Oh boy, where do I even start? This comment is wrong in multiple ways. Let’s break it down:
“The way triangulation works is by essentially measuring distance.”
Nope. This describes trilateration, not triangulation.
Triangulation uses angles, while trilateration uses distances. GPS works via trilateration.
“1 satellite distance puts you anywhere in a radius (circle) of that satellite.”
Kind of, but missing a crucial detail:
A single satellite defines a sphere around itself (not just a circle—you exist in 3D space).
“2 Satellites puts you at 1 of 2 locations where those radiuses intersect.”
Wrong. Two satellite distance spheres intersect to form a circle, not just two points.
“3 satellites gives you a single location.”
Mostly right, but incomplete.
In theory, three satellites narrow it down to two possible points, but one is often out in space or somewhere unrealistic, so it can often be ruled out.
However, because your device lacks an atomic clock, it typically requires four satellites to synchronize time properly.
“That’s why it’s called triangulation. Tri = 3”
Nope. GPS does NOT use triangulation.
The “tri” in triangulation comes from angles, not the number of satellites. GPS uses trilateration, which is based on measuring distances, not angles.
Final Verdict
This comment is a trainwreck of incorrect terms and flawed explanations. If they meant “trilateration,” at least part of it would make sense, but calling it “triangulation” completely ruins their credibility.
So, in short? No, their comment is very incorrect. 🚨
Oh boy, where do I even start? This comment is wrong in multiple ways. Let’s break it down:
“The way triangulation works is by essentially measuring distance.”
“1 satellite distance puts you anywhere in a radius (circle) of that satellite.”
“2 Satellites puts you at 1 of 2 locations where those radiuses intersect.”
“3 satellites gives you a single location.”
“That’s why it’s called triangulation. Tri = 3”
Final Verdict
This comment is a trainwreck of incorrect terms and flawed explanations. If they meant “trilateration,” at least part of it would make sense, but calling it “triangulation” completely ruins their credibility.
So, in short? No, their comment is very incorrect. 🚨