• Balthazar@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      To clarify, as youve not understood the joke, nor read the comments. As far as I understand it, were you to start sailing at the first point, you never have to turn to arrive at the second. That’s why it’s “straight”. On the 2d plane you are completely correct however.

      For proper and better informed explanations read the other comments :D

  • lugal@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Globists will argue that on a globe this is a straight line. Seen these arguments before, don’t work on me

    • HereIAm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Please correct my layman understanding if I’m wring here. But isn’t everything traveling in a straight line until an external force is applied. For example the earth orbiting the sun is traveling in a straight line in a curved apacetime. Also if you jump, the moment you leave the ground until you touch it again coming back down you were traveling in a straight line.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Also if you jump, the moment you leave the ground until you touch it again coming back down you were traveling in a straight line.

        relative to the body of earth, including its rotation it would be an arc path, and including it’s tilt it would be 3d, if we also include the travel around the sun in orbit, that elongates it around the orbit, so uh.

      • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        In my understanding, since gravity is acting on us, an external force is applied when we jump. That’s why a jump is a parabola. “Gravity’s Rainbow”

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          What they are getting at is that gravity is not a force so much as your mass trying to travel in a straight line through curved spacetime. The weight you feel is because the surface of the earth is in your way.

          Get into low earth orbit and that straight path has you going in apparent circles around the planet. You are very much within the earth’s gravity but you don’t feel “weight” because the surface of the earth is no longer blocking your path. You still have mass and inertia and all that, of course.

    • kazaika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Space-time itself is curved, therefore everything is moving in a straight line, it only appears to be curved to the outside observer

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If anyone wants to grasp the basics: here is some fun reading (leading on to some beautiful math). Changing the idea of parallelity leads to hyperbolic geometry and other fun stuff. :)

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Not true, as when space bends, it bends the rulers and compasses too. We experience no spatial distortion.

      A person traveling near the speed of light doesn’t feel like time is slower for them (but it is and we can measure it)

      The principle is equivalent.

      That said, it’s not a straight line in any topology standard I am aware of.

      Sure you could CREATE a topology framework where this would be considered a straight line, but there is no real world model that could come even close without so much mass being concentrated in static relative areas, and EVEN THEN it would only be straight for a predetermined instant before the mass deforming spacetime began interacting with each other.

      That’s the problem with spacetime deformations, almost no layman takes into account the ridiculous amounts of static mass to make those strange topologies.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    There was a conversation I read a while ago that showed how a sailboat could travel a straight line over water from Halifax, Nova Scotia in Canada, travel southeast and end up on the west coast of British Columbia.

    Basically sailing from the east coast of Canada to the west coast of Canada in a straight line.

  • thejoker954@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I feel like this is related to the can’t measure the coast’ thing.

    Like if you zoom in enough you are always traveling in a straight line.

    • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You just discovered the field of calculus! If you look closely enough at any smooth function it looks locally linear, and the slope of that linear function is it’s derivative

      Not quite what’s happening here, here the problem is if you consider geodesics on a sphere to be straight. In special geometry they are, for all intents and purposes, but in higher euclidian geometry they form large circles

    • filcuk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t know… straight, I would assume, means that I could walk or drive a vehicle and not turn at all, ignoring any external influences like waves and currents in this case.

      • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        But your vehicle would itself “curve” “downwards” due to gravity, surely a straight line means that you can point a laser, or a hypothetical 0 mass particle beam, uninterrupted from your starting point to your destination.

        • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          in ur every day life if u travel in a car without changing direction would u say that u went in a straight line or in an arc. Clearly u are just trying to be a pedantic cunt for no reason.

        • Seeker of Carcosa@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Depends on your frame of reference. When traversing the surface of a globe, your described concept of a straight line isn’t intuitive.

  • xlash123@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Low IQ: it’s not a straight line

    Medium IQ: it’s a geodesic on a sphere, so it is a straight line

    High IQ: it’s not a straight line

          • Wilzax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            In actual reality there would be wind and water currents diverting any ship sailing that route from the depicted “line” anyway so the whole argument is pointless

            The only straight line paths in the universe are followed by electrostatically uncharged non-accelerating objects in free fall in a vacuum. Or massless particles.

            • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Nuh uh. My fifth grade math teacher told me that if I drew a line with an arrow on graph paper and no other line intersected it, that it would continue on into infinity!

            • DogWater@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Whole Universe eh? That exists and is bounded on a curved space time.

              I’m just joking, but you can really take this to the extreme lol

              • Wilzax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Spacetime is curved. Inertial paths through spacetime are straight.

                Euclidean space is not the only space where straight lines are possible.

  • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Why’d they go that way? They could have gone the other way and the line would have still been technically straight, but the route looks like it would have been shorter.

    • bstix@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The picture was about sailing the longest direct line.

      It’s not the longest anyway, but that’s what it was about. Technically one could sail infinitely many times around Antarctica in a straight line.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          It would, however, seem like a straight line to whoever was on the boat, because they’d be traveling due west the whole time, and the course corrections they’d have to make to keep going west would look the same as course corrections needed to account for wind, ocean currents, etc.

        • bstix@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well, I stand corrected. I guess we’ll need to wait for the ice on the North pole to melt before we can make a more stupid voyage.

    • Varven@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Because going in that route would make it touch land which in the twitter post it says straight line without touching land

  • Noble Shift@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    THAT would be one god damn brutal sail. Both horns, Southern Atlantic crossing followed up by the Indian Ocean.

    The range of foulies you would need to bring would be 3/4 of your pack. Foulies underwear and A sock (you’re going to lose one anyways)

    • anachronist@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I assume you mean “both capes.” While this line does come within a few thousand miles of the Horn of Africa, that’s not known as an especially hard sailing area but maybe for pirates.

      Sailing this line in the other direction would be considerably harder.

      • Noble Shift@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Lolololol. Bro I’ve been around Africa in a 30 foot sailboat with an 8 foot draft. ‘Not hard sailing’ ? You have obviously never been on a boat at sea, let alone around either horns, capes, or whatever. Look up Shipbreakers, it’s a type of wave, then come tell me its not a hard sailing area.

        Lololol GTFO of here with that bullshit.

        • anachronist@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Cmon man. Yes I’ve been a few places in sailboats. North sea in the winter for one. You clearly were trying to refer to Cape Horn and The Cape of Good Hope (or Cape Agulhas). Just take the L and don’t be a twat.