+bassmig Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 yeah, that's right. I actually do have one in my possession. Hoping the prior cacher who moved it from Alberta to NB will log it so I can log it! Quote
lewis82 Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 When the glaciers of the last glaciation moved away from Quebec, they formed an enormous water body. It covered all the St-Lawrence valley. With the years it shrunk and disappeared. What is the name of that water body? Quote
+Bullfrog Eh-Team Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 When the glaciers of the last glaciation moved away from Quebec, they formed an enormous water body. It covered all the St-Lawrence valley. With the years it shrunk and disappeared. What is the name of that water body? Would that be Lake Agassis? Quote
lewis82 Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 No. Lake Agassiz was in the area of Manitoba Quote
+Bullfrog Eh-Team Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 Either 'The Champlain Sea' at 12,500 years B.P.; or 'The Nipissing Great Lakes' by 6,000 years B.P. ? Quote
danoshimano Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 Lake Algonquin, or Algonguin Lake... Sea? Quote
lewis82 Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 Correct Bullfrog Eh-Team! The Champlain Sea. 2happy2gether, you had part of the answer, but it was a sea because it was directly connected on the Atlantic Ocean. Quote
+Bullfrog Eh-Team Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Sorry about the delay ! But here is the next pub question! When standing at the 'North Pole', what choice of 'basic directions' (no fractional directions) do you have, to move away from the pole ? Quote
danoshimano Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Sorry about the delay ! But here is the next pub question! When standing at the 'North Pole', what choice of 'basic directions' (no fractional directions) do you have, to move away from the pole ? South? Quote
+Bullfrog Eh-Team Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Sorry about the delay ! But here is the next pub question! When standing at the 'North Pole', what choice of 'basic directions' (no fractional directions) do you have, to move away from the pole ? South? Sorry Dano - You have to think outside the box. Quote
danoshimano Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Sorry about the delay ! But here is the next pub question! When standing at the 'North Pole', what choice of 'basic directions' (no fractional directions) do you have, to move away from the pole ? South? Sorry Dano - You have to think outside the box. Oh, *that* box! Two: Straight forward (which would be South), or straight up. Quote
+ve1bvd Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Dano said, "Two: Straight forward (which would be South), or straight up." OK, what about down, assuming you came on a submarine? Now THAT'S outside the box! Phil/ve1bvd Quote
+2happy2gether Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Dano said, "Two: Straight forward (which would be South), or straight up." OK, what about down, assuming you came on a submarine? Now THAT'S outside the box! Phil/ve1bvd Wouldn't straight down be, theoretically, moving closer to the Pole? Quote
+TOMTEC Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Sorry Dano - You have to think outside the box. I'd rather stay inside the box... Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Start TOMTEC Quote
+Bullfrog Eh-Team Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 I was looking for Up, Down and South. Trust a 'caper' to be outside the box too! Over to you 've1bvd'. Quote
+ve1bvd Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 OK, Here ya go... A Nautical mile is standardized as 6000 feet, 200 yards, or 1852 and change metres (or meters, if you prefer). What is the actual definition of a nautical mile? And to show that I'm a real sport, I'll even let you assume that the Earth is a perfect sphere... Phil/ve1bvd Quote
+Juicepig Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 And to show that I'm a real sport, I'll even let you assume that the Earth is a perfect sphere... Errr. don't you mean cube? or plane? Quote
danoshimano Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 Dano said, "Two: Straight forward (which would be South), or straight up." OK, what about down, assuming you came on a submarine? Now THAT'S outside the box! Nah, that's the box itself which in this case is the whole planet. The pole does run through the planet, and once it leaves the surface it spreads out (assuming we are talking about the magnetic field). So, I would tend to agree (somewhat) with 2h2g... while perhaps not moving closer to the pole, going down would not be moving away from it. Good question, this was. Quote
+2happy2gether Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 And to show that I'm a real sport, I'll even let you assume that the Earth is a perfect sphere... Errr. don't you mean cube? or plane? I think he meant disc. Quote
danoshimano Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 OK, Here ya go... A Nautical mile is standardized as 6000 feet, 200 yards, or 1852 and change metres (or meters, if you prefer). What is the actual definition of a nautical mile? And to show that I'm a real sport, I'll even let you assume that the Earth is a perfect sphere... Phil/ve1bvd One minute of arc (1/60th of a degree). I didn't know this when the question was asked, and didn't look it up. I just used the number you gave (1852m) and divided it into the circumference of the earth at the equator, got a weird number, then tried dividing that by 360. The answer came to 60, which doesn't look like a coincidence to me! Quote
+ve1bvd Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 OK, Dano, you got it. Because the Earth is NOT a perfect sphere, the minute of arc is measured at the equator form the centre of curvature. In rebuttal to 2h2g, I think that the poles are at the surface of the earth, so submerging at the North pole would be moving away from it, no? Cheers, Phil/ve1bvd Quote
+2happy2gether Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 OK, Dano, you got it. Because the Earth is NOT a perfect sphere, the minute of arc is measured at the equator form the centre of curvature. In rebuttal to 2h2g, I think that the poles are at the surface of the earth, so submerging at the North pole would be moving away from it, no? Cheers, Phil/ve1bvd Not according to the Russians. Quote
lewis82 Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 The pole is on the sea floor. Ice is not earth! It can melt, and it moves. Also, in 50 years or so there won't be many ice left over the North Pole... But the pole must be somewhere (the sea floor). Quote
+Juicepig Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 The pole is on the sea floor. Ice is not earth! It can melt, and it moves. Also, in 50 years or so there won't be many ice left over the North Pole... But the pole must be somewhere (the sea floor). I would say the pole is actually on the surface (on the ice). Yes the ice moves, so it is "the pole" for the finite time that the plag is placed. Water/ice is the surface of the planet as well as rock. I could argue that trees and muggles also make up the surface of the earth too! Quote
Stroover Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 So how about the next question, then? or did this thread die? Quote
+Juicepig Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 next question!! Russia claims that the north pole is theirs because the ______ ridge is part of the eurasiatic plate! What is the name of the ridge, and WHY are the Russians wrong? Quote
danoshimano Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 next question!! Russia claims that the north pole is theirs because the ______ ridge is part of the eurasiatic plate! What is the name of the ridge, and WHY are the Russians wrong? You can't do that. Only Couparangus can do that. Retract it! Quote
Stroover Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 next question!! Russia claims that the north pole is theirs because the ______ ridge is part of the eurasiatic plate! What is the name of the ridge, and WHY are the Russians wrong? Isn't the north pole in the North American tectonic plate? Therefore whatever the Russians claim would be false, regardless of the name of that ridge, because the North American Plate is not part of the Eurasian plate.. Quote
danoshimano Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 <ahem> There have been breaks of longer than 4 days before. Patience, please. Patience. And everything I think of, I think... wait... that's already been asked. But you can't search an individual thread on the forums. Anyway, on to the question: "Boxing the compass" would be doing what, exactly? Quote
+ve1bvd Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 "Boxing the compass" would be doing what, exactly? Going back to my cadet days, boxing the compass means to recite the 32 points of the compass, beginning with North and going clockwise. I was going to try and do it, but I can't remember the last 16 points, East by North, etc. Anyway, each point is 11-1/4 degrees, and can be further subdivided into quarter points, which gives pretty good accuracy, certainly enough to get from A to B. You'd have to be a pretty good steersman to be able to hold a sailing vessel to a quarter point of the compass... cheers, Phil/ve1bvd Quote
+Couparangus Posted October 18, 2007 Author Posted October 18, 2007 (edited) I do believe VE1BVD has it right, Dano to confirm! I do like Juicy's question so I hope it gets a chance to be asked. Cheers! C-BM-A ! Edited October 18, 2007 by Couparangus Quote
danoshimano Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 "Boxing the compass" would be doing what, exactly? Going back to my cadet days, boxing the compass means to recite the 32 points of the compass, beginning with North and going clockwise. I was going to try and do it, but I can't remember the last 16 points, East by North, etc. Anyway, each point is 11-1/4 degrees, and can be further subdivided into quarter points, which gives pretty good accuracy, certainly enough to get from A to B. You'd have to be a pretty good steersman to be able to hold a sailing vessel to a quarter point of the compass... cheers, Phil/ve1bvd Correctamundo! Take 'er away... Quote
danoshimano Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 I do like Juicy's question so I hope it gets a chance to be asked. I'm sure he'll squeeze in there (in a legitimate kind of way!) Quote
+Juicepig Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 I do like Juicy's question so I hope it gets a chance to be asked. I'm sure he'll squeeze in there (in a legitimate kind of way!) I have stopped trying to give the right answer, Q-Poser always seems to disagree Quote
+ve1bvd Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 OK, here's another quickie... In terms of terrestrial navigation, what is the difference between a great circle and a small circle? Please be specific; "one is big and the other is little" doesn't cut it! Phil/ve1bvd Quote
+Juicepig Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 In terms of terrestrial navigation, what is the difference between a great circle and a small circle? Please be specific; "one is big and the other is little" doesn't cut it! One is a great way of navigating, the other is a disappointment to their parents, can barely find their way down the road, and is having problems with the canadian revenue agency. Quote
QuigleyJones Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 Oh dear me, think Quigley think. If I recall correctly a great circle goes through the center of the earth. Or better put the center of the circle is also the center of the earth. And a small circle... doesn't Quote
Stroover Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 OK, here's another quickie... In terms of terrestrial navigation, what is the difference between a great circle and a small circle? Please be specific; "one is big and the other is little" doesn't cut it! Phil/ve1bvd Sounds like old Native American talk for the sun and the moon, although I'm not so sure one would want to use the moon for navigation. Or maybe it depends on how much longer one leg is then the other: a greater difference would mean you'd walk around in bigger circles. Quote
+Tethys C Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 I think QJ got it. All lines of longitude are great circles...plus the equator. Quote
+ve1bvd Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 Oh dear me, think Quigley think. If I recall correctly a great circle goes through the center of the earth. Or better put the center of the circle is also the center of the earth. And a small circle... doesn't OK, Quigley, you got it! A great circle is one drawn upon the surface of the earth whose plane passes through the centre of the earth. A small circle is any other circle drawn upon the surface of the earth. Phil/ve1bvd Quote
QuigleyJones Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Well I'll ask a question involving what I'm doing in one of my classes this week. The Sinusoidal projection preserves this and distorts that. What are the this and that? (answer on p334 of the Getting to know ArcGIS text ) Quote
+Landsharkz Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Well I'll ask a question involving what I'm doing in one of my classes this week. The Sinusoidal projection preserves this and distorts that. What are the this and that? (answer on p334 of the Getting to know ArcGIS text ) We've been absent for a while... but we decided to pop in for a moment Mr. LS says... This/preserves = longitude That/distorts = latitude Quote
QuigleyJones Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Is a good thing I added the anwser page as I forgot it already. You'll have to try again Helen. Quote
Stroover Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Is a good thing I added the anwser page as I forgot it already. You'll have to try again Helen. I teach too, Quigles. So it might be cheating, but what the heck: It keeps the area but distorts the shape. Quote
QuigleyJones Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Is a good thing I added the anwser page as I forgot it already. You'll have to try again Helen. I teach too, Quigles. So it might be cheating, but what the heck: It keeps the area but distorts the shape. Correct, except for the fact that I am a teachie not a teacher Quote
Stroover Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Oops! Sorry guys! I hadn't realized I won! This probably has been asked already, and if so I'll find another question: What was the earliest known form of a functionnal compass? (as in something mobile, not the North Star). Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.