Ikr 😂

No one is having a hard time.Once a reference system is established, no one denies that it could have been otherwise with other reference standards. There is no point in changing what is established and promulgated for centuries.

Yes this is exactly what I was thinking

You've reminded me of Calc 3 and switching between different coordinate systems to make different problems easier to solve.

Do you remember what problem it was ?

​@@jeremysmith7176 lol I remember that. Ya gotta get creative when you're solving problems in 3 dimensions

I would also like to add that I will happily attend your show and talk about my conversion to Catholicism as an adult Lutheran if you offer me a schooner of Tooheys New, some Cheezels, and a Freddo Frog 🤣

It’s actually Out Back 😏

Not sure if you thought all the consequences through. Once we do the switch of south being up, you'll have to bend *down* to tie your shoes, instead of up, as you do now. Also, all golf balls have to be recalibrated to not fly off into space! 😂

Then why do they always have to hold on to things so they don't fall of the face of the earth?

do you mean to say that Men at Work (the band) is NOT infallible? Heresy!

LOL! I was going to make it similar comment.

The CMB background radiation having axes of symmetry around the ecliptic and the axis of the earth is evidence contra to this claim.

Historically, we have been fixed to the Earth's surface, as such we had readily observable directional references for East and West. Regardless of what you call them, East is where the Sun rises and West is where it sets. If we had historically lived in the far polar regions this breaks down, but for the vast majority of the globe we at least have two fairly fixed directions. Observing the stars we then get another direction, that being toward the axis of rotation. Northern hemisphere people have Polaris, Southern hemisphere people are not so lucky as to have a visible pole star, but Southern sky observers would have noticed that the constellations revolve around a common point.

He had him early on . #79 and #80

@@amdg672He should come back

But also, aren't north and south respective to east and west given E&W relationship to which way the sun sets and rises

It really makes you wonder about why. The only thing I could think of off the top of my head is some kind of subconscious thing about where the sun rises and sets and orienting ourselves through that

Do we have a large sample size from the southern hemisphere?

I thought about that too and wondered why.

I imagine this is related to how animals can intuit migratory patterns. When you are on the Earth birth is up and south is down regardless what you call them. But change your reference point to space beyond the planet and there’s something to be said about no actual north and south we currently are aware of. I find myself recalling a study on rat kits who developed in the womb in space and when on earth and out of the womb, they could not right themselves if, say, submerged in water. They had no sense of direction perhaps because in space that was not necessary to develop cuz no gravity pull we have here on earth. Similarly on the planet we have north and south clearly as we have numbers to count. Granted numbers hold up a bit better when we zoom out from just earth but similar concept I think.

Interestingly when I lived in China, I discovered that their ancient maps are upside down. When we say "North, East, South, West" The Chinese actually say "East, West, South, North". They base their system off the sun. The sun rises in the east, and heads to the south during winter. So as south was their reference point, I guess that's why I've seen a lot of ancient Chinese maps which are upside down.

But we have a rotating sphere(oid), which imposes a reference diameter.

A fat cat

Fun fact what star is the north Star changes.

@@jeremysmith7176 no, it doesn't.

@@Aurealeus On a millennia long time line.

But there is a left and right apparently, if I understood that correctly?

@@anglaismoyen Our galaxy has a rotational axis.

@@anglaismoyen left and right compared to what? In space there is no direction up down left right. You also cannot have a “center” of the universe assuming that the universe is infinite. I don’t know! I think I need to get back to work!

@@jrorganbuilding Something to do with the rotational axis thing. I don't know either lol

If you were the only object in space, yes, there would be no set reference directions. But once you introduce a relatively large object like a planet, "down" is going to point to the center of mass of that controlling mass.

Wikipedia :you mean the "source" that changed the definition of recession and locked out the ability to add/change/modify... Yup, trust em: not

How to resurrect the dead? Though I'm not even sure about that. He's basically the gospel of truth in my house!

@@LocalGinger773he probably knows. He just doesn’t want to do it.

​@@ModernLady fair enough

I agree. I don’t think it has anything to do with what they mentioned. It’s a moot argument anyway. I don’t think the world globe would have looked any different if Australians made the first map. But Let’s say Matt was correct, they would still have to change it back to how it is now, once mankind went to space and saw yep Australia is actually on the bottom and N America and Europe is on the top of the globe. It’s just common sense.

No, the compass does not have any preference between north or south. You think that it "points north" because you might have one that has an N-mark on the north and no S-mark on the south. The compass is just a tiny magnet with *two* poles (which we arbitrarily call north and south) and it aligns with the magnetic lines between the poles. These lines are un-directed. In other words: the compass needle has two ends: one that always points north and another that always points south. You can chose which one you mark or leave unmarked, but you cannot have a compass that *only* points north, just as you cannot have a magnet that has only one pole.

I maybe be wrong but doesn't the Earth's magnetic poles actually flip around?

But if you defined north and south oppositely, the system would obey the left hand rule.

THEN as a physicist, you should be able to draw the Minkowski diagram from the point of view of the "traveler"(the "moving"coordinate system. Do homework!

Finally..... after reading through dozens of comments of people making uneducated guesses, somebody besides myself (Josh) actually knows the correct answer.

The magnetic north can be the magnetic south

Yes, that's the "in relation to... and reference to" Matt was looking for.

Would australians have invented a clock that moves counter-clockwise?

The fact that Polaris is positioned directly over the North Pole is sort of a happy coincidence. And you can't see Polaris in Antarctica, the whole Earth is in the way

There is an objective "down" for a satellite. A satellite is by definition orbiting within the gravitational sphere of influence of a larger object; "down" is the direction of that object's center of mass. Orbiting bodies aren't "floating" at all, they are in free fall just as much as a skydiver is when he first jumps. The difference is that the satellite is high enough and has enough tangential velocity that it always misses the ground (or the atmosphere, if it wants to stay in orbit very long).

@@jdotoz yes but the suggestion was that you could figure out the earth’s objective up by simply sending a satellite “up” and once it’s far enough from earth it can figure out the earth’s objective up by reference to the satellite. This is a nonsense because every satellite’s “up” is different depending on where on earth it was launched from and from the earth’s frame of reference would be different depending on its position in its orbit - so that wouldn’t make sense if that was what they were referring to either (which it wasn’t). Further if we take the earth as an orbiting object and its centre of orbit (ie the sun) as its “down” then its up-down axis would be parallel to the equator and would change as it rotated on its axis. In the context of North/South the only objective markers would be its axis of rotation and the related phenomenon of its magnetic poles. But again that merely gives you a “vertical” axis but not which end of the axis you define as “up” and which as “down”.

@@antonc81 Not quite. "Down" depends on where the satellite is at the particular moment, not on its origin. "Up" is by definition the opposite of "down." We can define other axes semi-arbitrarily. Any pair of mutually perpendicular lines will work, but the one that arguably makes the most sense in a vacuum is the nearest meridian and the line perpendicular to both it and the up/down axis. From here, one direction along the meridian will be "north" and the other "south." But being able to see as much of the world as possible doesn't introduce any necessary preference about each is which. So no, a view from space doesn't help the problem.

sure but I got the impression that the guy who suggested “just send a satellite up and look down” or whatever was suggesting that the origin of the satellite was the relevant down.

@@antonc81 I figure he thought that "up" would reveal "north."