.quora.com/If-space-is-c...lines-curve-if-they-were-extended-long-enough
I agree in the universe there may not be a truly straight line. But for practical everyday geometry we have to use the rules we have always used to govern problems. Else we would never solve anything. We would always be endlessly mired in what the meaning of "is" "is".))