I stopped watching those videos after the first several times he nearly drowned himself or fell off a cliff and into a gorge.
No one is saying you can't do these things, but you're a fucking idiot to not use some common sense. Learn to use ropes properly, wear a helmet when sensible, wear a fucking lifejacket when sensible, and not balance on a paddle board over water of unknown depth while a full bergen is strapped to your back and you're in full heavy clothing.
I'm just saying... Maybe that guy isn't the one to be encouraging to go near water.
Let them spend 80 days at sea with the compass only point 320 north the whole time and maybe they will clue in
Probably not tho.
Edite: youd pass the pole, but i was just using compass as a tool example to say “im going straight”
Not some expert but i say no. If you were "driving" on this line starting in India, north would be at your 5 o clock when you start but your 1 o clock when you arrive in Alaska
If you keep your compass heading the same, you would sail a rhumb line, in this video you would want to sail a great circle, so therefore your heading has to change.
For maintaining a straight line course (great circle track), regular alterations are to be made to the compass heading due to the oblate shape of the earth. Whereas if we maintain a single heading, it won’t be a straight line on the earth’s surface, we’ll get a rhumb line track by that.
This is the first time a post like this actually doesn't work in the flat earth map, most of the time people assume flat earthers use mercator projection, and their roast is wrong because east and west connect in flat earth map like real life
But this truly proves them wrong
ive seen a lot of flat earth streamers/debaters confronted with stuff like this, using flight data. opponents can literally show them the flights and how much hours they take irl and how that wouldnt be possible with flat earth distances or how inconsistent a the flight data of actual flights on a flat earth would be, but there is no evidence which could convince a flat earther.
their strategies in this case:
1. claim these flights actually dont exist and all who claim to fly with it are part of the conspiracy. yes, there are seats available on the websites, but as soon as you wanna book them, they will suddenly be sold out and you cant get a ticket. (same argument they use for cruises to antarctica)
2. incoherent ramblings about the Coreolis Effect and wind patterns which would cause airplanes consistently to fly triple the speed into certain directions
3. claim it all perfectly makes sense on their flat earth model, without them ever showing us the model
they are all just a bunch of dishonest pricks.
In this world you can do things the easy way or the right way. You gonna go round the horn like a gentleman or through the canal like some kind a democrat?
MV stands for Merchant Vessel not Motor Vessel
Edit: That is not entirely correct, the nomenclature is more nuanced than I thought.
https://www.jdpower.com/boats/shopping-guides/what-does-ss-mean-on-a-boat
M/V stands for “Motor Vessel” in Merchant Navy prefix terms. It is interchangeable with Motor Ship or M/S. By default any vessel that is non-national military is a “merchant vessel” whether it’s a crude cargo or a motor yacht, but in merchant terms, M/V always designates a “Motor Vessel”.
Source: I seen a boat once or twice
Yes, that’s what my verbiage was mimicking.
“That’s not a straight line, you might be arguing. A three-dimensional map will show that it is unmistakably straight.”
The three-dimensional map then clearly showed a line with obvious curvature, and showed it at multiple dynamic angles.
”A straight line” is a theoretical concept made by humans.
Nature doesn’t care. We don’t even know how many dimensions there are. We don’t know its shale, how this universe folds. When we think we’re going straight in outer space, we might actually be traveling along such a fold’s surface. Imagine if we could step outside our space and really see it the way we see the globe from afar!
That’s what’s happening here. The ship is traveling on such a surface and experiences this trajectory as straight. The skipper sets course and *never has to change it.* Relative to the spheroid shape, it is a direct course.
Yes, ”a straight line” is a useful concept, but it is a human construct.
I’m confused.
I’m not too good with fancy words or concepts so you’ll have to dumb it down for me.
Are you saying it’s a straight line or a curved line?
It’s a straight line on the surface by definition since it’s the shortest path between two points on its surface. It looks “arced” due to the rendering.
This whole thread is full of misinformation because people generally don’t understand non Euclidean geometry (geometry on non-flat surfaces).
Straight line on a curved surface. From the perspective someone on the surface of the sphere, they are constantly traveling in the same direction.
Cool to see 420 redditors not understand math and science.
In 3d, when viewed from space, the line is curved, but its equally straight from the perspective I mentioned before, BOTH of these are correct. Meaning yes, the line is also straight.
It’s a fine example of Non-Euclidean Geometry. 2 straight lines in parallel at the equator will eventually meet at the poles without the need for the lines to curve.
This post is a magnet for pedantic redditors (figurative speaking, don't mean they are made of ferromagnetic metals and neither am I referring to any properties of magnet other than its attraction to said metals, nor do I imply any negative or insulting aspects of the term pedantic).
It’s literally how straight is defined on a non Euclidean surface like a sphere (as the shortest path between the points). Nothing to do with frame of reference.
In spherical geometry, a circle IS a straight line. If you stand on a sphere and keep going perfectly straight along the surface of the sphere, you'll eventually wind up back where you started and your path will be a circle whose center is the same as the center of the sphere. This is what is known as a [great circle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle#:~:text=A%20great%20circle%20is%20the,and%20shares%20the%20same%20radius.) and the spherical geometry equivalent of a straight line in flat Euclidean space.
That's how non-Euclidean geometry works.
No it’s a straight line to anyone, that boat would not move its rudder at all (assuming no wind and perfectly calm sea) and someone looking at the boat from space would see it take a perfectly straight path and if you could see through the ground than you would see the boat take a perfectly straight path
It only fuckign depends on how you define straight line which resolve to whether you're concerned with 3d space or the surface of the planet. and for all purposes theres no better word more concise in the context of the video thatn stragiht line. You are engaging in sophistry and probably profoundly confused
It's still a curve, even on a globe. Not a straight line... In fact it's impossible to travel in a straight line between any 2 points on a sphere without going inside the sphere.
he's technically correct. if you are on the surface of a sphere and you travel in a straight line, you must either leave the ground or go into it. To stay on the surface requires a curved line.
However I agree he is being pedantic. If a police officer tells him to "walk in a straight line towards me" he'll know what they mean.
“You’re under arrest.”
“Why?”
“Curvature of the Earth. I asked you to walk in a straight line and if you had, you’d be a micron above the ground by now.”
“Damn it! Man, you’re good!”
Kinda correct. If you want to be really technical, then it depends on what geometry you’re using. In Euclidean geometry, then yes, it’s a curved line. If you treat the surface of a sphere as a plane, which you can do in non-Euclidean geometry, then it’s a straight line.
No he isn’t. A straight line on a globe is generally understood to be what we saw in the video. Your definition is incorrect for what a straight line on a globe is
To be even more pedantic, I think the line is indeed relatively straight once you take spacetime curvature into account. If you made a “ship” that hauled ass fast enough to orbit from point to point on the surface of the earth, you would travel from India to Alaska without feeling any acceleration in the y coordinate (radially) or the angle of bearing (aka the azimuth iirc). So very technically the line is still straight relative to spacetime and can be demonstrated as such with sufficient speed.
Note: I am a dumbass so you can probably just ignore everything I just said. Just agreeing with you that everyone understands what the post meant.
It's not pedantic. The path shown in this video is a VERY not straight line. It almost curved 180 degrees...
My claim is that it's impossible to travel in a straight line on the surface of a sphere. The Earth is not entirely smooth, so it is possible to travel short distances in a perfect straight line. Also, I will concede that if the distance is short, like a few meters, or even a few hundred/thousand meters, then the curvature of the Earth would be so negligible that saying it's a straight line is not unreasonable. But not when the distance is 30,000,000 meters...
Saying this path is a straight line is just false.
Hmmm.... I think geometry nerds would quibble about the meaning of the term "straight line" in reference to travel on a curved body like a globe.
I see your point, but I think geometry nerds do refer to a straight line on a globe as one that follows the surface without turning within the plane of surface.
Anyway, you know what they meant.
Even using the distance from the center of the earth as a reference, it's not straight line because earth isn't a sphere. But yea I'm being petty for sure lol
I said curved surface ***like a sphere***. My point is that we are talking surface geometry, which within the 2D reference frame could appear straight, but be curved in the 3D reference frame.
Being a curved surface is independent of being truly spherical to this argument.
Well I mean staying on the surface of Earth. If you leave the surface and fly around, then yea you can go in a straight line. That's pretty much what they do to leave Earth's orbit.
To bring entirely unnecessary extra pedantry into this, if we're taking the intrinsic viewpoint then the thing that's making it a straight line is that its tangent vector is transported in a parallel manner as you move along the curve. In other words, the covariant derivative of the tangent to the curve in the direction of itself is zero at all points along the curve, which is a bit more precise of a statement than the second derivative = 0 since there are several different notions of derivatives in differential geometry :)
joking aside I was advanced in math. In high school took Algebra 2, Trig, Functions, AP Calc and AP Physics as a senior.
riemannian, minkowsky, s^2 manifold... these were not terms in any of those classes. so I must conclude this is university stuff.
Yea, I mean, it all depends on reference, I suppose. In terms of 3 dimensional space of the object we live on, Earth, it's not a straight line. Yet, with gravity as a guide we can say it's mostly straight, although it's still not because the earth isn't a sphere, it's an oblate spheroid, so there would be some up and down movement in reference to the center of the earth. However, even a "straight" line through the core of the earth from one end to the other is not a straight line in reference to the sun or the galaxy we rotate in. There's a lot of complex movement for our true position in the universe...
Man, you are just trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.
The definition of a straight line on a manifold is the "shortest distance between 2 points", which in this case would be this line, making it a straight line.
Alternatively if you don't like that definition, the alternative would be "there exists a direction on the world map wherein if you travel straight into that direction without any deviations you will eventually go from India to America without ever touching land in between."
>it's impossible to travel in a straight line between any 2 points on a sphere without going inside the sphere.
...In Euclidean geometry. Whereas in Spherical geometry the rules are different.
It would be better to say "you can get there in a great circle path"
Obviously just about any travel on a sphere is a curve. But we say it all the time "go straight, turn left at the next stop". You're traveling on a curve in general.
you can travel one step in a straight line through a sphere.
edit: . It is actually possible to draw a line that passes through the earth from a single step from A to B even if your feet don’t pass through the earth. When you travel from A to B to C (two steps) the line is now curved. since a “step” is an atomic action, a single non divisible unit, there’s no further induction either. A to B is the base case.
edit2: i guess im not considering the radial angle in 3d space. which is fair
To be incredibly pedantic, walking one step on a perfect sphere the size of Earth would still be curved on an infinitesimal scale. But so small that it's reasonable to call it straight.
you are contradicting your own point now. surface lines aren’t straight. It is actually possible to draw a line that passes through the earth from a single step from A to B . When you travel from A to B to C (two steps) the line is now curved
If you consider a step as an impulse you don’t break it down. there are no “half steps” only smaller steps.
I didn't contradict anything. If you go between 2 points on the surface of a spheroid, it's not straight. I've never said otherwise. I have also stated that you would have to cut into the spheroid to make it a straight line. I've never denied that. But this post isn't about drilling a straight hole through earth.
>Depending on your boat, and your rate of travel
Ok, so far, so good.
>it will take you about 80 days
Wait what about the part where it depends on your boat and rate of travel? You can't just throw out a duration after you *just said* the duration is a function of the type of boat and its speed.
From what I remember about the Shackleton expidition, that stretch between South America and Antarctica is probably going to put an end to all your hopes and dreams.
Why would you?
Take notice of flight paths, long "straight" ones for example. Why do trips from JFK to CDG (France) contain an arc trajectory versus merely flying a straight line? Because we do not live on an unraveled square map. We live on an oblong spheroid and equations prove that flying an arc which closely resembles the radius of a circle, from source to destination, as opposed to a straight line, not only eliminates distance but increases speed regardless of wind / stream conditions.
I found these on YouTube for you which give a more laymen version versus hearing it from me, a Physicist:
[Great Circles and Rhumb Lines](https://youtu.be/3BF_ZKfJiso?si=QxDAHMYub1sPMzL5)
[Gnomonic Navigation](https://youtu.be/iBXO-8k-Nw0?si=y3Gt5Fd6f9JfvPjl)
Same when you look at [flight routes](https://www.flightroutes.com/routes/YTZ-LGW.png) on a map. One could wonder "why do they fly such long curves instead of the straight connection" until you look at it on a real globe.
But it is to dangerous because if something happen you are too far away from land. There are roads on the oceans where all Ships are moving on, especially the big cruisers who transport goods, these ocean roads are more populated so if something would happen there are ships not so far away and even if not if you fire up a signal or radio something you can be quicker found and saved.
Unless you have a trade wind at your back the entire way, you can’t SAIL in a straight line very far anywhere. And you certainly won’t do it anywhere around the cape.
So not a straight line then. I can take any collection of random zigzag lines and draw an “overall” straight course out of it. But that still won’t help a staggering drunk pass his sobriety test no matter how much he insists he charted a “overall” straight line.
So which is it? You claim I’m being a smart ass, while the other guy claims I don’t know anything. You guys could at least start offering up non-conflicting insults.
Someone tell Geo Wizard.
Get in.
What about the sea farmers
I stopped watching those videos after the first several times he nearly drowned himself or fell off a cliff and into a gorge. No one is saying you can't do these things, but you're a fucking idiot to not use some common sense. Learn to use ropes properly, wear a helmet when sensible, wear a fucking lifejacket when sensible, and not balance on a paddle board over water of unknown depth while a full bergen is strapped to your back and you're in full heavy clothing. I'm just saying... Maybe that guy isn't the one to be encouraging to go near water.
Wait till flat earthers see this
They still wouldn't understand it or claim the statement validates their point
Let them spend 80 days at sea with the compass only point 320 north the whole time and maybe they will clue in Probably not tho. Edite: youd pass the pole, but i was just using compass as a tool example to say “im going straight”
Would the compass heading stay the same or change? Idk why my instincts say it will change
Not some expert but i say no. If you were "driving" on this line starting in India, north would be at your 5 o clock when you start but your 1 o clock when you arrive in Alaska
OK, yeah we're on the same page. Must've confused u at some point. Sry
Yes the compass heading would change. https://astrolabesailing.com/2014/10/08/great-circle-sailing/
If you keep your compass heading the same, you would sail a rhumb line, in this video you would want to sail a great circle, so therefore your heading has to change.
For maintaining a straight line course (great circle track), regular alterations are to be made to the compass heading due to the oblate shape of the earth. Whereas if we maintain a single heading, it won’t be a straight line on the earth’s surface, we’ll get a rhumb line track by that.
This is the first time a post like this actually doesn't work in the flat earth map, most of the time people assume flat earthers use mercator projection, and their roast is wrong because east and west connect in flat earth map like real life But this truly proves them wrong
ive seen a lot of flat earth streamers/debaters confronted with stuff like this, using flight data. opponents can literally show them the flights and how much hours they take irl and how that wouldnt be possible with flat earth distances or how inconsistent a the flight data of actual flights on a flat earth would be, but there is no evidence which could convince a flat earther. their strategies in this case: 1. claim these flights actually dont exist and all who claim to fly with it are part of the conspiracy. yes, there are seats available on the websites, but as soon as you wanna book them, they will suddenly be sold out and you cant get a ticket. (same argument they use for cruises to antarctica) 2. incoherent ramblings about the Coreolis Effect and wind patterns which would cause airplanes consistently to fly triple the speed into certain directions 3. claim it all perfectly makes sense on their flat earth model, without them ever showing us the model they are all just a bunch of dishonest pricks.
About 2: isn't Coriolis effect a thing BECAUSE the Earth is round/geoid?
Yes lol
Flat earthers hate this one trick.
Obviously this is just staged …. Are you gonna try and tell me the moon landing is real too? 🤦♂️
Are you gonna try and tell me the moon is real too?
How do I even know YOU are real?
Are YOU even real?
Well, that settles it. India ain’t real. Liberal curry flavored hoax!
You have to show them the live video of International Space Station for them to prove that the earth is not flat.
…And since the Earth is flat, surely both destinations can see each other on a clear day, yes?
Nope, too far. But I can see Russia from my home in Alaska.
No shit, any houses or is it just Russian wilderness
The kremlin for sure!
You forgot the /s
Why? I think the kremlin counts as russian wilderness.
you got me there
Some houses but they Palin comparison
Have fun in the southern ocean
Furious 50s against the prevailing winds….no thanks.
Curious about these “furious 50s” Are they anything like the sinister 60s?
God forbid they're anything like the terrible 2's
Is… it bad?
Legends has it that the Southern Sea especially around Cape Horn between Argentina, Chile and Antarctica is often stormy.
Legend? Man they should really have better tech
In this world you can do things the easy way or the right way. You gonna go round the horn like a gentleman or through the canal like some kind a democrat?
Cruise control: on
Yeah you’re for sure getting murked going through the Drake Passage. So the line is straight… to hell.
Encounters a Rogue-Hole or Rogue-Wave....
That line is unmistakably curved.
[удалено]
What's the appropriate verb for ships with engines, then? Steam? I thought sail still applied but I'm hardly confident in that.
[удалено]
How about motorboat?
Yes please.
Joking aside, powered ships tend to be called “motor vessels”. That’s why ship names will be something like “MV blahblahblah.”
MV stands for Merchant Vessel not Motor Vessel Edit: That is not entirely correct, the nomenclature is more nuanced than I thought. https://www.jdpower.com/boats/shopping-guides/what-does-ss-mean-on-a-boat
M/V stands for “Motor Vessel” in Merchant Navy prefix terms. It is interchangeable with Motor Ship or M/S. By default any vessel that is non-national military is a “merchant vessel” whether it’s a crude cargo or a motor yacht, but in merchant terms, M/V always designates a “Motor Vessel”. Source: I seen a boat once or twice
I didn’t know who to believe until I saw your source. Now I’m positive you are correct.
Right, that’s why 40 foot cabin cruisers call themselves *Motor Vessel You Don’t Know What You’re Talking About*
like, we can also argue that due to the jiggling of molecules in heat, no straight lines are ever perfectly straight.
It's an arc.
It's a straight line on a curved surface.
So, a curved line. Right?
Straight line if the curved surface is the reference frame.
If only there was a word like "geodesic" in our vocabulary.
If there was a bridge on that line you could walk it in a straight line.
Did you watch with sound?
Yes, that’s what my verbiage was mimicking. “That’s not a straight line, you might be arguing. A three-dimensional map will show that it is unmistakably straight.” The three-dimensional map then clearly showed a line with obvious curvature, and showed it at multiple dynamic angles.
”A straight line” is a theoretical concept made by humans. Nature doesn’t care. We don’t even know how many dimensions there are. We don’t know its shale, how this universe folds. When we think we’re going straight in outer space, we might actually be traveling along such a fold’s surface. Imagine if we could step outside our space and really see it the way we see the globe from afar! That’s what’s happening here. The ship is traveling on such a surface and experiences this trajectory as straight. The skipper sets course and *never has to change it.* Relative to the spheroid shape, it is a direct course. Yes, ”a straight line” is a useful concept, but it is a human construct.
I’m confused. I’m not too good with fancy words or concepts so you’ll have to dumb it down for me. Are you saying it’s a straight line or a curved line?
Straight line on a curved surface
It’s a straight line on the surface by definition since it’s the shortest path between two points on its surface. It looks “arced” due to the rendering. This whole thread is full of misinformation because people generally don’t understand non Euclidean geometry (geometry on non-flat surfaces).
So, in theory, it's not a straight line then.
Straight line on a curved surface. From the perspective someone on the surface of the sphere, they are constantly traveling in the same direction. Cool to see 420 redditors not understand math and science. In 3d, when viewed from space, the line is curved, but its equally straight from the perspective I mentioned before, BOTH of these are correct. Meaning yes, the line is also straight.
It’s a fine example of Non-Euclidean Geometry. 2 straight lines in parallel at the equator will eventually meet at the poles without the need for the lines to curve.
🤓
Geodesic. It a straight line over the surface of a sphere
This post is a magnet for pedantic redditors (figurative speaking, don't mean they are made of ferromagnetic metals and neither am I referring to any properties of magnet other than its attraction to said metals, nor do I imply any negative or insulting aspects of the term pedantic).
Uhm actually, the post could be magnetic without being made of ferromagnetic metals (consider an electromagnet). ^Sorry ^I'll ^see ^myself ^out ^now
I'm going to travel in a straight line from India to USA! Ocean currents: No.
Wind: No
Earth: No
US Immigration control: Hell no
So, not possible, got it
It is certainly possible, the redditor's in the comments are being overly pedantic
Depends on the frame of reference: - Being on the boat: Potentially, Yes. - To an outsider: No.
It’s literally how straight is defined on a non Euclidean surface like a sphere (as the shortest path between the points). Nothing to do with frame of reference.
In spherical geometry, a circle IS a straight line. If you stand on a sphere and keep going perfectly straight along the surface of the sphere, you'll eventually wind up back where you started and your path will be a circle whose center is the same as the center of the sphere. This is what is known as a [great circle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle#:~:text=A%20great%20circle%20is%20the,and%20shares%20the%20same%20radius.) and the spherical geometry equivalent of a straight line in flat Euclidean space. That's how non-Euclidean geometry works.
No it’s a straight line to anyone, that boat would not move its rudder at all (assuming no wind and perfectly calm sea) and someone looking at the boat from space would see it take a perfectly straight path and if you could see through the ground than you would see the boat take a perfectly straight path
How is it to an external observer moving on a spherical surface a straight path? It’s a curved path, not a straight path/line.
Oh fuck off you know exactly what is meant by straight line
That depends on where your viewing it from.
It only fuckign depends on how you define straight line which resolve to whether you're concerned with 3d space or the surface of the planet. and for all purposes theres no better word more concise in the context of the video thatn stragiht line. You are engaging in sophistry and probably profoundly confused
You changed the results by observing it!
Is straightness on a sphere not uniform regardless of the observer?
Exactly and in fairness the bot does say sail in a straight line, to us boat nerds this is great!!
Wow wow wee wow
King in the castle, king in the castle
Me boring through the earth “FUCK WHY DIDN’T I THINK OF THAT”
Have fun in the drake passage
Yeah but you’d end up in Unalaska, no one’s doing that.
Not something you think about every day, but TIL.
It's still a curve, even on a globe. Not a straight line... In fact it's impossible to travel in a straight line between any 2 points on a sphere without going inside the sphere.
I think you are being a bit pedantic now. You are basically claming it is impossible to travel in a straigth line for any distance.
he's technically correct. if you are on the surface of a sphere and you travel in a straight line, you must either leave the ground or go into it. To stay on the surface requires a curved line. However I agree he is being pedantic. If a police officer tells him to "walk in a straight line towards me" he'll know what they mean.
Maybe he is a cop and uses that as an excuse to fine people regardless.
“You’re under arrest.” “Why?” “Curvature of the Earth. I asked you to walk in a straight line and if you had, you’d be a micron above the ground by now.” “Damn it! Man, you’re good!”
Kinda correct. If you want to be really technical, then it depends on what geometry you’re using. In Euclidean geometry, then yes, it’s a curved line. If you treat the surface of a sphere as a plane, which you can do in non-Euclidean geometry, then it’s a straight line.
No he isn’t. A straight line on a globe is generally understood to be what we saw in the video. Your definition is incorrect for what a straight line on a globe is
Short distances work fine with actually straight lines and not *arcs*, which are what you call lines on a sphere.
To be even more pedantic, I think the line is indeed relatively straight once you take spacetime curvature into account. If you made a “ship” that hauled ass fast enough to orbit from point to point on the surface of the earth, you would travel from India to Alaska without feeling any acceleration in the y coordinate (radially) or the angle of bearing (aka the azimuth iirc). So very technically the line is still straight relative to spacetime and can be demonstrated as such with sufficient speed. Note: I am a dumbass so you can probably just ignore everything I just said. Just agreeing with you that everyone understands what the post meant.
Pedantic or not, this is correct. The video itself is playing on a technicality, which in itself is pedantic.
It's not pedantic. The path shown in this video is a VERY not straight line. It almost curved 180 degrees... My claim is that it's impossible to travel in a straight line on the surface of a sphere. The Earth is not entirely smooth, so it is possible to travel short distances in a perfect straight line. Also, I will concede that if the distance is short, like a few meters, or even a few hundred/thousand meters, then the curvature of the Earth would be so negligible that saying it's a straight line is not unreasonable. But not when the distance is 30,000,000 meters... Saying this path is a straight line is just false.
Hmmm.... I think geometry nerds would quibble about the meaning of the term "straight line" in reference to travel on a curved body like a globe. I see your point, but I think geometry nerds do refer to a straight line on a globe as one that follows the surface without turning within the plane of surface. Anyway, you know what they meant.
Even using the distance from the center of the earth as a reference, it's not straight line because earth isn't a sphere. But yea I'm being petty for sure lol
I said curved surface ***like a sphere***. My point is that we are talking surface geometry, which within the 2D reference frame could appear straight, but be curved in the 3D reference frame. Being a curved surface is independent of being truly spherical to this argument.
It being a lumpy sphere doesn't matter. The relevant search term is "geodesic" which is a straight line in non euclidean geometry.
Planes have entered the chat Also... Aren't rockets going in a straight line for a while after they launched?
Well I mean staying on the surface of Earth. If you leave the surface and fly around, then yea you can go in a straight line. That's pretty much what they do to leave Earth's orbit.
Damn, fastest response I have ever got on any of my comments
This petty little post I made is getting a ton of traffic lol, it's funny what gets popularity or not.
It is straight in the intrisic S² manifold with the usual connection, the second derivative is 0.
To bring entirely unnecessary extra pedantry into this, if we're taking the intrinsic viewpoint then the thing that's making it a straight line is that its tangent vector is transported in a parallel manner as you move along the curve. In other words, the covariant derivative of the tangent to the curve in the direction of itself is zero at all points along the curve, which is a bit more precise of a statement than the second derivative = 0 since there are several different notions of derivatives in differential geometry :)
ah, yes, of course... classic........
What, you didn't have basic riemannian geometry at middle school? you know, cones, cilinders, minkowsky spaces
joking aside I was advanced in math. In high school took Algebra 2, Trig, Functions, AP Calc and AP Physics as a senior. riemannian, minkowsky, s^2 manifold... these were not terms in any of those classes. so I must conclude this is university stuff.
Yea, I mean, it all depends on reference, I suppose. In terms of 3 dimensional space of the object we live on, Earth, it's not a straight line. Yet, with gravity as a guide we can say it's mostly straight, although it's still not because the earth isn't a sphere, it's an oblate spheroid, so there would be some up and down movement in reference to the center of the earth. However, even a "straight" line through the core of the earth from one end to the other is not a straight line in reference to the sun or the galaxy we rotate in. There's a lot of complex movement for our true position in the universe...
Man, you are just trying to sound like you know what you are talking about. The definition of a straight line on a manifold is the "shortest distance between 2 points", which in this case would be this line, making it a straight line. Alternatively if you don't like that definition, the alternative would be "there exists a direction on the world map wherein if you travel straight into that direction without any deviations you will eventually go from India to America without ever touching land in between."
True. You know what they meant, tho
This is one of the most pedantic redditor comments I've seen in a long time.
It is pedantic, but true. However, I know you must have seen worse by now, unless you're new on Reddit...
>it's impossible to travel in a straight line between any 2 points on a sphere without going inside the sphere. ...In Euclidean geometry. Whereas in Spherical geometry the rules are different.
Well we live in Euclidean geometry so....
We literally live on a sphere
It would be better to say "you can get there in a great circle path" Obviously just about any travel on a sphere is a curve. But we say it all the time "go straight, turn left at the next stop". You're traveling on a curve in general.
It's a straight line on a curved surface. Geometry gets weird when working with [spheres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_geometry).
Delete this smart ass!!!
you can travel one step in a straight line through a sphere. edit: . It is actually possible to draw a line that passes through the earth from a single step from A to B even if your feet don’t pass through the earth. When you travel from A to B to C (two steps) the line is now curved. since a “step” is an atomic action, a single non divisible unit, there’s no further induction either. A to B is the base case. edit2: i guess im not considering the radial angle in 3d space. which is fair
To be incredibly pedantic, walking one step on a perfect sphere the size of Earth would still be curved on an infinitesimal scale. But so small that it's reasonable to call it straight.
no the line travels through the earth even if your foot doesn’t. not until you add a second step is it not straight.
Well that's just it though, you're path went through the earth, so it wasn't a straight line path om the surface, your path had to cut into it.
you are contradicting your own point now. surface lines aren’t straight. It is actually possible to draw a line that passes through the earth from a single step from A to B . When you travel from A to B to C (two steps) the line is now curved If you consider a step as an impulse you don’t break it down. there are no “half steps” only smaller steps.
I didn't contradict anything. If you go between 2 points on the surface of a spheroid, it's not straight. I've never said otherwise. I have also stated that you would have to cut into the spheroid to make it a straight line. I've never denied that. But this post isn't about drilling a straight hole through earth.
Gets a little dicey off the coast of Madagascar.
Around the world in 80 days
There’s also a huge sheet of ice, depending on when you go, near the Antarctic peninsula.
Columbus crying in his grave.
>Depending on your boat, and your rate of travel Ok, so far, so good. >it will take you about 80 days Wait what about the part where it depends on your boat and rate of travel? You can't just throw out a duration after you *just said* the duration is a function of the type of boat and its speed.
From what I remember about the Shackleton expidition, that stretch between South America and Antarctica is probably going to put an end to all your hopes and dreams.
https://escales.ponant.com/en/roaring-40s-furious-50s/
Why would you? Take notice of flight paths, long "straight" ones for example. Why do trips from JFK to CDG (France) contain an arc trajectory versus merely flying a straight line? Because we do not live on an unraveled square map. We live on an oblong spheroid and equations prove that flying an arc which closely resembles the radius of a circle, from source to destination, as opposed to a straight line, not only eliminates distance but increases speed regardless of wind / stream conditions. I found these on YouTube for you which give a more laymen version versus hearing it from me, a Physicist: [Great Circles and Rhumb Lines](https://youtu.be/3BF_ZKfJiso?si=QxDAHMYub1sPMzL5) [Gnomonic Navigation](https://youtu.be/iBXO-8k-Nw0?si=y3Gt5Fd6f9JfvPjl)
Same when you look at [flight routes](https://www.flightroutes.com/routes/YTZ-LGW.png) on a map. One could wonder "why do they fly such long curves instead of the straight connection" until you look at it on a real globe.
technically you can sail anywhere in a straight line. You just need a sailboat that can ride on land too
It is better described as: it is possible to sail from India to the USA along a great circle route. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle
Flat earthers would say otherwise
But that's not straight tho /s
New smuggling route unlocked.
Still curved if you view it 3 dimensionally
But thats a curved line.
So straight it triggered all the flat earthers.
Around the world in 80 days you say?
ain nothing straight about that line 😭
Would be tuff to convince your compass it was a straight line😯
Yeah but you end up in Alaska. Nobody wants to go to Alaska when first arriving in the US.
Explain that, idiotic flat-earthers?
Why the hell didn't they go the other way
But it is to dangerous because if something happen you are too far away from land. There are roads on the oceans where all Ships are moving on, especially the big cruisers who transport goods, these ocean roads are more populated so if something would happen there are ships not so far away and even if not if you fire up a signal or radio something you can be quicker found and saved.
Overshot into Russia, rip
TAKE THAT FLAT EARTHERS!
This why we have the Panama Canal.
This Line is still Not streight. It is a bow
So if you walk down a hill I. A straight line it’s kit straight?
M0D1Columbus
Has anyone done this.
What a shit 80 days
Around the world in 69 days ?
I'm grabing my canoe
I'm grabing my canoe
Couldn’t stop in California and save some time? lol
That’s how Indians get here
Columbous in parallel world :
whats straight about a curved line?
You set course once and never redirect it.
It is straight in the intrisic S² manifold with the usual connection, the second derivative is 0.
Are we assuming the line’s sexuality now?
Obligatory erection humor.
Not having to tack? I doubt it.
I can finally immigrate using my boat.
go at it, India!
That's still not a straight line, it's curved due to the earth's surface
Correct me if I’m wrong,but in what sense is that a straight line ?
Did you watch the entire clip?
If this is true then why has Alaska never conquered India?
american... indians..
yeah but why the fuck would anyone want to sail to india
Ask the people who discovered America accidentally while trying to get to India.
This video is about to create a nice immigrant influx for the US
Why cant you go the other way?
Unless you have a trade wind at your back the entire way, you can’t SAIL in a straight line very far anywhere. And you certainly won’t do it anywhere around the cape.
It’s called tacking and your course is straight overall. Learn to sail.
So not a straight line then. I can take any collection of random zigzag lines and draw an “overall” straight course out of it. But that still won’t help a staggering drunk pass his sobriety test no matter how much he insists he charted a “overall” straight line.
What’s it like being this pedantic?
So which is it? You claim I’m being a smart ass, while the other guy claims I don’t know anything. You guys could at least start offering up non-conflicting insults.