The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: MaeBKnot on August 04, 2023, 07:07:10 PM
-
I'm having a complete brain shutdown actually, just total bluescreen drooling on myself duuuhhh moment here ffs! Please somebody tell me the best way to be certain of which direction I'm facing. Can I use an old school pocket compass? And even as I'm typing this out I know how ridiculously stupid it sounds but I cannot stop myself from adding that I really only need to know which way is East.
🤷🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️
-
Of course. There's nothing inherent to FET that would prevent you from being able to use a compass, and we know empirically that they function as they're supposed to. Rest easy friend!
-
If I may ask; why East in particular?
-
No need for the drooling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMXeZF-BWws
-
There's nothing inherent to FET that would prevent you from being able to use a compass, and we know empirically that they function as they're supposed to. Rest easy friend!
I'd take that a step further. It's not just that FET doesn't prevent it; a compass works because FET holds true.
-
Of course. There's nothing inherent to FET that would prevent you from being able to use a compass, and we know empirically that they function as they're supposed to. Rest easy friend!
Except a compass points to magnetic north, not true north, which needs to be accounted for. I’d generally agree that could be true whatever the shape of the earth, but I don’t know what the FE explanation is for the earth having a magnetic field in the shape it does.
-
I don’t know what the FE explanation is for the earth having a magnetic field in the shape it does.
In what way should it differ?
-
I don’t know what the FE explanation is for the earth having a magnetic field in the shape it does.
In what way should it differ?
I think the mechanism which causes it would have to be different. There's also good evidence that North and South have flipped multiple times over geologic time.
It's possible there are good FE explanations for these things but I couldn't find one in the Wiki
-
Except a compass points to magnetic north, not true north, which needs to be accounted for. I’d generally agree that could be true whatever the shape of the earth, but I don’t know what the FE explanation is for the earth having a magnetic field in the shape it does.
The other related and very important issue that needs to be considered is magnetic dip, or inclination - the earth’s magnetic field doesn’t just point north/south, but rather points at an angle to the earth’s surface. This dip angle causes all sorts of technical issues for navigation using magnetic compasses, particularly in aviation, but it also gives strong clues as to the shape of the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dip#/media/File%3AWorld_Magnetic_Inclination_2015.pdf (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dip#/media/File%3AWorld_Magnetic_Inclination_2015.pdf)
-
Except a compass points to magnetic north, not true north, which needs to be accounted for. I’d generally agree that could be true whatever the shape of the earth, but I don’t know what the FE explanation is for the earth having a magnetic field in the shape it does.
The other related and very important issue that needs to be considered is magnetic dip, or inclination - the earth’s magnetic field doesn’t just point north/south, but rather points at an angle to the earth’s surface. This dip angle causes all sorts of technical issues for navigation using magnetic compasses, particularly in aviation, but it also gives strong clues as to the shape of the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dip#/media/File%3AWorld_Magnetic_Inclination_2015.pdf (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dip#/media/File%3AWorld_Magnetic_Inclination_2015.pdf)
No, it gives a clue as to the shape of the magnetic field, not the shape of the Earth.
As always, all the globe-earther has are assumptions that the Earth is a globe. And no tangible measurements of this whatsoever. Just fallacy after fallacy.
-
No, it gives a clue as to the shape of the magnetic field, not the shape of the Earth.
As always, all the globe-earther has are assumptions that the Earth is a globe. And no tangible measurements of this whatsoever. Just fallacy after fallacy.
I said clue, not absolute proof. But the inclination angles measured do make sense on a globe, do they not? Draw a cross section of any of the FET models (eg monopole, bipolar etc) and try showing how and why the dip angles are what they are. This is surely what good zetetics might do, right? You can even measure the dip angle yourself at your own location - it’s not hard to do.
-
I said clue, not absolute proof. But the inclination angles measured do make sense on a globe, do they not? Draw a cross section of any of the FET models (eg monopole, bipolar etc) and try showing how and why the dip angles are what they are. This is surely what good zetetics might do, right? You can even measure the dip angle yourself at your own location - it’s not hard to do.
I'm not a zetetic, I'm a researcher - and after years researching this topic my conclusion is that no proof exists for the globe.
So that puts you in a bad spot as far as why you are here to defend the imaginary globe that can only be reached at through assumptions, fallacies, misunderstandings, indoctrination, ignorance and lies.
-
This is surely what good zetetics might do, right?
Emphatically: no. Every time you attempt the "if you're a ReAl ZeTeTiC, then surely you'd do exactly what I want you to do" gambit, you simply reveal that you have no idea what Zeteticism is or how to apply it.
Stick to making your own arguments, rather than strawmanning people by trying to force debating terms onto them.
-
I'm not a zetetic, I'm a researcher - and after years researching this topic my conclusion is that no proof exists for the globe.
So that puts you in a bad spot as far as why you are here to defend the imaginary globe that can only be reached at through assumptions, fallacies, misunderstandings, indoctrination, ignorance and lies.
Fine by me. Just challenging you to expose your ideas to something new. Did your research include dip angle? Have you tried drawing a cross section of a flat earth and superimposing the measured dip angles on it?
-
It's white board time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF6vG3NPC4Y
-
It's white board time.
...
Are there other areas of inquiry where you think that the authoritative sources are ONLY publishing on forums such as YouTube and not (at least also) on the usual scientific venues where one has to actually back up claims with data and are peer reviewed etc, or is the shape of the earth the only one? (just curious).
~
-
It's white board time.
...
Are there other areas of inquiry where you think that the authoritative sources are ONLY publishing on forums such as YouTube and not (at least also) on the usual scientific venues where one has to actually back up claims with data and are peer reviewed etc, or is the shape of the earth the only one? (just curious).
~
What is the point of peer-reviewed if in order to be a valid peer and to be published you have to be part of and approved by the system?
Data is just data - it's neither true nor false.
As far as authoritative sources, those require faith. Example: NASA claims to have been to the Moon, Mars and others, seemingly confirming the current heliocentric model. Of course, one should distrust authoritative sources - especially when it comes to information that has potential conflicts of interest attached to it (which is almost always the case with information that comes from authoritative sources).
-
Except a compass points to magnetic north, not true north, which needs to be accounted for. I’d generally agree that could be true whatever the shape of the earth, but I don’t know what the FE explanation is for the earth having a magnetic field in the shape it does.
The other related and very important issue that needs to be considered is magnetic dip, or inclination - the earth’s magnetic field doesn’t just point north/south, but rather points at an angle to the earth’s surface. This dip angle causes all sorts of technical issues for navigation using magnetic compasses, particularly in aviation, but it also gives strong clues as to the shape of the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dip#/media/File%3AWorld_Magnetic_Inclination_2015.pdf (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dip#/media/File%3AWorld_Magnetic_Inclination_2015.pdf)
No, it gives a clue as to the shape of the magnetic field, not the shape of the Earth.
As always, all the globe-earther has are assumptions that the Earth is a globe. And no tangible measurements of this whatsoever. Just fallacy after fallacy.
Can I ask you about the bolded statement? When you say 'measurements', are you including surveys? AFAIK, every inch of the earth has been surveyed such that the size and shape of every land mass is known. Do you agree?
-
It's white board time.
...
Are there other areas of inquiry where you think that the authoritative sources are ONLY publishing on forums such as YouTube and not (at least also) on the usual scientific venues where one has to actually back up claims with data and are peer reviewed etc, or is the shape of the earth the only one? (just curious).
~
What is the point of peer-reviewed if in order to be a valid peer and to be published you have to be part of and approved by the system?
That "system" is the scientific method, that is a set of practices created so as to allow reproducible trustworthy results, to the extent that such is possible (and the success of the scientific method indicates that extent is pretty large).
Data is just data - it's neither true nor false.
The key for data is whether it is real or made up.
As far as authoritative sources, those require faith. Example: NASA claims to have been to the Moon, Mars and others, seemingly confirming the current heliocentric model. Of course, one should distrust authoritative sources - especially when it comes to information that has potential conflicts of interest attached to it (which is almost always the case with information that comes from authoritative sources).
NASA's claims have a huge amount of data backing them up (its 10s of TB pouring in daily at present if I recall correctly). If you are going to distrust a source I'd say that renders it non-authoritative to you so for you then there are no authoritative sources? Then you decide on what to take as true based on what? randomness?
-
It's white board time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF6vG3NPC4Y
First of all, thank you for actually stepping up and putting something up for everybody to see - much appreciated. Is that you in the video?
There’s an awful lot going on in the talk, and to be honest it comes across a bit meandering - everything from trees of life, big bang, solars winds, pressure, induction motors…we could talk all day.
Let me just pick out two things.
1. Tropics. It’s not clear what the video is proposing in terms of tropics - the diagram suggests downward dip angles (or at least downward something…what exactly?) at the tropics, but then seems to muddle the tropics with the equator. It’s also not at all clear what is meant by the apparent compass reversal at the tropics - why are the tropics special as far as FE is concerned? They matter in the round earth model because they are aligned with the tilt angle of the planet. But if you don’t believe in the tilt angle, what are the tropics?
2. The video doesn’t make any distinction between the true, geographic poles and the magnetic poles, but they are very different. The magnetic North Pole is currently in northern Canada, and the southern magnetic pole is a long way from the geographic South Pole - it’s not even on mainland Antarctica, but is in the sea due south of Australia at around 63 degrees south. People sail there. There’s even a cruise ship firm offering trips. Compasses don’t really work in the vicinity and, even more oddly, once you’re past it, if you want to keep travelling south, you have to adopt a northerly magnetic heading.
-
The key for data is whether it is real or made up.
NASA's claims have a huge amount of data backing them up (its 10s of TB pouring in daily at present if I recall correctly)
Oh, wow! You blew my mind. :o NASA produces terabytes of data to back them up, don't they? Does the "real" data happen to be the same or approximately the same as the simulated data because NASA does such a good job? I don't know, I'm asking you since you're the expert.
So if they produced petabytes of data per day, in your mind is this even more of a confirmation of space travel and the heliocentric model than mere terabytes? I bet once they produce exabytes of data, all the FE heretics will have no choice but to accept everything that comes from NASA.
-
It's white board time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF6vG3NPC4Y
First of all, thank you for actually stepping up and putting something up for everybody to see - much appreciated. Is that you in the video?
There’s an awful lot going on in the talk, and to be honest it comes across a bit meandering - everything from trees of life, big bang, solars winds, pressure, induction motors…we could talk all day.
Let me just pick out two things.
1. Tropics. It’s not clear what the video is proposing in terms of tropics - the diagram suggests downward dip angles (or at least downward something…what exactly?) at the tropics, but then seems to muddle the tropics with the equator. It’s also not at all clear what is meant by the apparent compass reversal at the tropics - why are the tropics special as far as FE is concerned? They matter in the round earth model because they are aligned with the tilt angle of the planet. But if you don’t believe in the tilt angle, what are the tropics?
2. The video doesn’t make any distinction between the true, geographic poles and the magnetic poles, but they are very different. The magnetic North Pole is currently in northern Canada, and the southern magnetic pole is a long way from the geographic South Pole - it’s not even on mainland Antarctica, but is in the sea due south of Australia at around 63 degrees south. People sail there. There’s even a cruise ship firm offering trips. Compasses don’t really work in the vicinity and, even more oddly, once you’re past it, if you want to keep travelling south, you have to adopt a northerly magnetic heading.
Why would that be me? You are so full of assumptions.
What is it you're pretending to be confused about? Tropics have nothing to do with tilt of anything, they are about apparent solar movements and solar incidence. The intertropical zone is where the Sun appears to move. So it literally has nothing to do with the globe. Heliocentrism came much later than the observations that the Sun moves throughout the year, and it needed the imaginary tilt of the imaginary globe in order for the observations to make sense in that laughable model.
Geographic poles were determined by TPTB - they should be regarded as nothing more than arbitrary points as far as I'm concerned. Only relevant because of the current established coordinate system.
-
The key for data is whether it is real or made up.
NASA's claims have a huge amount of data backing them up (its 10s of TB pouring in daily at present if I recall correctly)
Oh, wow! You blew my mind. :o NASA produces terabytes of data to back them up, don't they? Does the "real" data happen to be the same or approximately the same as the simulated data because NASA does such a good job? I don't know, I'm asking you since you're the expert.
So if they produced petabytes of data per day, in your mind is this even more of a confirmation of space travel and the heliocentric model than mere terabytes? I bet once they produce exabytes of data, all the FE heretics will have no choice but to accept everything that comes from NASA.
Just read my sig.
-
In this case, the peers would be the flat earth research community. As far as you know, has this video been peer reviewed by the flat earth research community?
FE research community? What FE research community? Are you referring to groups such as FE Core? I don't know much about them and I think they stopped their activities. Are you referring to loose groups of people online? I'm not part of any group, I do my own research and use my own brain, and I'm pretty sure the guy in the video is also like that because he has his own theories.
Just read my sig.
Clinging to any weak argument such as GPS working = Earth is a ball because you choose belief? I see.
-
Just read my sig.
Clinging to any weak argument such as GPS working = Earth is a ball because you choose belief? I see.
How is it weak? If you understand now GPS works then you know that the transmitters must actually be in the specified locations (in orbit) for it to work, which it does. So they are in orbit (angled at about 45 degrees to the equator).
-
Just read my sig.
Clinging to any weak argument such as GPS working = Earth is a ball because you choose belief? I see.
How is it weak? If you understand now GPS works then you know that the transmitters must actually be in the specified locations (in orbit) for it to work, which it does. So they are in orbit (angled at about 45 degrees to the equator).
I have yet to hear a single good reason why GPS or satellite TV can't work on FE, other than it has the word "global" in the name and the transmitters are assumed to be orbiting a ball because of further assuming that we live on one (which aren't good reasons).
-
Just read my sig.
Clinging to any weak argument such as GPS working = Earth is a ball because you choose belief? I see.
How is it weak? If you understand now GPS works then you know that the transmitters must actually be in the specified locations (in orbit) for it to work, which it does. So they are in orbit (angled at about 45 degrees to the equator).
I have yet to hear a single good reason why GPS or satellite TV can't work on FE, other than it has the word "global" in the name and the transmitters are assumed to be orbiting a ball because of further assuming that we live on one (which aren't good reasons).
Or more likely you just refuse to hear it. The key data in the GPS message is that which allows the receiver to determine where the sat was when it transmitted the message and the timestamp when that transmission occurred. Earth bound transmitters could lie about their location and the time, but the set of receivers that will acquire that message at the same moment and hence compute the same distance they are away from that transmitter is VERY different if the transmitter is actually in orbit as it claims, or on some ground station (other than in the rate situation where the transmitter is claimed to be directly above the actual earth bound location). Thus most receivers would compute the wrong distance and their location would be wrong, but it isn't. GPS works, so the transmitters must actually be where they claim to be (i.e. in orbit).
As for sat TV at any location in N America (for example) you get the max signal strength if you point your dish at the claimed geo-stationary orbit location. So that indicates that the sat actually is at the location How is that going to happen on the FE?
-
Or more likely you just refuse to hear it. The key data in the GPS message is that which allows the receiver to determine where the sat was when it transmitted the message and the timestamp when that transmission occurred. Earth bound transmitters could lie about their location and the time, but the set of receivers that will acquire that message at the same moment and hence compute the same distance they are away from that transmitter is VERY different if the transmitter is actually in orbit as it claims, or on some ground station (other than in the rate situation where the transmitter is claimed to be directly above the actual earth bound location). Thus most receivers would compute the wrong distance and their location would be wrong, but it isn't. GPS works, so the transmitters must actually be where they claim to be (i.e. in orbit).
As for sat TV at any location in N America (for example) you get the max signal strength if you point your dish at the claimed geo-stationary orbit location. So that indicates that the sat actually is at the location How is that going to happen on the FE?
And? Why can't they be orbiting FE?
Satellite TV is different. Could be balloon satellites as far as anyone knows.
-
Or more likely you just refuse to hear it. The key data in the GPS message is that which allows the receiver to determine where the sat was when it transmitted the message and the timestamp when that transmission occurred. Earth bound transmitters could lie about their location and the time, but the set of receivers that will acquire that message at the same moment and hence compute the same distance they are away from that transmitter is VERY different if the transmitter is actually in orbit as it claims, or on some ground station (other than in the rate situation where the transmitter is claimed to be directly above the actual earth bound location). Thus most receivers would compute the wrong distance and their location would be wrong, but it isn't. GPS works, so the transmitters must actually be where they claim to be (i.e. in orbit).
As for sat TV at any location in N America (for example) you get the max signal strength if you point your dish at the claimed geo-stationary orbit location. So that indicates that the sat actually is at the location How is that going to happen on the FE?
And? Why can't they be orbiting FE?
There is always some spot on the earth were each sat can be contacted so they can't be going below the FE, so how are they "orbiting it"? Are they circulating above it? But that path over land does not match the path that the sats actually take. Is something orbiting the FE not only possible but indistinguishable from orbiting the RE? I see no such claims made by the FEers nor can imagine how that might be possible. If you want to make that case, go ahead. Otherwise you're just avoiding the issue.. Even the low orbits of GPS sats is about 12k miles, isn't that above the claimed height of the FE sun?
Further the aggregate GPS info corroborates the globe layout of land/water so if we were on a FE how would it do that?
Satellite TV is different. Could be balloon satellites as far as I know.
No it can not be as the altitude would be wrong and you can not force users to only aim at their assigned balloon.
-
There is always some spot on the earth were each sat can be contacted so they can't be going below the FE, so how are they "orbiting it"? Are they circulating above it? But that path over land does not match the path that the sats actually take. Is something orbiting the FE not only possible but indistinguishable from orbiting the RE? I see no such claims made by the FEers nor can imagine how that might be possible. If you want to make that case, go ahead. Otherwise you're just avoiding the issue.. Even the low orbits of GPS sats is about 12k miles, isn't that above the claimed height of the FE sun?
Below?? All satellites orbit from east to west or viceversa. There's no "below" - they go in circles above the Earth as expected (assuming they do).
How are you so sure that they are at 12k miles? Even if that's true - no, it's not incompatible with FE because nobody knows the true location and distance to the Sun or any celestial objects. But show me that they are at 12k miles, not just because "data says so".
No it can not be as the altitude would be wrong and you can not force users to only aim at their assigned balloon.
What's preventing me from aiming my dish at other balloons?
-
There is always some spot on the earth were each sat can be contacted so they can't be going below the FE, so how are they "orbiting it"? Are they circulating above it? But that path over land does not match the path that the sats actually take. Is something orbiting the FE not only possible but indistinguishable from orbiting the RE? I see no such claims made by the FEers nor can imagine how that might be possible. If you want to make that case, go ahead. Otherwise you're just avoiding the issue.. Even the low orbits of GPS sats is about 12k miles, isn't that above the claimed height of the FE sun?
Below?? All satellites orbit from east to west or viceversa. There's no "below" - they go in circles above the Earth as expected (assuming they do).
An infinite variety of orbits are possible. There are sats that are in polar orbits. GPS orbits are inclined about 45 degrees to the equator. If you want to claim that the same orbit is possible on the FE you have to show that at any point on the earth the distance to the visible sats is the same, but since the layout of land/water on the FE is not the same as the RE, you can not do that.
How are you so sure that they are at 12k miles? Even if that's true - no, it's not incompatible with FE because nobody knows the true location and distance to the Sun or any celestial objects.
If we can put up orbiting sats why can we not observe the sun and other celestial objects to get their precise location?
But show me that they are at 12k miles, not just because "data says so".
Because using that orbital data comes up with the correctly triangulated position for where the receiver is in fact located. And those positions match the RE.
No it can not be as the altitude would be wrong and you can not force users to only aim at their assigned balloon.
What's preventing me from aiming my dish at other balloons?
If you scan around with your dish there is only one maximum and its where the geostationary sat is claimed to be.
-
Why would that be me? You are so full of assumptions.
That’s not an assumption, it’s a polite question. I wondered if it was since you’d provided the video, and the chap in the video uses the word duality a lot.
What is it you're pretending to be confused about? Tropics have nothing to do with tilt of anything, they are about apparent solar movements and solar incidence. The intertropical zone is where the Sun appears to move. So it literally has nothing to do with the globe. Heliocentrism came much later than the observations that the Sun moves throughout the year, and it needed the imaginary tilt of the imaginary globe in order for the observations to make sense in that laughable model.
Ok, great, so that’s your definition of the tropics. Now what happens regards to tilt angle of a compass at the tropics? And what is the reversal thing he’s on about mid word-salad?
Geographic poles were determined by TPTB - they should be regarded as nothing more than arbitrary points as far as I'm concerned. Only relevant because of the current established coordinate system.
Surely the geographic North Pole, at least, would be extremely important to a flat earther? It would be the centre of earths surface, would it not? Certainly seems to be important to the man in the video. Or are you saying that the centre of the FE is the magnetic North Pole?
-
That "system" is the scientific method, that is a set of practices created so as to allow reproducible trustworthy results, to the extent that such is possible (and the success of the scientific method indicates that extent is pretty large).
Please do not waste people's time like this. If you still haven't figured out why the scientific method is considered inadequate around here (you don't need to agree, but a surface-level understanding is a strict prerequisite), then you should be lurking, not posting.
Emphatically, you will not derail upper fora threads by asking people to downgrade back to the old guard system. There are plenty of forums (and boards within this forum) where you can circlejerk about how good you think it is. The middle of an FET thread is not the right place for it.
-
An infinite variety of orbits are possible. There are sats that are in polar orbits. GPS orbits are inclined about 45 degrees to the equator. If you want to claim that the same orbit is possible on the FE you have to show that at any point on the earth the distance to the visible sats is the same, but since the layout of land/water on the FE is not the same as the RE, you can not do that.
If you say so. How is the layout of land/water not the same? Because of QF27/28 flight times? That's another weak argument. The real difference between so-called RE and FE is that the globe believer ASSUMES that the celestial sphere is a consequence of us living on a spherical world, while the FE researcher KNOWS that the celestial sphere is a byproduct of vision.
If we can put up orbiting sats why can we not observe the sun and other celestial objects to get their precise location?
What makes you think you can get their precise location through observations?
I'm sure we could do a lot that TPTB are not interested in because they'd rather give us fake images & beliefs. You get what you pay for.
Because using that orbital data comes up with the correctly triangulated position for where the receiver is in fact located. And those positions match the RE.
And? All positions on so-called RE work on FE also - you're forgetting that the globe is just a mathematical model derived from how we see the world.
If you scan around with your dish there is only one maximum and its where the geostationary sat is claimed to be.
Geostationary means not moving. Not moving means not orbiting. Therefore, balloon sat makes sense to me. But quite possibly, they figured out a way to keep non-balloon satellites magnetically stationary, because they are all above the equator. So more likely than not, they are magnetically stuck at the only spot in the magnetic field where it's possible to do so. Because last time I checked, they don't make satellites out of wood or plastic, do they?
-
Ok, great, so that’s your definition of the tropics. Now what happens regards to tilt angle of a compass at the tropics? And what is the reversal thing he’s on about mid word-salad?
Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4NqjysRYp8
Surely the geographic North Pole, at least, would be extremely important to a flat earther? It would be the centre of earths surface, would it not? Certainly seems to be important to the man in the video.
Not at all.
Or are you saying that the centre of the FE is the magnetic North Pole?
Yep.
-
Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4NqjysRYp8
Surely the geographic North Pole, at least, would be extremely important to a flat earther? It would be the centre of earths surface, would it not? Certainly seems to be important to the man in the video.
Not at all.
Or are you saying that the centre of the FE is the magnetic North Pole?
Yep.
Your man seems to be saying that the flux lines are more vertical in and around the tropics - is that what you are saying is happening? That is not what is observed. The dip angle gets progressively flatter away from the poles, becoming roughly flat at the equator.
If you are saying the centre of the FE is the magnetic North Pole, then you have several major issues to resolve. Firstly, the magnetic North Pole moves. But the tropics do not move, do they? Moreover, the magnetic North Pole is currently in northern Canada - it is neither inaccessible nor is it equidistant from the tropics - meaning it's not in the middle.
The situation is even worse for your proposal in the Southern Hemisphere. The magnetic south pole is, first of all, demonstrably a pole. It is also very accessible, being in the sea well outside of mainland Antartica, so there is no mystery to it, nor could it credibly be the entire edge of a disc. It is also a long, long way from being equidistant to the tropics or the equator.
Your man's proposal simply doesn't survive simple analysis, I'm afraid.
-
Your man seems to be saying that the flux lines are more vertical in and around the tropics - is that what you are saying is happening? That is not what is observed. The dip angle gets progressively flatter away from the poles, becoming roughly flat at the equator.
If you are saying the centre of the FE is the magnetic North Pole, then you have several major issues to resolve. Firstly, the magnetic North Pole moves. But the tropics do not move, do they? Moreover, the magnetic North Pole is currently in northern Canada - it is neither inaccessible nor is it equidistant from the tropics - meaning it's not in the middle.
The situation is even worse for your proposal in the Southern Hemisphere. The magnetic south pole is, first of all, demonstrably a pole. It is also very accessible, being in the sea well outside of mainland Antartica, so there is no mystery to it, nor could it credibly be the entire edge of a disc. It is also a long, long way from being equidistant to the tropics or the equator.
Your man's proposal simply doesn't survive simple analysis, I'm afraid.
There's not that big of a gap as the description suggests. "In my opinion", the gap or convergence point would be at the equator. Which "coincidentally" is also where the geostationary satellites are.
I'm pretty sure that the areas where they claim the magnetic poles are are inaccessible areas where there is zero human activity. So therefore, no one can confirm this supposed location (and they never tell you the current exact location, by the way) or supposed displacement. You just have to believe it like the rest of the authoritative claims about our world.
-
There's not that big of a gap as the description suggests. "In my opinion", the gap or convergence point would be at the equator. Which "coincidentally" is also where the geostationary satellites are.
I'm not really clear what you mean. What exactly is converging at the equator? What is the 'gap'? Are you agreeing that flux lines are roughly parallel to the earth's surface, or not?
I'm pretty sure that the areas where they claim the magnetic poles are are inaccessible areas where there is zero human activity.
They aren't popular holiday destinations, for sure, and you might use the word 'inaccessible' to describe how tricky it can be to get there, but it doesn't mean it can't be done, or isn't done. For example:
You can row to the mag North Pole, at times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Pulteney_Row_To_The_Pole#:~:text=The%20Row%20To%20The%20Pole,Arctic%20Ocean%27s%20floating%20sea%20ice. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Pulteney_Row_To_The_Pole#:~:text=The%20Row%20To%20The%20Pole,Arctic%20Ocean%27s%20floating%20sea%20ice.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/26/british-crew-row-north-pole (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/26/british-crew-row-north-pole)
Did these events not happen? Or did they happen, but the crews are in on it?
You can pay for guided expeditions to the mag North Pole too:
https://www.arctic-world.com/magnetic-north-pole-ski-expedition.html (https://www.arctic-world.com/magnetic-north-pole-ski-expedition.html)
...and people do it for all sorts of reasons, in this example a charity:
https://truepatriotlove.com/get-involved/expeditions/the-magnetic-north-pole-a-trek-to-the-top/ (https://truepatriotlove.com/get-involved/expeditions/the-magnetic-north-pole-a-trek-to-the-top/)
You can also sail to the southern magnetic pole, and people do:
https://www.heritage-expeditions.com/captains-log/shokalskiy-sailing-over-south-magnetic-pole/ (https://www.heritage-expeditions.com/captains-log/shokalskiy-sailing-over-south-magnetic-pole/)
You can, of course, also visit the geographic South Pole, but that's another thing altogether. https://www.steppestravel.com/destinations/antarctic-continent/how-to-pick-your-antarctic-voyage/ (https://www.steppestravel.com/destinations/antarctic-continent/how-to-pick-your-antarctic-voyage/)
So therefore, no one can confirm this supposed location (and they never tell you the current exact location, by the way)
Except...they do, don't they? https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/historical_declination/ (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/historical_declination/)
Better hurry up on your trip to the mag North though, it's getting harder to get to every year. The south mag pole is getting easier though, as it's heading north towards Australia.
or supposed displacement. You just have to believe it like the rest of the authoritative claims about our world.
That just simply isn't true. It might not be within your ability to go there yourself but there are plenty of things you can do to verify a lot of this stuff. You can, for example, very easily verify that the earth's magnetic field is changing - just take an accurate bearing of a distant object from a known location, wait a few years and then do it again. It will change, and the change itself can be checked against global records and models like the one I've linked to above.
Likewise, you can easily verify magnetic dip for yourself, if you want to. You just need an unbalanced (ie not corrected for local dip) compass needle - make one yourself and measure the dip angle. Again, you can check it against the models. You could ask a friend who lives some distance away, ideally at a different latitude, to repeat the experiment and compare notes.
Back to the original point though...even if we discard the fact that people can and do go to the mag poles, your proposal still requires that the magnetic poles are at the centre of the tropical and equatorial circles. I'm not really clear where you think the mag poles are - you claim that the geo poles are arbitrary, bit they are located at the precise centre of the aforementioned circles. So are you saying the mag poles are neither where they are claimed to be, nor at the current geo pole locations? And how does your theory work if the mag poles move? Or are you saying they don't move?
-
I'm not really clear what you mean. What exactly is converging at the equator? What is the 'gap'? Are you agreeing that flux lines are roughly parallel to the earth's surface, or not?
Why wouldn't they be? I'm not talking about surface level. If they claim the geostationary satellites are 22k miles above, we're not talking about surface level, are we? The magnetic field is probably huge, but definitely not as huge as the globe-earthers claim. They need it to be Copernically-huge (cosmically huge) so that it's only a minor consideration when it comes to orbital mechanics around the imaginary globe. Always some cosmic coincidence to save the day for the globe.
They aren't popular holiday destinations, for sure, and you might use the word 'inaccessible' to describe how tricky it can be to get there, but it doesn't mean it can't be done, or isn't done. For example:
You can row to the mag North Pole, at times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Pulteney_Row_To_The_Pole#:~:text=The%20Row%20To%20The%20Pole,Arctic%20Ocean%27s%20floating%20sea%20ice. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Pulteney_Row_To_The_Pole#:~:text=The%20Row%20To%20The%20Pole,Arctic%20Ocean%27s%20floating%20sea%20ice.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/26/british-crew-row-north-pole (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/26/british-crew-row-north-pole)
Did these events not happen? Or did they happen, but the crews are in on it?
You can pay for guided expeditions to the mag North Pole too:
https://www.arctic-world.com/magnetic-north-pole-ski-expedition.html (https://www.arctic-world.com/magnetic-north-pole-ski-expedition.html)
...and people do it for all sorts of reasons, in this example a charity:
https://truepatriotlove.com/get-involved/expeditions/the-magnetic-north-pole-a-trek-to-the-top/ (https://truepatriotlove.com/get-involved/expeditions/the-magnetic-north-pole-a-trek-to-the-top/)
You can also sail to the southern magnetic pole, and people do:
https://www.heritage-expeditions.com/captains-log/shokalskiy-sailing-over-south-magnetic-pole/ (https://www.heritage-expeditions.com/captains-log/shokalskiy-sailing-over-south-magnetic-pole/)
You can, of course, also visit the geographic South Pole, but that's another thing altogether. https://www.steppestravel.com/destinations/antarctic-continent/how-to-pick-your-antarctic-voyage/ (https://www.steppestravel.com/destinations/antarctic-continent/how-to-pick-your-antarctic-voyage/)
So therefore, no one can confirm this supposed location (and they never tell you the current exact location, by the way)
Except...they do, don't they? https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/historical_declination/ (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/historical_declination/)
Better hurry up on your trip to the mag North though, it's getting harder to get to every year. The south mag pole is getting easier though, as it's heading north towards Australia.
or supposed displacement. You just have to believe it like the rest of the authoritative claims about our world.
That just simply isn't true. It might not be within your ability to go there yourself but there are plenty of things you can do to verify a lot of this stuff. You can, for example, very easily verify that the earth's magnetic field is changing - just take an accurate bearing of a distant object from a known location, wait a few years and then do it again. It will change, and the change itself can be checked against global records and models like the one I've linked to above.
Likewise, you can easily verify magnetic dip for yourself, if you want to. You just need an unbalanced (ie not corrected for local dip) compass needle - make one yourself and measure the dip angle. Again, you can check it against the models. You could ask a friend who lives some distance away, ideally at a different latitude, to repeat the experiment and compare notes.
Back to the original point though...even if we discard the fact that people can and do go to the mag poles, your proposal still requires that the magnetic poles are at the centre of the tropical and equatorial circles. I'm not really clear where you think the mag poles are - you claim that the geo poles are arbitrary, bit they are located at the precise centre of the aforementioned circles. So are you saying the mag poles are neither where they are claimed to be, nor at the current geo pole locations? And how does your theory work if the mag poles move? Or are you saying they don't move?
This article was amended on 28 September 2011. The first paragraph was amended to clarify that Jock Wishart's expedition was to the site of the magnetic north pole as certified in 1996. The position of the magnetic pole is constantly changing.
You obviously don't bother reading what you send. They went to some arbitrary point that is just as arbitrary as the geographic NP. All government-approved BS just like they allow you to do the predetermined itineraries in North Korea (only much cheaper than the polar ones). Does this mean I'm free to explore North Korea and do my own independent studies there without government approval?
Citing .gov data and presenting that as an undeniable model isn't going to do you any favors. That is a computerized model calculated from maybe 3 decades of supposed actual data. There is zero documentation of someone going to the magnetic SP AND independently confirming that it is indeed the one and only magnetic SP and not just yet another arbitrary point. You literally just linked a paragraph from a webpage that says "we went there at 0030hrs on the 27 January 2017" and presented that as proof that the magnetic SP exists and that it only exists at that (undetermined) spot.
-
This article was amended on 28 September 2011. The first paragraph was amended to clarify that Jock Wishart's expedition was to the site of the magnetic north pole as certified in 1996. The position of the magnetic pole is constantly changing.
You obviously don't bother reading what you send. They went to some arbitrary point that is just as arbitrary as the geographic NP. All government-approved BS just like they allow you to do the predetermined itineraries in North Korea (only much cheaper than the polar ones). Does this mean I'm free to explore North Korea and do my own independent studies there without government approval?
Citing .gov data and presenting that as an undeniable model isn't going to do you any favors. That is a computerized model calculated from maybe 3 decades of supposed actual data. There is zero documentation of someone going to the magnetic SP AND independently confirming that it is indeed the one and only magnetic SP and not just yet another arbitrary point. You literally just linked a paragraph from a webpage that says "we went there at 0030hrs on the 27 January 2017" and presented that as proof that the magnetic SP exists and that it only exists at that (undetermined) spot.
Let's keep it nice and simple. Do you accept that the geographic North Pole moves? Or do you contend that it is a fixed place?
-
Let's keep it nice and simple. Do you accept that the geographic North Pole moves? Or do you contend that it is a fixed place?
It is an arbitrary fixed point like I already said. If you look at the old Mercator NP map, the geographic NP in that map is nowhere near where they say it is now, and no one goes to the old location.
What, are you going to say that Mercator shouldn't be trusted? That's not what I was taught in school.
(https://i.imgur.com/1ihSTtS.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3hsiaWo.png)
-
Let's keep it nice and simple. Do you accept that the geographic North Pole moves? Or do you contend that it is a fixed place?
It is an arbitrary fixed point like I already said. If you look at the old Mercator NP map, the geographic NP in that map is nowhere near where they say it is now, and no one goes to the old location.
What, are you going to say that Mercator shouldn't be trusted? That's not what I was taught in school.
(https://i.imgur.com/1ihSTtS.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3hsiaWo.png)
My bad, apologies... I'll try again! Do you accept that the magnetic North Pole moves? Or do you contend that it is a fixed place?
-
My bad, apologies... I'll try again! Do you accept that the magnetic North Pole moves? Or do you contend that it is a fixed place?
How am I supposed to know that? You're talking about accepting as if it's Jesus - I'm not into all that voodoo crap. Tell me why the Arctic and Antarctic are both heavily restricted areas and you can only go there with government approval, and only itineraries approved by the government like North Korea? If there's supposedly just a bunch of ice there and a few birds?
-
My bad, apologies... I'll try again! Do you accept that the magnetic North Pole moves? Or do you contend that it is a fixed place?
How am I supposed to know that? You're talking about accepting as if it's Jesus - I'm not into all that voodoo crap. Tell me why the Arctic and Antarctic are both heavily restricted areas and you can only go there with government approval, and only itineraries approved by the government like North Korea? If there's supposedly just a bunch of ice there and a few birds?
I ask because your theory, and that of the man in the videos you've linked to, requires that the magnetic pole is in the middle of the circles formed by the tropics and the equator etc. But, even if you disagree with me on their current location, the very fact that it moves (as does the South Pole) undermines the theory in any case.
How would you know that it moves? You can verify that the earth's magnetic field changes for yourself. It's not hard to do.
-
I ask because your theory, and that of the man in the videos you've linked to, requires that the magnetic pole is in the middle of the circles formed by the tropics and the equator etc. But, even if you disagree with me on their current location, the very fact that it moves (as does the South Pole) undermines the theory in any case.
How would you know that it moves? You can verify that the earth's magnetic field changes for yourself. It's not hard to do.
How do you know it's not the magnetic field increasing or decreasing and/or rotating causing that? You just assume it moves because the government says so?
-
If you say so. How is the layout of land/water not the same?
The basic geometry of a plane and the surface of a sphere does not allow them to be the same.
Geostationary means not moving. Not moving means not orbiting.
A geostationary orbit (perhaps I should have said geosynchronous orbit, but they are used interchangeable) means orbiting at the same rate that the earth is spinning such that it remains above the same spot but is certainly still orbiting the earth.
Therefore, balloon sat makes sense to me. But quite possibly, they figured out a way to keep non-balloon satellites magnetically stationary, because they are all above the equator. So more likely than not, they are magnetically stuck at the only spot in the magnetic field where it's possible to do so. Because last time I checked, they don't make satellites out of wood or plastic, do they?
They are largely made of Kevlar and aluminum and smaller amounts of other metals (copper wiring, titanium frames etc), silicon for he solar cells, etc.. If you want to make the case that a mostly nonferrous object weighing a few thousand pounds can be levitated 22,000 miles above the equator via earth's magnetic field, go ahead.
-
The basic geometry of a plane and the surface of a sphere does not allow them to be the same.
They can be the same if you argue that objects drop in your field of view at the same rate that the imaginary curve does. So basically, if you argue that our eyes are flat and the world is spherical, instead of the other way around.
A geostationary orbit (perhaps I should have said geosynchronous orbit, but they are used interchangeable) means orbiting at the same rate that the earth is spinning such that it remains above the same spot but is certainly still orbiting the earth.
If something remains at the same spot, it's not moving. Only through invoking imaginary concepts such as a spining ball Earth can you argue that it is. Another one that's here to defend this absurd concept as if it's gospel truth, are you?
They are largely made of Kevlar and aluminum and smaller amounts of other metals (copper wiring, titanium frames etc).. If you want to make the case that a mostly nonferrous object weighing a few thousand pounds can be levitated 22,000 miles above the equator via earth's magnetic field, go ahead.
Ok, you are the TV satellite engineer, so we should listen to you. :-X
-
How do you know it's not the magnetic field increasing or decreasing and/or rotating causing that? You just assume it moves because the government says so?
An increase or decrease in field strength would not change the direction a compass points, nor would it be indicative of either pole moving. As for 'rotating'...what do you mean? If I'm standing at a point, say 1000 miles south of the magnetic North Pole, then my compass needle points at the pole, and indicates north. What does 'rotation' mean in that context? If the pole moves, however, then my 'North' moves too. You can see this happen for yourself, as I said - over time, the magnetic variation wherever you live will change. They even have to renumber the runways at airports from time to time because of this.
-
The basic geometry of a plane and the surface of a sphere does not allow them to be the same.
They can be the same if you argue that objects drop in your field of view at the same rate that the imaginary curve does. So basically, if you argue that our eyes are flat and the world is spherical, instead of the other way around.
A geostationary orbit (perhaps I should have said geosynchronous orbit, but they are used interchangeable) means orbiting at the same rate that the earth is spinning such that it remains above the same spot but is certainly still orbiting the earth.
If something remains at the same spot, it's not moving. Only through invoking imaginary concepts such as a spining ball Earth can you argue that it is. Another one that's here to defend this absurd concept as if it's gospel truth, are you?
They are largely made of Kevlar and aluminum and smaller amounts of other metals (copper wiring, titanium frames etc).. If you want to make the case that a mostly nonferrous object weighing a few thousand pounds can be levitated 22,000 miles above the equator via earth's magnetic field, go ahead.
Ok, you are the TV satellite engineer, so we should listen to you. :-X
Our direct and indirect observation of the earth and other planets as well as all our means of measurement/instrumentation of this planet from travel time to surveying to GPS are all consistent in showing a spheroid planet which is well explained by our understanding of physics and cosmology. I contend that this is so as its real. You contend that somehow its all false and the earth is actually flat of unknown layout, structure and origin yet somehow all said observations and measurement despite their different methodologies are consistent in their deviation from this flat earth reality. Yet you claim that I am the one who is being absurd. Pretty funny.
-
How do you know it's not the magnetic field increasing or decreasing and/or rotating causing that? You just assume it moves because the government says so?
An increase or decrease in field strength would not change the direction a compass points, nor would it be indicative of either pole moving. As for 'rotating'...what do you mean? If I'm standing at a point, say 1000 miles south of the magnetic North Pole, then my compass needle points at the pole, and indicates north. What does 'rotation' mean in that context? If the pole moves, however, then my 'North' moves too. You can see this happen for yourself, as I said - over time, the magnetic variation wherever you live will change. They even have to renumber the runways at airports from time to time because of this.
Your needle points at the pole, does it? BS. Compass pointing to magnetic north may be what they tell to children, but obviously that's not true because magnetic inclination AND magnetic declination both affect the compass.
In typical globe-earther fashion, you keep demanding that I explain how the FE Universe works because your heliocentric religion gives you answers and you expect me to come up with another religion that you can compare it to. Maybe you can do that with white board dude, but not me.
You are talking about field strength and I never mentioned field strength, I'm talking about size. I don't know for sure what's going on with Earth's magnetic field because the true workings of the Universe aren't exactly on Wikipedia. So it requires real research and real brainstorming. Many hours which I do not necessarily have. And on top of that, you have TPTB and the know-it-alls trying to muddy the waters every corner you turn, so it's not easy. Especially because the research I do, almost no one seems to be interested in.
Our direct and indirect observation of the earth and other planets as well as all our means of measurement/instrumentation of this planet from travel time to surveying to GPS are all consistent in showing a spheroid planet which is well explained by our understanding of physics and cosmology. I contend that this is so as its real. You contend that somehow its all false and the earth is actually flat of unknown layout, structure and origin yet somehow all said observations and measurement despite their different methodologies are consistent in their deviation from this flat earth reality. Yet you claim that I am the one who is being absurd. Pretty funny.
Whatever helps you sleep at night... but you are a pretty absurd Sun-worshipping cult member to come here to TFES just to preach your heliocentric religion, as if people here are flat-earthers just because they decided to wake up one day and reject the heliocentric religion. Maybe your problem is that you don't realize you are a cult member and you actually think that heliocentrism is about science when it's not.
-
Whatever helps you sleep at night... but you are a pretty absurd Sun-worshipping cult member to come here to TFES just to preach your heliocentric religion, as if people here are flat-earthers just because they decided to wake up one day and reject the heliocentric religion. Maybe your problem is that you don't realize you are a cult member and you actually think that heliocentrism is about science when it's not.
The welcome post for this forum says The purpose of this board is to directly examine, discuss and critique the Flat Earth Theory. We encourage posts in support of both the Flat Earth and Round Earth model (or, indeed, any other model).
I think that is what I have been doing. I wanted to see if FEers actually thought that what they post is true and had reasonable support for such or were just engaging in trolling of one form/degree or another. Your posts tend to make me think the latter is more likely. But as you say "whatever...".
-
Whatever helps you sleep at night... but you are a pretty absurd Sun-worshipping cult member to come here to TFES just to preach your heliocentric religion, as if people here are flat-earthers just because they decided to wake up one day and reject the heliocentric religion. Maybe your problem is that you don't realize you are a cult member and you actually think that heliocentrism is about science when it's not.
The welcome post for this forum says The purpose of this board is to directly examine, discuss and critique the Flat Earth Theory. We encourage posts in support of both the Flat Earth and Round Earth model (or, indeed, any other model).
I think that is what I have been doing. I wanted to see if FEers actually thought that what they post is true and had reasonable support for such or were just engaging in trolling of one form/degree or another. Your posts tend to make me think the latter is more likely. But as you say "whatever...".
You came here to preach your religion and your last post proves it.
Now your excuse is that you're here because you wanted to make sure that flat-earthers are for real? After 250 posts and 2 years here, that's a bad excuse.
-
Your needle points at the pole, does it? BS. Compass pointing to magnetic north may be what they tell to children, but obviously that's not true because magnetic inclination AND magnetic declination both affect the compass.
Well, to be utterly precise, we should say that a magnetic compass needle will align with the local magnetic flux. I chose 1000 miles south from the pole to simplify things a bit, as at that range a compass will pretty much be pointing at the pole. Whether it’s affected by inclination depends on the design of the compass, but it shouldn’t affect the heading reading as long as the platform is in a steady state. I’m not sure if you understand what declination is, from the way you’re talking about it.
In typical globe-earther fashion, you keep demanding that I explain how the FE Universe works because your heliocentric religion gives you answers and you expect me to come up with another religion that you can compare it to. Maybe you can do that with white board dude, but not me.
You are talking about field strength and I never mentioned field strength, I'm talking about size.
Size? If I’m 1000 miles south of the magnetic North Pole and the field ‘increases’, what does that mean and how does it affect my compass bearing?
I don't know for sure what's going on with Earth's magnetic field because the true workings of the Universe aren't exactly on Wikipedia. So it requires real research and real brainstorming. Many hours which I do not necessarily have. And on top of that, you have TPTB and the know-it-alls trying to muddy the waters every corner you turn, so it's not easy. Especially because the research I do, almost no one seems to be interested in.
Well, I’m interested, but you don’t seem keen on answering questions about it. I’m curious, for example, to understand why you think that the geographic North Pole is arbitrary, when it is equidistant from the tropics and equator, which you’ve agreed are not arbitrary.
-
It is an arbitrary fixed point like I already said. If you look at the old Mercator NP map, the geographic NP in that map is nowhere near where they say it is now, and no one goes to the old location.
What, are you going to say that Mercator shouldn't be trusted? That's not what I was taught in school.
If your teachers really told you to trust Mercator, you were very badly served. Of course you shouldn't trust him; he lived in the 16th Century ffs and his map is a function of the knowledge base of the period. No-one had been to the North Pole, and his Polar Map is based on knowledge, rumour, guesswork and invention. Land masses and whirlpools that don't exist, for instance.
The true value of Gerardus Mercator is purely on his publication of the projection method which carries his name (and is still in use today) and as a historical reference of 16th Century knowledge.
-
I’m curious, for example, to understand why you think that the geographic North Pole is arbitrary, when it is equidistant from the tropics and equator, which you’ve agreed are not arbitrary.
Why are you lying and saying it's equidistant to the equator, huh? Equidistant compared to what? Your fake mathematical South Pole on your fake ball Earth?
-
Why are you lying and saying it's equidistant to the equator, huh? Equidistant compared to what? Your fake mathematical South Pole on your fake ball Earth?
Equidistant just means it’s in the middle of the circle. From the geographic North Pole it’s the same distance to any point on the tropics, or any point on the equator. That’s not controversial, nor is it even anything inconsistent with a monopole FE, which seems to be what you’re proposing. If you agree there is such a thing as the tropic lines, and an equator, then you must surely agree that there is some point in the middle, as it were, that forms the centre?
-
Why are you lying and saying it's equidistant to the equator, huh? Equidistant compared to what? Your fake mathematical South Pole on your fake ball Earth?
Equidistant just means it’s in the middle of the circle. From the geographic North Pole it’s the same distance to any point on the tropics, or any point on the equator. That’s not controversial, nor is it even anything inconsistent with a monopole FE, which seems to be what you’re proposing. If you agree there is such a thing as the tropic lines, and an equator, then you must surely agree that there is some point in the middle, as it were, that forms the centre?
No, that's not what equidistant means. But in this case, that is what you mean by equidistant, which is different.
Of course the current equator is going to be equidistant to the North Pole in that way, because that's how they calculated it from the globe. They say it's a ball of X dimensions, you just calculate the midpoint and call it the equator. It's a highschool math problem.
But okay, I realized that you are right and that these are globe concepts. However, I understand them to be what I already told you before. The intertropical zone is roughly where the Sun appears to move. You can call it intertropical zone or you can call it anything. Maybe "solar zone".
-
No, that's not what equidistant means. But in this case, that is what you mean by equidistant, which is different.
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_(geometry) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_(geometry))
The center of a circle is the point equidistant from the points on the edge.
Of course the current equator is going to be equidistant to the North Pole in that way, because that's how they calculated it from the globe. They say it's a ball of X dimensions, you just calculate the midpoint and call it the equator. It's a highschool math problem.
But okay, I realized that you are right and that these are globe concepts. However, I understand them to be what I already told you before. The intertropical zone is roughly where the Sun appears to move. You can call it intertropical zone or you can call it anything. Maybe "solar zone".
But my point is that these things are not unique to the globe model - the geographic North Pole would be the same on your flat earth model. If you agree with the location of the tropics, which it sounds like you do, then I don’t see how you can dismiss the geographic North Pole as ‘arbitrary’. It’s not arbitrary, it’s a point in the middle of a set of circles that you agree with - after all, you cited a video in which the presenter refers so claimed observations of certain behaviours associated with those places.
Where you seem to differ, if I’ve understood you correctly, is that you believe the magnetic pole is also at the centre of those circles - it is coincident with the geographic North Pole. Have I got that right?
-
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_(geometry) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_(geometry))
The center of a circle is the point equidistant from the points on the edge.
Equidistant could be applied to a number of things, not just the centre of a circle relative to the edges... It's telling you that point is equidistant to the edges, because it is.
But my point is that these things are not unique to the globe model - the geographic North Pole would be the same on your flat earth model. If you agree with the location of the tropics, which it sounds like you do, then I don’t see how you can dismiss the geographic North Pole as ‘arbitrary’. It’s not arbitrary, it’s a point in the middle of a set of circles that you agree with - after all, you cited a video in which the presenter refers so claimed observations of certain behaviours associated with those places.
Where you seem to differ, if I’ve understood you correctly, is that you believe the magnetic pole is also at the centre of those circles - it is coincident with the geographic North Pole. Have I got that right?
You're missing the point, which is that exploration of the Arctic (Sea) is not allowed. Why? All expeditions to the Arctic (Sea) are small expeditions to specific points through predetermined routes, which are all approved by government beforehand. Meaning that there is no actual exploration of that area. I want to know what's here:
Supposedly it's just a bunch of ice there and water below the ice, but I don't buy it. Why has the ice been replaced with CGI water on Google Earth?
(https://i.imgur.com/KY7cnLm.png)
-
You're missing the point, which is that exploration of the Arctic (Sea) is not allowed. Why? All expeditions to the Arctic (Sea) are small expeditions to specific points through predetermined routes, which are all approved by government beforehand. Meaning that there is no actual exploration of that area. I want to know what's here:
Supposedly it's just a bunch of ice there and water below the ice, but I don't buy it. Why has the ice been replaced with CGI water on Google Earth?
(https://i.imgur.com/KY7cnLm.png)
This is total crap. Who is this "government"? The World Government? The arctic can be approached directly by air, or seasonally on foot/sled/cat, from Russia, United States, Canada, Greenland and Norway, or just go by boat from the surrounding oceans. There is no land, just open sea and ice under no nation's jurisdiction. The expeditions are small because of the dangers from extreme weather, difficult (ice) terrain and presence of predators (unless that is also denied). These expeditions are closely controlled so that visitors don't fall through the ice, get eaten by polar bears or succumb to the weather but, if you want to mount your own expedition, just go for it. Frankly, the only group of individuals who would find it insurmountable are the Amish.
Or just take a flight from Helsinki to Tokyo, and look out the window.
-
You're missing the point, which is that exploration of the Arctic (Sea) is not allowed. Why? All expeditions to the Arctic (Sea) are small expeditions to specific points through predetermined routes, which are all approved by government beforehand. Meaning that there is no actual exploration of that area. I want to know what's here:
Supposedly it's just a bunch of ice there and water below the ice, but I don't buy it. Why has the ice been replaced with CGI water on Google Earth?
(https://i.imgur.com/KY7cnLm.png)
Whilst I entirely agree with Duncan, I don’t suppose we’re ever going to persuade you that people can and do visit the arctic, and it’s nothing like the mystery you are suggesting.
That’s why I’m sticking to basic stuff - I am genuinely interested in your views, hence asking whether you think the geographic and magnetic poles are colocated, which seems to be what you are saying.
I would also challenge you to look at openly available, widely corroborated data and see if it aligns with your views. You could start by choosing some points at the northern edges of countries in the far north. Check and see what the current magnetic declination is for those places, and use it to work out which way a compass would say is north at those places. Now plot that direction on a monopole FET map and ask if it makes more sense for the magnetic North Pole to be where I claimed it was, or where you are claiming it to be.
Now do the same in the south but look at which way magnetic south is - choose some places towards the southern end of countries in the southern hemisphere. The southern end of Argentina, for example, and South Africa. Do the same for south west and south east Australia, and also New Zealand.
Plot those arrows on your map and again, ask yourself if it makes more sense for there to be a continuous magnetic south all the way around the edge of the FE, or for the South Pole to in fact be where I suggested it was - ie just north of the Antarctic coast to the south of Australia. Try plotting the same arrows on a screenshot of Google earth, looking down on Antarctica and see what you think.
That’s easy, interesting research you could do if you are genuinely interested in conducting your own exploration into the truth.
-
The expeditions are small because of the dangers from extreme weather, difficult (ice) terrain and presence of predators (unless that is also denied). These expeditions are closely controlled so that visitors don't fall through the ice, get eaten by polar bears or succumb to the weather
(https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
How nice of them to care if a flat-earther gets eaten by a polar bear. The government really has our best interest at heart. It's... it's beautiful. :'(
Why is any of this a problem for a modern army in 2023 again? The armies are at the Arctic because of Putin or Trump or the Arctic Boogeyman, so they are not there to explore anything. When are they going to explore? Especially that area I highlighted? Below the ice?
Or just take a flight from Helsinki to Tokyo, and look out the window.
Nice coping mechanism.
-
I would also challenge you to look at openly available, widely corroborated data and see if it aligns with your views. You could start by choosing some points at the northern edges of countries in the far north. Check and see what the current magnetic declination is for those places, and use it to work out which way a compass would say is north at those places. Now plot that direction on a monopole FET map and ask if it makes more sense for the magnetic North Pole to be where I claimed it was, or where you are claiming it to be.
Now do the same in the south but look at which way magnetic south is - choose some places towards the southern end of countries in the southern hemisphere. The southern end of Argentina, for example, and South Africa. Do the same for south west and south east Australia, and also New Zealand.
Plot those arrows on your map and again, ask yourself if it makes more sense for there to be a continuous magnetic south all the way around the edge of the FE, or for the South Pole to in fact be where I suggested it was - ie just north of the Antarctic coast to the south of Australia. Try plotting the same arrows on a screenshot of Google earth, looking down on Antarctica and see what you think.
That’s easy, interesting research you could do if you are genuinely interested in conducting your own exploration into the truth.
There's no point to any of that if you're only ever measuring a local magnetic flux, like you admitted. In order to know the origin of the field you need to go to the Arctic to check and you're not allowed, supposedly because the government is really concerned about polar bears and weather. You just have to believe that the magnetic poles are where they tell you (which again, they never tell you their exact current locations) and never question the mainstream magnetic field model of the globe Earth.
-
There's no point to any of that if you're only ever measuring a local magnetic flux, like you admitted. In order to know the origin of the field you need to go to the Arctic to check and you're not allowed, supposedly because the government is really concerned about polar bears and weather. You just have to believe that the magnetic poles are where they tell you and never question the mainstream magnetic field model.
This is all kinds of muddled. The magnetic North Pole is in Canadian territory (although it won't be for long, as it's heading to Russia). There is nothing legislating against you going there yourself, although it's not for the faint-hearted...unless you take a cruise ship. Heck, this one even takes in both poles, ice permitting. https://uk.ponant.com/the-arctic-transarctic-the-quest-for-the-two-north-poles-cc060924-11 (https://uk.ponant.com/the-arctic-transarctic-the-quest-for-the-two-north-poles-cc060924-11)
But you don't even have to do that - the simple desktop exercise I proposed would give you a very strong clue that the poles are indeed where they are claimed to be. Yes, you are only assessing the local flux lines and so, yes, I suppose it could take a massive turn somewhere between the locations in question and the pole, but that is highly unlikely, and if you draw the extended flux lines from each position you'll see that for the pole to not be where it is claimed to be there would have to be a very improbably change in direction for all of the flux lines. Just try it, and you'll see what I mean. Moreover, it wouldn't even fit the described patterns in the video that you yourself cited.
Likewise, in the Southern Hemisphere, you'll see that it simply doesn't add up for there to be a ring shaped, uniform South Pole - why aren't the various flux lines all heading that way then? Why are they all pointing to the point I described when you plot them on a globe?
-
This is all kinds of muddled. The magnetic North Pole is in Canadian territory (although it won't be for long, as it's heading to Russia). There is nothing legislating against you going there yourself, although it's not for the faint-hearted...unless you take a cruise ship. Heck, this one even takes in both poles, ice permitting. https://uk.ponant.com/the-arctic-transarctic-the-quest-for-the-two-north-poles-cc060924-11 (https://uk.ponant.com/the-arctic-transarctic-the-quest-for-the-two-north-poles-cc060924-11)
Another big joke...
(https://media.ponant.com/media/5345272.jpg)
If the magnetic NP is in Canadian territory as you believe, what is it doing there??
Why do you not bother reading/looking at the things you link??
Likewise, in the Southern Hemisphere, you'll see that it simply doesn't add up for there to be a ring shaped, uniform South Pole - why aren't the various flux lines all heading that way then? Why are they all pointing to the point I described when you plot them on a globe?
Pretty obvious that is BS. All modeled from the assumption that Earth is a globe. Calculated from other data and modeled in a computer. It is not reality. More cartoon nonsense from the globe cult.
-
Another big joke...
(https://media.ponant.com/media/5345272.jpg)
If the magnetic NP is in Canadian teritory as you believe, what is it doing there??
A fair question - that's further over that most other sources I've seen - I was under the impression it was still in Canadian territory, but I could be out of date. It's a really interesting subject - the pace of movement in recent years is unusually high.
Why do you not bother reading/looking at the things you link??
Likewise, in the Southern Hemisphere, you'll see that it simply doesn't add up for there to be a ring shaped, uniform South Pole - why aren't the various flux lines all heading that way then? Why are they all pointing to the point I described when you plot them on a globe?
Pretty obvious that is BS. All modeled from the assumption that Earth is a globe. Calculated from other data and modeled in a computer. It is not reality. More cartoon nonsense from the globe cult.
But that's my point - if you don't trust the data, why not do some research yourself with much more verifiable information? The declination is a widely used parameter - it's still essential for safe navigation, and is published for all airports, for example. Here's Invercargill, in southerly New Zealand, with an approach chart showing a declination of 26 degrees East in June 2021 (see the top left), which is entirely in agreement with the global map shown in wikipedia, for example. https://www.aip.net.nz/assets/AIP/Aerodrome-Charts/Invercargill-NZNV/NZNV_32.1_33.1.pdf (https://www.aip.net.nz/assets/AIP/Aerodrome-Charts/Invercargill-NZNV/NZNV_32.1_33.1.pdf)
Why so much declination in New Zealand? Why wouldn't a compass needle just point true south, towards the ring-shaped magnet that you propose? Try the same exercise in South Western Australia and it's the other direction - why? Funny how they both point at the same place that is generally agreed to be the magnetic South Pole.
You're immediately rejecting stuff as 'obviously BS', but you haven't done basic stuff that you could easily do with reliable, verifiable open source data. Data that clearly shows that the situation is not as your man in the videos portrays it to be. That should at least get you thinking that maybe things aren't as you thought they might be.
-
How nice of them to care if a flat-earther gets eaten by a polar bear. The government really has our best interest at heart. It's... it's beautiful. :'(
Why is any of this a problem for a modern army in 2023 again? The armies are at the Arctic because of Putin or Trump or the Arctic Boogeyman, so they are not there to explore anything. When are they going to explore? Especially that area I highlighted? Below the ice?
Or just take a flight from Helsinki to Tokyo, and look out the window.
Nice coping mechanism.
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. Tours, anywhere, are supervised by tour guides. Been to Israel? Or Whalewatching? Or Yosemite? Or Chornobyl? Tour guides gather together a group of tourist, make sure they are suitably attired, equipped and have appropriate mobility and fitness. They count the tourists, shove them on suitable transport, explain what they are looking at, and try to stop them wandering off into the West Bank, over a cliff, fall out of the boat or whatever. Then they take the tourists back to the hotel and count them again. In the arctic they make sure you don't freeze to death, fall down a crevace, or suffer the polar bear thing. Tour guides.
Not "the government". Not an army.
Tour guides.
And I'm sorry, I don't see your problem with aircraft windows.
-
That's an interesting map of the Magnetic Pole btw. Seems to be illustrating a journey across the arctic via Seattle, Nome, Spitzbergen and Paris. Do you have a source?
You may also find this interesting;
The first team of novices to reach the magnetic north pole did so in 1996, led by David Hempleman-Adams. It included the first British woman Sue Stockdale and first Swedish woman to reach the Pole.[20][21][22] The team also successfully tracked the location of the Magnetic North Pole on behalf of the University of Ottawa, and certified its location by magnetometer and theodolite at 78°35′42″N 104°11′54″W.[23][24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_magnetic_pole#:~:text=The%20north%20magnetic%20pole%20moves,N%20110%C2%B048%E2%80%B2W.
Does that count as exploration? That was on behalf of the University of Ottawa. Not the "government". Ottawa.
-
That's an interesting map of the Magnetic Pole btw. Seems to be illustrating a journey across the arctic via Seattle, Nome, Spitzbergen and Paris. Do you have a source?
You may also find this interesting;
The first team of novices to reach the magnetic north pole did so in 1996, led by David Hempleman-Adams. It included the first British woman Sue Stockdale and first Swedish woman to reach the Pole.[20][21][22] The team also successfully tracked the location of the Magnetic North Pole on behalf of the University of Ottawa, and certified its location by magnetometer and theodolite at 78°35′42″N 104°11′54″W.[23][24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_magnetic_pole#:~:text=The%20north%20magnetic%20pole%20moves,N%20110%C2%B048%E2%80%B2W.
Does that count as exploration? That was on behalf of the University of Ottawa. Not the "government". Ottawa.
I tried that angle earlier in this thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=20105.msg281834#msg281834) - all dismissed and baked into the conspiracy.
I think I worked out why the mag pole is shown where it is on that tour map - it’s because the cruise is set for September next year, so that’s a forecast position.
-
I think I worked out why the mag pole is shown where it is on that tour map - it’s because the cruise is set for September next year, so that’s a forecast position.
It's only 60k USD for a ticket. And probably zero chance to conduct magnetic research. They could even have a magnet submerged at that spot for all anyone knows.
What a bargain for a flat-earther like me.
-
It's only 60k USD for a ticket. And probably zero chance to conduct magnetic research. They could even have a magnet submerged at that spot for all anyone knows.
What a bargain for a flat-earther like me.
If you don’t want to go, then I refer you to my previous post - there’s plenty you could do at home that would further your knowledge on this, instead of just rejecting stuff as ‘BS’ because you don’t understand it / it disagrees with your views.
-
It's only 60k USD for a ticket. And probably zero chance to conduct magnetic research. They could even have a magnet submerged at that spot for all anyone knows.
What a bargain for a flat-earther like me.
If you don’t want to go, then I refer you to my previous post - there’s plenty you could do at home that would further your knowledge on this, instead of just rejecting stuff as ‘BS’ because you don’t understand it / it disagrees with your views.
If that's what you're supposed to be doing, how come you thought that the current magnetic declination/inclination agreed with your Canadian magnetic NP? This means that you just assumed it was so.
And now you're making it up saying that the magnetic NP is going to be at that spot in September while citing exactly zero sources or research.
-
If that's what you're supposed to be doing, how come you thought that the current magnetic declination/inclination agreed with your Canadian magnetic NP? This means that you just assumed it was so.
And now you're making it up saying that the magnetic NP is going to be at that spot in September while citing exactly zero sources or research.
If you aren’t interested, that’s fine. You claimed to have done a lot of research, so I thought you might be open minded enough to try something new. You aren’t, and that’s ok with me. Shame though.
-
If that's what you're supposed to be doing, how come you thought that the current magnetic declination/inclination agreed with your Canadian magnetic NP? This means that you just assumed it was so.
And now you're making it up saying that the magnetic NP is going to be at that spot in September while citing exactly zero sources or research.
If you aren’t interested, that’s fine. You claimed to have done a lot of research, so I thought you might be open minded enough to try something new. You aren’t, and that’s ok with me. Shame though.
Quote me saying that I have done "a lot of research" about this particular subject. Lie.
I have done enough research to know that it's not a globe, though. And I am 100% certain that it's not a globe - precisely because I was open minded enough to do the research.
-
Quote me saying that I have done "a lot of research" about this particular subject. Lie.
I have done enough research to know that it's not a globe, though. And I am 100% certain that it's not a globe - precisely because I was open minded enough to do the research.
Very happy to agree that you haven’t done a lot of research, if you’d prefer?
-
Quote me saying that I have done "a lot of research" about this particular subject. Lie.
I have done enough research to know that it's not a globe, though. And I am 100% certain that it's not a globe - precisely because I was open minded enough to do the research.
Very happy to agree that you haven’t done a lot of research, if you’d prefer?
There's a lot of stuff I haven't done a lot of research into - I'm always learning new things about our amazing reality. But like I said, I have done enough research to know that it's not a globe, which was the important thing for me (knowing for sure). Which is also why I don't really do much research anymore. Now I focus mainly on money, exercise and life goals.
I can only have dreams now of full exploration of our realm, which would reveal a lot. Meanwhile, people like you think it's all figured out and there's nothing to explore except the depths of oceans and imaginary space balls, and maybe a couple of islands. It's very uninspiring (except the oceans part, which is still pretty cool).
-
I'm always learning new things about our amazing reality.
So why the complete failure to engage on any of my suggestions or questions? Wouldn’t you like to learn more? Are you open or closed minded?
-
I'm always learning new things about our amazing reality.
So why the complete failure to engage on any of my suggestions or questions? Wouldn’t you like to learn more? Are you open or closed minded?
My friend, you look at a .gov graph that shows you some plotted data that agrees with the globe model and you take it as 100% truth... I have nothing to say to you about being open-minded. You obviously have no clue what that is.
-
I'm always learning new things about our amazing reality.
So why the complete failure to engage on any of my suggestions or questions? Wouldn’t you like to learn more? Are you open or closed minded?
My friend, you look at a .gov graph that shows you some plotted data that agrees with the globe model and you take it as 100% truth... I have nothing to say to you about being open-minded. You obviously have no clue what that is.
No. I’ve offered you data that is far more verifiable than just .gov stuff, such as mag declination data from an active airfield - you’ve completely ignored it.
-
I'm always learning new things about our amazing reality.
So why the complete failure to engage on any of my suggestions or questions? Wouldn’t you like to learn more? Are you open or closed minded?
My friend, you look at a .gov graph that shows you some plotted data that agrees with the globe model and you take it as 100% truth... I have nothing to say to you about being open-minded. You obviously have no clue what that is.
No. I’ve offered you data that is far more verifiable than just .gov stuff, such as mag declination data from an active airfield - you’ve completely ignored it.
Yeah, but I don't have a model to defend unlike you.
It's very funny that you said white board dude is "my man", when I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. I only posted that for discussion, but instead you attack some white board descriptions. Whatever makes you happy.
-
[quote author=SteelyBob
Yeah, but I don't have a model to defend unlike you.
It's very funny that you said white board dude is "my man", when I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. I only posted that for discussion, but instead you attack some white board descriptions. Whatever makes you happy.
So you agree, I did offer you something you could have worked with, but you ignored it anyway. And all you’ve got is a feeble diverting excuse about not having a model to defend.
It’s super simple. If you were genuinely interested in learning more, you’d take a look at the stuff I gave you. But you won’t, because you aren’t interested.
-
[quote author=SteelyBob
Yeah, but I don't have a model to defend unlike you.
It's very funny that you said white board dude is "my man", when I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. I only posted that for discussion, but instead you attack some white board descriptions. Whatever makes you happy.
So you agree, I did offer you something you could have worked with, but you ignored it anyway. And all you’ve got is a feeble diverting excuse about not having a model to defend.
It’s super simple. If you were genuinely interested in learning more, you’d take a look at the stuff I gave you. But you won’t, because you aren’t interested.
You didn't give me nothing except a PDF with yet more graphs.
How did you confirm it? Did you go to New Zealand with your magnetometer? Because I would be interested in seeing that.
-
[
You didn't give me nothing except a PDF with yet more graphs.
How did you confirm it? Did you go to New Zealand with your magnetometer? Because I would be interested in seeing that.
At some point, we have to use data that we can’t verify ourselves. However, noting how suspicious you are of anything official, I deliberately chose something that is checked by lots of people every day. The magnetic declination at an airfield is both essential and verifiable by every aircraft that visits an airport. If it was wrong, it would be reported.
-
[
You didn't give me nothing except a PDF with yet more graphs.
How did you confirm it? Did you go to New Zealand with your magnetometer? Because I would be interested in seeing that.
At some point, we have to use data that we can’t verify ourselves. However, noting how suspicious you are of anything official, I deliberately chose something that is checked by lots of people every day. The magnetic declination at an airfield is both essential and verifiable by every aircraft that visits an airport. If it was wrong, it would be reported.
If you say so.
I would appreciate it if you could make a video explaining the PDF and your point regarding said PDF... If you do, I will watch it.
-
Assuming you can read, Bob doesn't need to make a video. Look at the top left corner of each page of his pdf. There is a symbol like a V. The left arm is vertical, indicating True North (Grid North, or map North, if you will). The other arm points to the right, and is marked "26deg E". That indicates to chart users that the local declination of Magnetic North is 26 deg right of True North.
Every single map and chart intended for the purposes of navigation has the local declination marked on it, either as the V-simbol on the Invercargill Airfield Chart, or often as a compass rose on nautical charts. Airfield charts have a short lifespan and are frequently replaced, but navigational maps are expected to be in use for several years so normally include, not only the declination at publication, but the expected annual progression.
In the case of Invercargill, for instance, if you flew a heading of North on your aircraft compass, without applying this adjustment, you would actually be flying North-North-East. Perhaps more importantly, if you flew at low altitude compass-West after departing Invercargill you might expect to be over the sea, but you would actually be flying NNW, into a mountain range.
Its not just for aircraft; its the same for ships, and every boy-scout map-reader knows it.
-
Or alternatively, there is no magnetic declination and magnetic declination only exists mathematically/conceptually to make the globe work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvZ3tMqyjHo
-
Or alternatively, there is no magnetic declination and magnetic declination only exists mathematically/conceptually to make the globe work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvZ3tMqyjHo
Thanks for posting that. This is a brilliant subject for debate, because although there’s a lot of chat about conspiracy, subterfuge, and not being allowed beyond certain places on the earth, the principles being discussed are simple and easy to observe with everyday equipment. It is therefore extremely easy to rebut.
There’s a lot to unpack, but I think I’ll just throw two questions back at you.
1. If mag declination is a construct to compensate for the difference between the ‘fake’ globe and the ‘true’ FE, why does declination change over time? Why do ‘they’ change the correction figures over time? Surely if it was, to use his example, 15 degrees of difference between the fake heading and the real one in his example, then that would always be the case, would it not?
2. Magnetic compasses are not the only means of navigation - for centuries people have navigated using stars, for example. In the northern hemisphere, the North Star remains fixed on true north - if you start anywhere on a map and move towards or away from the North Star, your true heading will be North or South. That is easily verifiable - you can do it yourself if you live in the northern hemisphere - just observe a distant object directly under the North Star on a clear night and compare it with a map - make sure you use a map with lat/long grid lines or markings, and not a local grid.
It is also very easy to prove to yourself that true north is very rarely the same as magnetic north - unless of course you are somewhere with zero declination. Just get a compass out and take a bearing off the North Star. Compare it with your local published declination. You can also repeat the exercise over a period of several years and observe declination changing, just as sailors navigating on a constant celestial bearing will notice changes in their magnetic bearing as they move across areas of changing declination.
All of these things are easy to verify, and would be well known to an open water sailor. So you have to ask yourself, why would somebody make a video with content that is so obviously and demonstrably false?
-
Or alternatively, there is no magnetic declination and magnetic declination only exists mathematically/conceptually to make the globe work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvZ3tMqyjHo
Thanks for posting that. This is a brilliant subject for debate, because although there’s a lot of chat about conspiracy, subterfuge, and not being allowed beyond certain places on the earth, the principles being discussed are simple and easy to observe with everyday equipment. It is therefore extremely easy to rebut.
There’s a lot to unpack, but I think I’ll just throw two questions back at you.
1. If mag declination is a construct to compensate for the difference between the ‘fake’ globe and the ‘true’ FE, why does declination change over time? Why do ‘they’ change the correction figures over time? Surely if it was, to use his example, 15 degrees of difference between the fake heading and the real one in his example, then that would always be the case, would it not?
2. Magnetic compasses are not the only means of navigation - for centuries people have navigated using stars, for example. In the northern hemisphere, the North Star remains fixed on true north - if you start anywhere on a map and move towards or away from the North Star, your true heading will be North or South. That is easily verifiable - you can do it yourself if you live in the northern hemisphere - just observe a distant object directly under the North Star on a clear night and compare it with a map - make sure you use a map with lat/long grid lines or markings, and not a local grid.
It is also very easy to prove to yourself that true north is very rarely the same as magnetic north - unless of course you are somewhere with zero declination. Just get a compass out and take a bearing off the North Star. Compare it with your local published declination. You can also repeat the exercise over a period of several years and observe declination changing, just as sailors navigating on a constant celestial bearing will notice changes in their magnetic bearing as they move across areas of changing declination.
All of these things are easy to verify, and would be well known to an open water sailor. So you have to ask yourself, why would somebody make a video with content that is so obviously and demonstrably false?
You think you have rebutted it, do you? You have done no such thing.
1. The magnetic field is obviously moving. Therefore, the declination is always getting adjusted to match the magnetic field.
2. Celestial navigation is another subject entirely. Celestial navigation works using the celestial sphere, which is a byproduct of how we see the sky. This is 100% fact, so you can't deny it.
3. North Star is not at true north, it is at magnetic north which is the real true north. But obviously it's not exactly above it. It goes around magnetic north. What you call "axial precession" in the globe model.
-
Whilst all credit is due to M. Riboni for his participation in this race, I haven't seen anything to elaborate on his duties, particularly with regard to navigation. He certainly wasn't the skipper (Pierre Fehlmann) so may have been anywhere between Second-in-Command and sailor. It is also never stated how many, or which, legs he crewed out of 6.
I haven't counted them all but under "Whitbread/Volvo Ocean Race Participants" Wikipedia lists over a hundred individuals beginning with the letter "R". That suggest the total number of participants since 1972 to be around one or two thousand. Of course, Earth Shape opinions of the others have not You-Tubed.
-
[
You think you have rebutted it, do you? You have done no such thing.
1. The magnetic field is obviously moving. Therefore, the declination is always getting adjusted to match the magnetic field.
So is there declination or not? You’ve posted a video claiming it’s fictitious. Now you’re claiming it’s always getting adjusted. They can’t both be true.
2. Celestial navigation is another subject entirely. Celestial navigation works using the celestial sphere, which is a byproduct of how we see the sky. This is 100% fact, so you can't deny it.
I’d broadly agree with that. My point is that if you want to navigate due south, in the northern hemisphere, in an area with a published 15 degree declination, then you have two choices (keeping it simple - there are other options). You could take a magnetic bearing, compensated by 15 degrees as per his example. Or you could, on a clear night, just put the North Star directly behind you. The problem with the argument made in the video is that the latter method a) works using the maps he claims are faked and b) doesn’t need the compensation for declination. So declination cannot be an invention used to hide a discrepancy between two systems, as he claims.
3. North Star is not at true north, it is at magnetic north which is the real true north. But obviously it's not exactly above it. It goes around magnetic north. What you call "axial precession" in the globe model.
So this is a great example of something you can easily prove to yourself. If you live in the northern hemisphere, go outside on a clear night, with a compass, and take a bearing off the North Star. Note also a ground feature than lines up with the star. Check on a map. The feature will align with true north. Try at different times of night, at different times of the year. It won’t move. It is always aligned with true north. That is a fact that people have used to navigate by for centuries. Moreover, your magnetic bearing will differ from north by whatever the declination is in your area. This difference will remain constant throughout the night - it doesn’t ‘go around’ anything. The North Star is for all intents and purposes perfectly aligned with true north.
-
[
You think you have rebutted it, do you? You have done no such thing.
1. The magnetic field is obviously moving. Therefore, the declination is always getting adjusted to match the magnetic field.
So is there declination or not? You’ve posted a video claiming it’s fictitious. Now you’re claiming it’s always getting adjusted. They can’t both be true.
2. Celestial navigation is another subject entirely. Celestial navigation works using the celestial sphere, which is a byproduct of how we see the sky. This is 100% fact, so you can't deny it.
I’d broadly agree with that. My point is that if you want to navigate due south, in the northern hemisphere, in an area with a published 15 degree declination, then you have two choices (keeping it simple - there are other options). You could take a magnetic bearing, compensated by 15 degrees as per his example. Or you could, on a clear night, just put the North Star directly behind you. The problem with the argument made in the video is that the latter method a) works using the maps he claims are faked and b) doesn’t need the compensation for declination. So declination cannot be an invention used to hide a discrepancy between two systems, as he claims.
3. North Star is not at true north, it is at magnetic north which is the real true north. But obviously it's not exactly above it. It goes around magnetic north. What you call "axial precession" in the globe model.
So this is a great example of something you can easily prove to yourself. If you live in the northern hemisphere, go outside on a clear night, with a compass, and take a bearing off the North Star. Note also a ground feature than lines up with the star. Check on a map. The feature will align with true north. Try at different times of night, at different times of the year. It won’t move. It is always aligned with true north. That is a fact that people have used to navigate by for centuries. Moreover, your magnetic bearing will differ from north by whatever the declination is in your area. This difference will remain constant throughout the night - it doesn’t ‘go around’ anything. The North Star is for all intents and purposes perfectly aligned with true north.
How can't they both be true? Magnetic field exists, declination is calculated from magnetic field to match globe map(s).
Check on a map, you say? Guy in the video is literally saying that maps have been adjusted to fit the globe, and you say "check on a map". Most likely the globe maps work until they don't, just like he explained.
Yeah, well, the North Star moves, but it is extremely slow. One cycle every 26000 years or whatever.
-
How can they both not be true? Magnetic field exists, declination is calculated from magnetic field to match globe map(s).
Why then, if I move towards the North Star in the northern hemisphere, does my magnetic heading vary from north by precisely the same as the published declination? You can do this yourself - you just need a compass.
Check on a map, you say? Guy in the video is literally saying that maps have been adjusted to fit the globe, and you say "check on a map". Most likely the globe maps work until they don't, just like he explained.
Yes, check on a map. You've got things arranged on a map, with lines of longitude indicating true north. Things arranged on those lines align with true north, as indicated by the North Star. It all lines up.
Again, in his example, if the ship simply sailed with the north star to their stern, instead of using a corrected compass heading, they would get to their destination as planned. According to him, they would miss it by 15 degrees. He is completely and provably wrong.
Yeah, well, the North Star moves, but it is extremely slow. One cycle every 26000 years or whatever.
Indeed it does but, as you say, by a barely discernible amount - hence my 'all intents and purposes'. It's also not 100% perfectly aligned with true north but, again, it's more than close enough for the purposes of our discussion.
-
How can they both not be true? Magnetic field exists, declination is calculated from magnetic field to match globe map(s).
Why then, if I move towards the North Star in the northern hemisphere, does my magnetic heading vary from north by precisely the same as the published declination? You can do this yourself - you just need a compass.
Check on a map, you say? Guy in the video is literally saying that maps have been adjusted to fit the globe, and you say "check on a map". Most likely the globe maps work until they don't, just like he explained.
Yes, check on a map. You've got things arranged on a map, with lines of longitude indicating true north. Things arranged on those lines align with true north, as indicated by the North Star. It all lines up.
Again, in his example, if the ship simply sailed with the north star to their stern, instead of using a corrected compass heading, they would get to their destination as planned. According to him, they would miss it by 15 degrees. He is completely and provably wrong.
Yeah, well, the North Star moves, but it is extremely slow. One cycle every 26000 years or whatever.
Indeed it does but, as you say, by a barely discernible amount - hence my 'all intents and purposes'. It's also not 100% perfectly aligned with true north but, again, it's more than close enough for the purposes of our discussion.
What part of "magnetic field moves" don't you undertand? I'm not saying that it's staying still on FE. It just doesn't move in the way the globe cult says it does, or for the reasons that the globe cult gives. And it doesn't have those dimensions either.
Globe coordinate system has been calculated from where the North Star stands currently. What you call "geographic North Pole". You pretend you don't understand that it's just a mathematical system? Globe zealotry in action for all to see.
-
What part of "magnetic field moves" don't you undertand? I'm not saying that it's staying still on FE. it just doesn't move in the way the globe cult says it does.
Globe coordinate system has been calculated from where the North Star stands currently. What you call "geographic North Pole". You pretend you don't understand that it's just a mathematical system? Globe zealotry in action for all to see.
Let's try again.
Imagine a ship, in a similar situation to the one in his example. Say it wants to sail some distance between two points which are shown, on a conventional 'globe earth' chart, as being on a north-south heading. The published magnetic declination is, as per the video, 15 degrees.
If the ship chooses to sail from north to south using celestial navigation, putting the North Star directly to its stern, would it in your opinion:
a) successfully get to its destination?
b) miss the destination by 15 degrees?
-
What part of "magnetic field moves" don't you undertand? I'm not saying that it's staying still on FE. it just doesn't move in the way the globe cult says it does.
Globe coordinate system has been calculated from where the North Star stands currently. What you call "geographic North Pole". You pretend you don't understand that it's just a mathematical system? Globe zealotry in action for all to see.
Let's try again.
Imagine a ship, in a similar situation to the one in his example. Say it wants to sail some distance between two points which are shown, on a conventional 'globe earth' chart, as being on a north-south heading. The published magnetic declination is, as per the video, 15 degrees.
If the ship chooses to sail from north to south using celestial navigation, putting the North Star directly to its stern, would it in your opinion:
a) successfully get to its destination?
b) miss the destination by 15 degrees?
I think you would need to adjust your distorted globe chart and make it true to our FE reality.
-
[
I think you would need to adjust your distorted globe chart and make it true to our FE reality.
That’s not really an answer. Are you saying (b) - it wouldn’t make it?
-
[
I think you would need to adjust your distorted globe chart and make it true to our FE reality.
That’s not really an answer. Are you saying (b) - it wouldn’t make it?
It is the answer. Just not the one you want to hear because you have a globe model to defend, don't you? Just admit that's what you're here for and that you are not open-minded at all as you claim to be.
You are possessed by heliocentrism. I am the exorcist. VADE RETRO! ;D
-
It is the answer. Just not the one you want to hear because you have a globe model to defend, don't you? Just admit that's what you're here for and that you are not open-minded at all as you claim to be.
You are possessed by heliocentrism. I am the exorcist. VADE RETRO! ;D
From a debate perspective, this is great. We disagree (I clearly think the ship would get to its destination, having followed a true heading of south), but we disagree on a point that is really easy to test. Back to my suggestions earlier - find somewhere local to you with some distinctive landmarks that align north-south (ie on the same longitude - be careful not to just use a local grid line, as they aren't the same thing) and are a few miles apart - factories, headlands, bridges - that kind of thing. Wait for a clear night and stand at the southern point looking towards the northern one. If you are correct then the North Star won't appear exactly over the northern feature - it will be out laterally (azimuth) by whatever your local declination is (15 degrees in the example). If I'm right, it will be bang on. Clearly an easier experiment to do if your local declination is significant.
Are you brave enough to try it? Let me know how you get on.
-
It is the answer. Just not the one you want to hear because you have a globe model to defend, don't you? Just admit that's what you're here for and that you are not open-minded at all as you claim to be.
You are possessed by heliocentrism. I am the exorcist. VADE RETRO! ;D
From a debate perspective, this is great. We disagree (I clearly think the ship would get to its destination, having followed a true heading of south), but we disagree on a point that is really easy to test. Back to my suggestions earlier - find somewhere local to you with some distinctive landmarks that align north-south (ie on the same longitude - be careful not to just use a local grid line, as they aren't the same thing) and are a few miles apart - factories, headlands, bridges - that kind of thing. Wait for a clear night and stand at the southern point looking towards the northern one. If you are correct then the North Star won't appear exactly over the northern feature - it will be out laterally (azimuth) by whatever your local declination is (15 degrees in the example). If I'm right, it will be bang on. Clearly an easier experiment to do if your local declination is significant.
Are you brave enough to try it? Let me know how you get on.
If you are relying on North Star alone for navigation, you aren't following your globe chart anymore. You need to adjust the globe chart to FE chart so that it matches your actual trajectory.
-
If you are relying on North Star alone for navigation, you aren't following your globe chart anymore. You need to adjust the globe chart to FE chart so that it matches your actual trajectory.
That makes no sense whatsoever I’m afraid. In the scenario I described, I said the ship would use the ‘globe chart’ to determine the required heading of 180 degrees true. I then said the ship sets off on a heading dictated by keeping the North Star to its stern. You said if it did that it would miss by 15 degrees, that being the local declination.
So I’m saying you can test that by taking a ‘globe chart’ and seeing if the North Star aligns with the lines of longitude on it. If it does, as I suggest it will, then I put it to you that the ship would, in fact, successfully navigate to its destination, as countless seafarers have done over the years, using the same method and the same charts.
-
If you are relying on North Star alone for navigation, you aren't following your globe chart anymore. You need to adjust the globe chart to FE chart so that it matches your actual trajectory.
That makes no sense whatsoever I’m afraid. In the scenario I described, I said the ship would use the ‘globe chart’ to determine the required heading of 180 degrees true. I then said the ship sets off on a heading dictated by keeping the North Star to its stern. You said if it did that it would miss by 15 degrees, that being the local declination.
So I’m saying you can test that by taking a ‘globe chart’ and seeing if the North Star aligns with the lines of longitude on it. If it does, as I suggest it will, then I put it to you that the ship would, in fact, successfully navigate to its destination, as countless seafarers have done over the years, using the same method and the same charts.
It does make sense. Guy in the video said that when you think you're navigating in a circle on the globe, you're actually navigating in an ellipse on FE.
You said if it did that it would miss by 15 degrees
I did not.
-
It does make sense. Guy in the video said that when you think you're navigating in a circle on the globe, you're actually navigating in an ellipse on FE.
So will you do the experiment, or not?
-
It does make sense. Guy in the video said that when you think you're navigating in a circle on the globe, you're actually navigating in an ellipse on FE.
So will you do the experiment, or not?
It is based on fallacy, so no. Because you said that I said that it would miss it by 15 degrees and I did not say that. Lie.
-
It is based on fallacy, so no. Because you said that I said that it would miss it by 15 degrees and I did not say that. Lie.
You said (b) - if you’d like to clarify your answer go ahead.
-
Guy in the video
Why do you believe the "guy in the video"?
You make a great show of disbelieving any authority, why are you randomly believing this bloke? Because he's agreeing with your worldview?
You said earlier in the thread your research has led you to the belief that the world is flat. My belief about that is you have made a mistake somewhere.
But either way why not publish all your research so it can be reviewed?
You have been shown ways you can test some of your claims and have shown no interest in performing any of those tests.
-
It is based on fallacy, so no. Because you said that I said that it would miss it by 15 degrees and I did not say that. Lie.
You said (b) - if you’d like to clarify your answer go ahead.
Lying once doesn't make you look good.
Lying twice makes you look like a liar.
---------------------------------------------
I already explained it. Makes no sense to use a fake globe map and assume that the locations are what the fake globe map tells you. The only way the globe map works is because of declination.
When you use celestial navigation ONLY, you are no longer in globe la la land. So again, makes no sense to assume that you are navigating a globe geography like you assume.
-
[
Lying once doesn't make you look good.
Lying twice makes you look like a liar.
---------------------------------------------
I already explained it. Makes no sense to use a fake globe map and assume that the locations are what the fake globe map tells you. The only way the globe map works is because of declination.
When you use celestial navigation ONLY, you are no longer in globe la la land. So again, makes no sense to assume that you are navigating a globe geography like you assume.
So, if I want to navigate using celestial navigation only, which map should I use to determine the direction I need to go in?
-
[
Lying once doesn't make you look good.
Lying twice makes you look like a liar.
---------------------------------------------
I already explained it. Makes no sense to use a fake globe map and assume that the locations are what the fake globe map tells you. The only way the globe map works is because of declination.
When you use celestial navigation ONLY, you are no longer in globe la la land. So again, makes no sense to assume that you are navigating a globe geography like you assume.
So, if I want to navigate using celestial navigation only, which map should I use to determine the direction I need to go in?
I would say a globe map in most cases because you are still navigating FE geography when using a globe map applied to celestial navigation. But in your North Star example you have to use a FE map, because you are directly aligned to it and you're not using any other stars, and you're only going one direction away from the NS.
-
But in your North Star example you have to use a FE map,
Which one, exactly?
-
But in your North Star example you have to use a FE map,
Which one, exactly?
The one that results from correcting the map that has been manipulated to fit a globe.
-
The one that results from correcting the map that has been manipulated to fit a globe.
Do please post a picture of this map.
-
The one that results from correcting the map that has been manipulated to fit a globe.
Do please post a picture of this map.
Why can't you do the math and produce the map yourself, since you're the teacher? That is obviously your demeanor here. Fake globe teacher. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
-
The one that results from correcting the map that has been manipulated to fit a globe.
Do please post a picture of this map.
Why can't you do the math and produce the map yourself, since you're the teacher? That is obviously your demeanor here. Fake globe teacher. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
How would I go about producing a FE map? I haven’t the faintest idea how to start and nor, it would seem, does anybody on this site, given that there a several maps offered as possibilities on the wiki and nobody, yourself included, seems to want to commit to one.
So if you can’t produce a map, where does leave our would-be sailor? You seem to be suggesting that attempting to obtain true headings from globe charts will end in failure, despite navigators the world over doing precisely that for hundreds of years. It’s worth pointing out that a lot of navigation is done now without recourse to magnetic compasses, and yet strangely nobody goes off on the wrong heading. Could it be that the globe charts are in fact correct?
Maybe you could go outside and check for yourself, as I’ve suggested? Maybe you don’t want to, because you know deep down that what you would find would challenge your prior beliefs. Or maybe you’re just trolling. I guess we’ll never know.
-
So if you can’t produce a map
I didn't say I couldn't try. My idea is that you can work with the globe map and the declinations that they give you. This would be a plausible way to produce a FE map, once you correct the globe map for no declination. Do you not understand that?
The rest of your comment ignores what I already said and includes "maybe you're just trolling" card, so not worth addressing.
-
[My idea is that you can work with the globe map and the declinations that they give you. This would be a plausible way to produce a FE map, once you correct the globe map for no declination. Do you not understand that?
So your map would change continually with the changing declinations? Have you thought this through?
-
[My idea is that you can work with the globe map and the declinations that they give you. This would be a plausible way to produce a FE map, once you correct the globe map for no declination. Do you not understand that?
So your map would change continually with the changing declinations? Have you thought this through?
Not really, no. I just got home from work a couple of hours ago, and now you're asking me to produce a FE map because if there's no FE map apparently the Earth must be a globe - said the globe cult member.
-
[
Not really, no. I just got home from work a couple of hours ago, and now you're asking me to produce a FE map because if there's no FE map apparently the Earth must be a globe - said the globe cult member.
Well, at least you’re admitting that you haven’t thought something through. Why don’t you give it some thought, try the north-south landmark experiment that I suggested, and come back when you’ve got your thoughts in order. Maybe you could come up with a straight answer to the ship question too.
-
[
Not really, no. I just got home from work a couple of hours ago, and now you're asking me to produce a FE map because if there's no FE map apparently the Earth must be a globe - said the globe cult member.
Well, at least you’re admitting that you haven’t thought something through. Why don’t you give it some thought, try the north-south landmark experiment that I suggested, and come back when you’ve got your thoughts in order. Maybe you could come up with a straight answer to the ship question too.
No, I did think about that one. Instead of rebutting my answer, you asked me to produce a FE map. So here we are. I noticed that's always the "checkmate argument" from the glober, that there is no FE map.
Meanwhile, I already know that the globe only exists as a map.
-
[
Not really, no. I just got home from work a couple of hours ago, and now you're asking me to produce a FE map because if there's no FE map apparently the Earth must be a globe - said the globe cult member.
Well, at least you’re admitting that you haven’t thought something through. Why don’t you give it some thought, try the north-south landmark experiment that I suggested, and come back when you’ve got your thoughts in order. Maybe you could come up with a straight answer to the ship question too.
No, I did think about that one. Instead of rebutting my answer, you asked me to produce a FE map. So here we are. I noticed that's always the "checkmate argument" from the glober, that there is no FE map.
You said to do celestial navigation you’d need a FE map. But you don’t have a FE map, and yet people can and do undertake celestial navigation. Doesn’t that suggest to you that maybe you might wrong?
The fact that nobody has a credible FE map isn’t check mate, it’s just embarrassing. I don’t really like the term ‘check mate’, to be honest, because it suggests win/lose. I’m not trying to defeat you here - I’m trying to persuade you of something, and maybe learn something myself. If somebody proves me wrong, I welcome it.
That said, the critical part of this debate is the ship question. You initially said (b), but then said that you didn’t say that, but also didn’t say what the answer really is. And that’s because you know that to commit to either answer massively undermines your position, so your best bet is to distract from it.
-
You said to do celestial navigation you’d need a FE map.
If you keep lying like that, I'm simply going to block you. Everybody can see what my answers were. You keep lying repeatedly. Why?
-
now you're asking me to produce a FE map because if there's no FE map apparently the Earth must be a globe - said the globe cult member.
The earth must be a globe because of geometry. If the earth were flat then it wouldn’t be that difficult to create an accurate map of the whole earth which correctly shows the distances between landmasses and between cities on landmasses. Maps are flat, if the earth is flat too then the only issue is scale. Why does no such map exist? I’d suggest the answer is that it’s not possible to make one. And the reason it’s not possible is that maps are flat but the earth isn’t. So any map of the whole earth has to use some kind of projection which distorts things. Because of geometry.
-
Maps are flat, if the earth is flat too then the only issue is scale.
Incorrect.
-
Incorrect.
Unsubstantiated.
-
Maps are flat, if the earth is flat too then the only issue is scale.
Incorrect.
How so?
-
How so?
You assume our universe is Euclidean. If it is, both RE and FE are fundamental impossibilities.
-
I believe the problem is people look at a flat map of the earth, such as Gleason's, believing the lines of longitude to be representative of a spherical earth feature, whereas I believe it to be the lines of longitude as projected from Polaris within the celestial sphere above onto the flat surface below.
-
As always, all the globe-earther has are assumptions that the Earth is a globe. And no tangible measurements of this whatsoever. Just fallacy after fallacy.
Hello again. On page 1 I asked you about this, but I haven't seen an answer. Here's my question:
Can I ask you about the bolded statement? When you say 'measurements', are you including surveys? AFAIK, every inch of the earth has been surveyed such that the size and shape of every land mass is known. Do you agree?
-
I believe the problem is people look at a flat map of the earth, such as Gleason's, believing the lines of longitude to be representative of a spherical earth feature, whereas I believe it to be the lines of longitude as projected from Polaris within the celestial sphere above onto the flat surface below.
Of course - that is why I said that a globe map works when applied to celestial navigation, most of the time. With magnetism they need their declination construct to make it work. I now know that.
As you can see, the best the globe cult member has is to lie and claim that I said the opposite.
Globe is dead, now it's all about figuring out specifics and exploration. We already know that globe Earth = land plotted on the celestial sphere because celestial sphere dimensions = globe Earth dimensions, which was known (the dimensions of the celestial sphere) since at least ancient Egypt but is now hidden knowledge (if you say this on YouTube, YouTube deletes your comment, by the way). The globe is purely mathematical, it does not exist in reality other than in people's imagination and fake images.
It is so sad that we live in Dark Ages 2.0. But hey, it's all due to people's ignorance, stupidity and zealotry, so they deserve their imaginary globe Earth prison in my opinion.
-
[
Of course - that is why I said that a globe map works when applied to celestial navigation, most of the time. With magnetism they need their declination construct to make it work. I now know that.
As you can see, the best the globe cult member has is to lie and claim that I said the opposite.
So now you’re saying (a) - the ship would get to its destination?
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=20105.msg281901#msg281901
-
After being a trained navigator on both ships and aircraft, I have a few opinions to share. Navigators always go according to true North. This means relative to the geographic North Pole. If you have a 15 degree magnetic declination (East or West) this just provides a correction factor so you can correct your true heading if you are going exclusively by your compass. If you don't make a correction (East is least and West is best) you won't arrive at your intended destination. I suppose you could jump thru a lot of hoops and figure out your course and just steer with your compass. That could be difficult in rough weather because your compass will jump around and could easily swing back & forth 10 degrees or more. You could be stuck trying to take a mental average that could be off by many degrees. It's a lot easier to just use your gyro-compass. Of course back in the sailing ship days they didn't have a gyro-compass but a lot of those ships ended up on the reef.
-
After being a trained navigator on both ships and aircraft, I have a few opinions to share. Navigators always go according to true North. This means relative to the geographic North Pole. If you have a 15 degree magnetic declination (East or West) this just provides a correction factor so you can correct your true heading if you are going exclusively by your compass. If you don't make a correction (East is least and West is best) you won't arrive at your intended destination. I suppose you could jump thru a lot of hoops and figure out your course and just steer with your compass. That could be difficult in rough weather because your compass will jump around and could easily swing back & forth 10 degrees or more. You could be stuck trying to take a mental average that could be off by many degrees. It's a lot easier to just use your gyro-compass. Of course back in the sailing ship days they didn't have a gyro-compass but a lot of those ships ended up on the reef.
Is "gyrocompasses work due to Earth's rotation" your favorite assumption?
Unfortunately (for you), there is no proof of this, which is why it will forever remain an assumption that comes from further assuming that we live on a spinning ball (and again, no proof of this).
The claim is that gyrocompasses don't get affected by magnetism, but obviously that is not the case because gyrocompasses don't exist outside the magnetic field, and the current globe Earth's magnetic model comes from our beloved and trusted government institutions such as NASA (yes, you should absolutely trust them just like you were supposed to trust the Church back in the day).
-
[
Is "gyrocompasses work due to Earth's rotation" your favorite assumption?
Unfortunately (for you), there is no proof of this, which is why it will forever remain an assumption that comes from further assuming that we live on a spinning ball (and again, no proof of this).
The claim is that gyrocompasses don't get affected by magnetism, but obviously that is not the case because gyrocompasses don't exist outside the magnetic field, and the current globe Earth's magnetic model comes from our beloved and trusted government institutions such as NASA (yes, you should absolutely trust them just like you were supposed to trust the Church back in the day).
If gyrocompasses secretly work via magnetism, how do they know how to point to true north instead of magnetic north?
-
If gyrocompasses secretly work via magnetism, how do they know how to point to true north instead of magnetic north?
They don't, which is one of the (main) reasons that the Arctic is one of the most restricted areas on Earth.
-
If gyrocompasses secretly work via magnetism, how do they know how to point to true north instead of magnetic north?
They don't, which is one of the (main) reasons that the Arctic is one of the most restricted areas on Earth.
That doesn’t follow. A gyrocompass indicates bearing with respect to true north. People who make and use gyrocompasses claim that they work by using the earth’s rotation to induce precession of the gyro inside the instrument, causing it to remain aligned with the earth’s axis of rotation, ie true north. You are claiming that something else, involving the earth’s magnetic field, is in fact at work.
But you also seem to be claiming that gyrocompasses don’t point to true north. You are invoking arctic secrecy to support that claim. That is, however, absurd. That gyrocompasses are based on true north is easily verified - ships navigators the world over know that headings from gyrocompasses are true, whereas as traditional compasses are magnetic. There is an obvious, verifiable difference, just like the difference between magnetic north where’ve you are and the heading to the North Star (if you’re in the northern hemisphere). That’s another one of those experiments you could do if you were really, genuinely curious about this stuff.
By the way, was it (a) or (b)? You don’t seem to have clarified your answer yet.
-
If gyrocompasses secretly work via magnetism, how do they know how to point to true north instead of magnetic north?
They don't, which is one of the (main) reasons that the Arctic is one of the most restricted areas on Earth.
That doesn’t follow. A gyrocompass indicates bearing with respect to true north. People who make and use gyrocompasses claim that they work by using the earth’s rotation to induce precession of the gyro inside the instrument, causing it to remain aligned with the earth’s axis of rotation, ie true north. You are claiming that something else, involving the earth’s magnetic field, is in fact at work.
But you also seem to be claiming that gyrocompasses don’t point to true north. You are invoking arctic secrecy to support that claim. That is, however, absurd. That gyrocompasses are based on true north is easily verified - ships navigators the world over know that headings from gyrocompasses are true, whereas as traditional compasses are magnetic. There is an obvious, verifiable difference, just like the difference between magnetic north where’ve you are and the heading to the North Star (if you’re in the northern hemisphere). That’s another one of those experiments you could do if you were really, genuinely curious about this stuff.
By the way, was it (a) or (b)? You don’t seem to have clarified your answer yet.
Where's your experiment navigating from below the Arctic Circle to the North Pole using a gyrocompass only, friendo?
-
.......which is one of the (main) reasons that the Arctic is one of the most restricted areas on Earth.
You keep throwing this out there and expecting people to believe that it's true. Can you provide any evidence whatever of some World-army or Secret Service keeping people out? Under who's jurisdiction? The (unspecified) "government"?
Alternatively, I contend that "The Islet of Rockall is the Northern True Pole". Its surrounded by ocean, there are no tourist visits, and I don't know anyone who's been there or even seen it. Prove me wrong.
-
Where's your experiment navigating from below the Arctic Circle to the North Pole using a gyrocompass only, friendo?
You’re still afraid of publicly committing to either (a) or (b), aren’t you?
You’ll just keep throwing around irrelevant points that aren’t germane to the discussion. Let’s imaging, just for the sake of argument, that it was actually the case that it was impossible to go to the arctic -
there was a ring of tight security all around the 80th parallel and nobody could venture north.
You could still look at the pole star and compare its bearing with mag north. You could still sail on a ship with a gyrocompass and compare the headings with the locally published mag declination. You don’t need to go to the North Pole to verify any of this stuff - it’s much easier than that. You just need some curiosity.
-
Where's your experiment navigating from below the Arctic Circle to the North Pole using a gyrocompass only, friendo?
You’re still afraid of publicly committing to either (a) or (b), aren’t you?
You’ll just keep throwing around irrelevant points that aren’t germane to the discussion. Let’s imaging, just for the sake of argument, that it was actually the case that it was impossible to go to the arctic -
there was a ring of tight security all around the 80th parallel and nobody could venture north.
You could still look at the pole star and compare its bearing with mag north. You could still sail on a ship with a gyrocompass and compare the headings with the locally published mag declination. You don’t need to go to the North Pole to verify any of this stuff - it’s much easier than that. You just need some curiosity.
WHERE'S YOUR GLOBE CULT'S EXPERIMENT NAVIGATING FROM BELOW THE ARCTIC CIRCLE TO THE NORTH POLE USING A GYROCOMPASS ONLY, I ASKED.
You will dance when and as I tell you.
-
Where's your experiment navigating from below the Arctic Circle to the North Pole using a gyrocompass only, friendo?
You’re still afraid of publicly committing to either (a) or (b), aren’t you?
You’ll just keep throwing around irrelevant points that aren’t germane to the discussion. Let’s imaging, just for the sake of argument, that it was actually the case that it was impossible to go to the arctic -
there was a ring of tight security all around the 80th parallel and nobody could venture north.
You could still look at the pole star and compare its bearing with mag north. You could still sail on a ship with a gyrocompass and compare the headings with the locally published mag declination. You don’t need to go to the North Pole to verify any of this stuff - it’s much easier than that. You just need some curiosity.
WHERE'S YOUR GLOBE CULT'S EXPERIMENT NAVIGATING FROM BELOW THE ARCTIC CIRCLE TO THE NORTH POLE USING A GYROCOMPASS ONLY, I ASKED.
You will dance when and as I tell you.
What a strange thing to say.
There’s lots of accounts of ships sailing to the North Pole, and many will have used gyrocompasses to do so. I’ve already shown you examples of people getting to the magnetic North Pole, and you’ve ignored them or baked them into your conspiracy. The same will doubtless occur if I dig out examples of people travelling to the true North Pole.
You aren’t interested in anything I or anybody else says, and you have shown yourself to be incapable or unwilling to answer simple questions about your claims. It’s somewhat pointless continuing a discussion.
Although if you could confirm (a) or (b) that would be great. :)
-
What a strange thing to say.
There’s lots of accounts of ships sailing to the North Pole, and many will have used gyrocompasses to do so. I’ve already shown you examples of people getting to the magnetic North Pole, and you’ve ignored them or baked them into your conspiracy. The same will doubtless occur if I dig out examples of people travelling to the true North Pole.
You aren’t interested in anything I or anybody else says, and you have shown yourself to be incapable or unwilling to answer simple questions about your claims. It’s somewhat pointless continuing a discussion.
Although if you could confirm (a) or (b) that would be great. :)
Nothing but the "politician approach". Rhetorical lying and the appearance of truthful statements while staying calm, when you're just spewing garbage left, right and center.
-
WHERE'S YOUR GLOBE CULT'S EXPERIMENT NAVIGATING FROM BELOW THE ARCTIC CIRCLE TO THE NORTH POLE USING A GYROCOMPASS ONLY, I ASKED.
Modern navigators rarely use a single method of navigation. These days GPS is likely the preferred method while gyrocompasses, magnetic compasses and celestial navigation are generally used as backups.
-
WHERE'S YOUR GLOBE CULT'S EXPERIMENT NAVIGATING FROM BELOW THE ARCTIC CIRCLE TO THE NORTH POLE USING A GYROCOMPASS ONLY, I ASKED.
Modern navigators rarely use a single method of navigation. These days GPS is likely the preferred method while gyrocompasses, magnetic compasses and celestial navigation are generally used as backups.
Yeah, which is why you should do it as an experiment to confirm your theory (or at least, partially confirm it). Just like many other experiments that you should have carried out already but haven't.
Always some excuse from the globe cult, even though they have all the resources and money.
-
WHERE'S YOUR GLOBE CULT'S EXPERIMENT NAVIGATING FROM BELOW THE ARCTIC CIRCLE TO THE NORTH POLE USING A GYROCOMPASS ONLY, I ASKED.
Modern navigators rarely use a single method of navigation. These days GPS is likely the preferred method while gyrocompasses, magnetic compasses and celestial navigation are generally used as backups.
Yeah, which is why you should do it as an experiment to confirm your theory (or at least, partially confirm it). Just like many other experiments that you should have carried out already but haven't.
What would you consider a valid experiment?
-
Gyro compasses do not rely on any kind of magnetic fields to work. This has been verified and witnessed by me countless times. Ships mostly have their gyro compasses installed in electronics rooms on ships that are completely surrounded by steel on all 6 sides and accessable thru a steel hatch door. Any magnetic field from the outside would be shielded. Another little tidbit, the last ship I was on had the gyros right next to a large electrical transformer that would produce some magnetic fields of its own that would be stronger than any produced by the earth. The gyro compasses still worked fine. Some do rely on a spinning earth to work. You can consult the service manuals or actually take them apart, like I have on many occasions, to confirm that the manuals are accurate. Still don't believe it? Consider that submarines have gyro compasses and use them to accurately determine their heading. A magnetic compass won't work under water and the GPS system won't work either. Gyro compasses can measure the curvature of the earth if you hook the mainteance computers to them like I have. Everything works out as expected.
-
Gyro compasses do not rely on any kind of magnetic fields to work. This has been verified and witnessed by me countless times. Ships mostly have their gyro compasses installed in electronics rooms on ships that are completely surrounded by steel on all 6 sides and accessable thru a steel hatch door. Any magnetic field from the outside would be shielded. Another little tidbit, the last ship I was on had the gyros right next to a large electrical transformer that would produce some magnetic fields of its own that would be stronger than any produced by the earth. The gyro compasses still worked fine. Some do rely on a spinning earth to work. You can consult the service manuals or actually take them apart, like I have on many occasions, to confirm that the manuals are accurate. Still don't believe it? Consider that submarines have gyro compasses and use them to accurately determine their heading. A magnetic compass won't work under water and the GPS system won't work either. Gyro compasses can measure the curvature of the earth if you hook the mainteance computers to them like I have. Everything works out as expected.
Wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5PnL-iC7iQ
Don't compare a petty local field to the real thing. You can't actually shield against Earth's field, it's not possible.
It is for a reason that they lie about magnetism in university. Well, not really lie, but they give you the troglodyte explanation backed up by fake particle physics so that you don't understand anything about what's really going on in reality. Guy above is the world's biggest expert on magnetism, and yet he gets ignored and ridiculed. Including by you (the globe-defending keyboard warriors here). Or you just dismiss it as "word salad" while not making an effort to understand what he's saying.
It will all be revealed in the end, it is just a matter of time. I don't think you can keep using mathematical models and sci-fi pseudoscience to explain reality for all eternity... But one thing I learned, is to never underestimate human stupidity (not saying YOU are stupid, but you for sure have been BRAINWASHED).
-
Wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5PnL-iC7iQ
Don't compare a petty local field to the real thing. You can't actually shield against Earth's field, it's not possible.
It is for a reason that they lie about magnetism in university. Well, not really lie, but they give you the troglodyte explanation backed up by fake particle physics so that you don't understand anything about what's really going on in reality. Guy above is the world's biggest expert on magnetism, and yet he gets ignored and ridiculed. Including by you (the globe-defending keyboard warriors here). Or you just dismiss it as "word salad" while not making an effort to understand what he's saying.
It will all be revealed in the end, it is just a matter of time. I don't think you can keep using mathematical models and sci-fi pseudoscience to explain reality for all eternity... But one thing I learned, is to never underestimate human stupidity (not saying YOU are stupid, but you for sure have been BRAINWASHED).
As with many of your posts, there's a lot to unpack there. I'll keep it simple by pointing out that he's talking about the precession of the globe-shaped earth, in orbit around the sun. He fundamentally disagrees with you - you realise that, right?
-
As with many of your posts, there's a lot to unpack there. I'll keep it simple by pointing out that he's talking about the precession of the globe-shaped earth, in orbit around the sun. He fundamentally disagrees with you - you realise that, right?
NO, he's not talking about that. He just mentioned that because he believes it like you do, but it is irrelevant right now because we're not talking about so-called axial -or apsidal- precession. Except you to make it look like you're making a point when you aren't.
Wanna keep lying?
-
As with many of your posts, there's a lot to unpack there. I'll keep it simple by pointing out that he's talking about the precession of the globe-shaped earth, in orbit around the sun. He fundamentally disagrees with you - you realise that, right?
NO, he's not talking about that. He just mentioned that because he believes it like you do, but it is irrelevant right now because we're not talking about so-called axial -or apsidal- precession. Except you to make it look like you're making a point when you aren't.
Wanna keep lying?
So you're saying that the "the world's biggest expert on magnetism" thinks the earth isn't flat. Cool.
-
As with many of your posts, there's a lot to unpack there. I'll keep it simple by pointing out that he's talking about the precession of the globe-shaped earth, in orbit around the sun. He fundamentally disagrees with you - you realise that, right?
NO, he's not talking about that. He just mentioned that because he believes it like you do, but it is irrelevant right now because we're not talking about so-called axial -or apsidal- precession. Except you to make it look like you're making a point when you aren't.
Wanna keep lying?
So you're saying that the "the world's biggest expert on magnetism" thinks the earth isn't flat. Cool.
He believes in heliocentrism - and? Freedom to choose religion exists in our society. You believe in magical unicorn particles and he does not. He knows that the Ether is real and you do not. And, he knows a lot about Ether mechanics and you do not - you just type on a keyboard to try to get the audience on your side with lies and rhetoric.
-
He believes in heliocentrism - and? Freedom to choose religion exists in our society. You believe in magical unicorn particles and he does not. He knows that the Ether is real and you do not. And, he knows a lot about Ether mechanics and you do not - you just type on a keyboard to try to get the audience on your side with lies and rhetoric.
Now you’re just flailing around all over the place. You claimed earlier that you can’t shield anything from the ‘earth’s field’ - presumably its magnetic field, although you’ve invoked some ‘petty local field’ and ‘real thing’ as well, and it’s not clear what you mean by that. Moreover, you’ve linked to a video that’s mainly about gyroscopes and claimed that as evidence to support your point.
Where exactly in the video does he say anything that indicates that you can’t shield against the ‘earth’s field’?
I’m also still waiting on an (a) vs (b) decision, but I guess I’ll be waiting for a long time on that one because you don’t want to commit to an answer.
-
It is for a reason that they lie about magnetism in university. Well, not really lie, but they give you the troglodyte explanation backed up by fake particle physics so that you don't understand anything about what's really going on in reality. Guy above is the world's biggest expert on magnetism, and yet he gets ignored and ridiculed. Including by you (the globe-defending keyboard warriors here). Or you just dismiss it as "word salad" while not making an effort to understand what he's saying.
I heard him mention aether once or twice and he said deflating torus a bunch of times, but I'm not sure that he actually explained anything. He even said that he didn't disagree with the math and I don't recall him saying anything at all about magnetism (his expertise and the topic of this thread), so I'm not sure what you're trying to show.
-
It is for a reason that they lie about magnetism in university. Well, not really lie, but they give you the troglodyte explanation backed up by fake particle physics so that you don't understand anything about what's really going on in reality. Guy above is the world's biggest expert on magnetism, and yet he gets ignored and ridiculed. Including by you (the globe-defending keyboard warriors here). Or you just dismiss it as "word salad" while not making an effort to understand what he's saying.
I heard him mention aether once or twice and he said deflating torus a bunch of times, but I'm not sure that he actually explained anything. He even said that he didn't disagree with the math and I don't recall him saying anything at all about magnetism (his expertise and the topic of this thread), so I'm not sure what you're trying to show.
What you call Coriolis effect is in fact an effect from toroidal deflation (deflating flow towards the center point). Earth is not a ball and it does not rotate.
Any questions?
-
What you call Coriolis effect is in fact an effect from toroidal deflation (deflating flow towards the center point). Earth is not a ball and it does not rotate.
Any questions?
One or two.
Most importantly, what does the Coriolis effect have to do with a gyrocompass?
Do you even know what Coriolis is?
-
What you call Coriolis effect is in fact an effect from toroidal deflation (deflating flow towards the center point). Earth is not a ball and it does not rotate.
Any questions?
One or two.
Most importantly, what does the Coriolis effect have to do with a gyrocompass?
Do you even know what Coriolis is?
Coriolis effect doesn't actually happen, there is only Earth's rotation (in GLOBE MODEL, not FE reality). Coriolis accounts for deflection too that only exists mathematically because the globe map is distorted/inflated, as I already found out.
-
Coriolis effect doesn't actually happen because we don't live on a globe. Therefore, there is only Earth's rotation (in GLOBE MODEL, not FE reality). Coriolis accounts for deflection too that only exists mathematically because the globe map is distorted/inflated, as I already found out.
Ok, so you don’t understand it. I’ll spell it out. Gyrocompasses do not work by Coriolis. They do not need Coriolis to exist in order to function. Disproving Coriolis does not further your argument.
Gyrocompasses do work on the earth’s rotation, however. That’s not quite the same thing as Coriolis, although the two are clearly related.
You’re jumping around a lot though. A while ago you were claiming that gyrocompasses actually work via magnetism. You cited that video as being evidence for the impossibility of shielding anything from the ‘earths field’ - presumably magnetism? Are you still claiming that?
-
Coriolis effect doesn't actually happen because we don't live on a globe. Therefore, there is only Earth's rotation (in GLOBE MODEL, not FE reality). Coriolis accounts for deflection too that only exists mathematically because the globe map is distorted/inflated, as I already found out.
Ok, so you don’t understand it. I’ll spell it out. Gyrocompasses do not work by Coriolis. They do not need Coriolis to exist in order to function. Disproving Coriolis does not further your argument.
Gyrocompasses do work on the earth’s rotation, however. That’s not quite the same thing as Coriolis, although the two are clearly related.
Coriolis is ROTATION + DEFLECTION, which is what you believe happens in your CARTOON EARTH. Stop twisting WORDS.
-
Coriolis effect doesn't actually happen because we don't live on a globe. Therefore, there is only Earth's rotation (in GLOBE MODEL, not FE reality). Coriolis accounts for deflection too that only exists mathematically because the globe map is distorted/inflated, as I already found out.
Ok, so you don’t understand it. I’ll spell it out. Gyrocompasses do not work by Coriolis. They do not need Coriolis to exist in order to function. Disproving Coriolis does not further your argument.
Gyrocompasses do work on the earth’s rotation, however. That’s not quite the same thing as Coriolis, although the two are clearly related.
Coriolis is ROTATION + DEFLECTION, which is what you believe happens in your CARTOON EARTH. Stop twisting WORDS.
Gyrocompasses work when stationary. The Coriolis effect (and it is just an effect - there is no actual ‘force’) applies to anything moving on the earth - a good example being wind. You would expect air to flow from high pressure to low pressure, but it doesn’t - it instead rotates around areas of high / low pressure. Of note, it goes in different directions in the northern and southern hemisphere - a substantial issue for FE and indeed your vaguely articulated aether argument.
However, gyrocompasses, which is what we were talking about, don’t have to be moving to work. Coriolis isn’t really part of the discussion. That’s not twisting words - it’s just about being precise with our terms.
Very happy to discuss coriolis further if you want though.
-
Coriolis effect doesn't actually happen because we don't live on a globe. Therefore, there is only Earth's rotation (in GLOBE MODEL, not FE reality). Coriolis accounts for deflection too that only exists mathematically because the globe map is distorted/inflated, as I already found out.
Ok, so you don’t understand it. I’ll spell it out. Gyrocompasses do not work by Coriolis. They do not need Coriolis to exist in order to function. Disproving Coriolis does not further your argument.
Gyrocompasses do work on the earth’s rotation, however. That’s not quite the same thing as Coriolis, although the two are clearly related.
Coriolis is ROTATION + DEFLECTION, which is what you believe happens in your CARTOON EARTH. Stop twisting WORDS.
Gyrocompasses work when stationary. The Coriolis effect (and it is just an effect - there is no actual ‘force’) applies to anything moving on the earth - a good example being wind. You would expect air to flow from high pressure to low pressure, but it doesn’t - it instead rotates around areas of high / low pressure. Of note, it goes in different directions in the northern and southern hemisphere - a substantial issue for FE and indeed your vaguely articulated aether argument.
However, gyrocompasses, which is what we were talking about, don’t have to be moving to work. Coriolis isn’t really part of the discussion. That’s not twisting words - it’s just about being precise with our terms.
Very happy to discuss coriolis further if you want though.
Ok, I will call it so-called Earth's rotation if it makes you happy LOL. Clearly, you need to be pedantic because you have nothing but your cartoon ball Earth and its accompanying explanations.
None of it is a problem for FE, sorry - here you have an explanation, since you live for explanations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ1AFA2HpT4
-
Ok, I will call it so-called Earth's rotation if it makes you happy LOL. Clearly, you need to be pedantic because you have nothing but your cartoon ball Earth and its accompanying explanations.
None of it is a problem for FE, sorry - here you have an explanation, since you live for explanations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ1AFA2HpT4
Are you seriously offering that video up as a credible explanation for anything at all?
From start to finish he makes absolutely zero sense. Let's pick out just a few things that he says that are demonstrably, observably wrong:
- as with his other video that you cited, he draws mag flux lines making a figure of eight pattern viewed from the side, with the dip angle increasing at the equator - that is the exact opposite of the observed dip angle. It is simply false - the dip angle is at its lowest in the region around the equator, and at its highest closest to the two poles.
- he draws curved flux lines radiating out from his southern 'rim' in a consistent pattern, which then reverse at the equator. That bears no resemblance whatsoever to the observed mag declinations at different places around the world. Again - you can check this yourself using published mag dec figures, which you can back up using things like published aeronautical and maritime charts (where they have to be correct in the interests of safety and are routinely checked and verified by users) as well as your own observations using a compass.
- he claims that sigma octantis moves when observed through time lapse. It doesn't.
These things aren't matters of opinion - they are demonstrably wrong. He is wrong. You are wrong. If you were really interested in the subject, you could prove this for yourself very easily.
-
Ok, I will call it so-called Earth's rotation if it makes you happy LOL. Clearly, you need to be pedantic because you have nothing but your cartoon ball Earth and its accompanying explanations.
None of it is a problem for FE, sorry - here you have an explanation, since you live for explanations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ1AFA2HpT4
Are you seriously offering that video up as a credible explanation for anything at all?
From start to finish he makes absolutely zero sense. Let's pick out just a few things that he says that are demonstrably, observably wrong:
- as with his other video that you cited, he draws mag flux lines making a figure of eight pattern viewed from the side, with the dip angle increasing at the equator - that is the exact opposite of the observed dip angle. It is simply false - the dip angle is at its lowest in the region around the equator, and at its highest closest to the two poles.
- he draws curved flux lines radiating out from his southern 'rim' in a consistent pattern, which then reverse at the equator. That bears no resemblance whatsoever to the observed mag declinations at different places around the world. Again - you can check this yourself using published mag dec figures, which you can back up using things like published aeronautical and maritime charts (where they have to be correct in the interests of safety and are routinely checked and verified by users) as well as your own observations using a compass.
- he claims that sigma octantis moves when observed through time lapse. It doesn't.
These things aren't matters of opinion - they are demonstrably wrong. He is wrong. You are wrong. If you were really interested in the subject, you could prove this for yourself very easily.
I TEND to agree with you HERE, so how am I wrong? I already told you I don't have a model to defend/offer. He, on the other hand, does.
Since you are constantly demanding that I provide a complete FE model & accompanying explanations for you to criticize and compare to your globe model, I gave you his model so that you can go to his channel and complain there (have fun!).
That said, he is much closer to truth than you are, and I'm pretty sure that he has refined his model since. I'm simply not up to date on that.
-
[
I TEND to agree with you HERE, so how am I wrong? I already told you I don't have a model to defend/offer. He, on the other hand, does.
Since you are constantly demanding that I provide a complete FE model & accompanying explanations for you to criticize and compare to your globe model, I gave you his model so that you can go to his channel and complain there.
That said, he is much closer to truth than you are, and I'm pretty sure that he has refined his model since.
You said ‘none of this is a problem for FE’, and then offered up his video. Now you’re saying it is, actually, a problem.
Thanks for your honesty.
-
[
I TEND to agree with you HERE, so how am I wrong? I already told you I don't have a model to defend/offer. He, on the other hand, does.
Since you are constantly demanding that I provide a complete FE model & accompanying explanations for you to criticize and compare to your globe model, I gave you his model so that you can go to his channel and complain there.
That said, he is much closer to truth than you are, and I'm pretty sure that he has refined his model since.
You said ‘none of this is a problem for FE’, and then offered up his video. Now you’re saying it is, actually, a problem.
Thanks for your honesty.
Unlike you, I am nothing but honest.
It's a problem if your model is wrong. Obviously it's not a problem for FE because we live on FE and all natural phenomena is a result of this.
So you could say that not knowing what's going on is the real problem. The difference is that flat-earthers want to find out what's going on, while globe-earthers just assume things based on explanations from their heliocentric religion. This is why you hold on to your heliocentric belief, because it explains the Universe for you and you don't want to let go of that sense of security.
-
[
Unlike you, I am nothing but honest.
It's a problem if your model is wrong. Obviously it's not a problem for FE because we live on FE and all natural phenomena is a result of this.
So you could say that not knowing what's going on is the real problem. The difference is that flat-earthers want to find out what's going on, while globe-earthers just assume things based on explanations from their heliocentric religion. This is why you hold on to your heliocentric belief, because it explains the Universe for you and you don't want to let go of that sense of security.
But you haven’t offered up any observable issues with the globe model. Everything works and looks exactly as one would expect it to work and look.
There are lots of issues with assuming the earth is flat. There is no ‘model’ because every time somebody proposes one, it gets torn to shreds because it doesn’t work, or doesn’t conform to our observed reality - just like the video you just showed.
So if there’s nothing wrong with the globe model, and you don’t have a credible model of your own, then all you have is a belief.
-
[
Unlike you, I am nothing but honest.
It's a problem if your model is wrong. Obviously it's not a problem for FE because we live on FE and all natural phenomena is a result of this.
So you could say that not knowing what's going on is the real problem. The difference is that flat-earthers want to find out what's going on, while globe-earthers just assume things based on explanations from their heliocentric religion. This is why you hold on to your heliocentric belief, because it explains the Universe for you and you don't want to let go of that sense of security.
But you haven’t offered up any observable issues with the globe model. Everything works and looks exactly as one would expect it to work and look.
There are lots of issues with assuming the earth is flat. There is no ‘model’ because every time somebody proposes one, it gets torn to shreds because it doesn’t work, or doesn’t conform to our observed reality - just like the video you just showed.
So if there’s nothing wrong with the globe model, and you don’t have a credible model of your own, then all you have is a belief.
You are lying again. I have offered several things that are wrong with the globe model. My latest one, which you dimissed, is that there are no experiments involving someone using a gyrocompass and a gyrocompass ONLY to reach the North Pole.
Reality needs no models - you think that reality is a competition of models and it is not. Reality could not care less about models. There are plenty of things wrong with your preferred globe model - you just ignore them. Meanwhile, I get closer to truth each day with no models. Just truth.
-
You are lying again. I have offered plenty of things that are wrong with the globe model. My latest one, which you dimissed, is that there are no experiments involving someone using a gyrocompass and a gyrocompass ONLY to reach the North Pole.
Reality needs no models - you think that reality is a competition of models and it is not. Reality could not care less about models. There are plenty of things wrong with your preferred globe model - you just ignore them. Meanwhile, I get closer to truth each day with no models. Just truth.
Whether or not somebody has navigated to the North Pole solely using a gyrocompass is not a problem with a model. I have no idea whether it’s been done - I would speculate that the early submarines that did it probably used gyrocompasses, but they may have had other tech as well - I don’t know. Had I found something, would you have changed your views or would you have dismissed it as being military, perhaps, and therefore suspect / part of the conspiracy?
When I say observable problems with the model I mean something that you can see or detect that isn’t what you would expect it to be given the proposed globe shape of the earth. I don’t recall you offering up any such thing, although I’m very happy to discuss one should you produce it.
-
Whether or not somebody has navigated to the North Pole solely using a gyrocompass is not a problem with a model. I have no idea whether it’s been done - I would speculate that the early submarines that did it probably used gyrocompasses, but they may have had other tech as well - I don’t know. Had I found something, would you have changed your views or would you have dismissed it as being military, perhaps, and therefore suspect / part of the conspiracy?
When I say observable problems with the model I mean something that you can see or detect that isn’t what you would expect it to be given the proposed globe shape of the earth. I don’t recall you offering up any such thing, although I’m very happy to discuss one should you produce it.
How is it NOT a huge problem for your model? If you claim that you can get to the North Pole with it but there is no evidence of that.
Next you're going to say that the fact there are no tangible measurements of the globe is not a problem for the globe model??
Don't do that...
-
Whether or not somebody has navigated to the North Pole solely using a gyrocompass is not a problem with a model. I have no idea whether it’s been done - I would speculate that the early submarines that did it probably used gyrocompasses, but they may have had other tech as well - I don’t know. Had I found something, would you have changed your views or would you have dismissed it as being military, perhaps, and therefore suspect / part of the conspiracy?
When I say observable problems with the model I mean something that you can see or detect that isn’t what you would expect it to be given the proposed globe shape of the earth. I don’t recall you offering up any such thing, although I’m very happy to discuss one should you produce it.
How is it NOT a huge problem for your model? If you claim that you can get to the North Pole with it but there is no evidence of that.
Next you're going to say that the fact there are no tangible measurements of the globe is not a problem for the globe model??
Don't do that...
It's not a problem for the same reason it's not a problem that nobody has circumnavigated the equator wearing a luminous balaclava whilst riding a unicycle, or travelled to the centre of the earth's core in a horse-drawn ambulance. The only difference is that they might have actually done it, I just can't verify it, or rather I'm not going to expend energy doing so as I believe, for good reason, that you will dismiss anything I find anyway - just as you did with the various expeditions to the magnetic north pole.
It shouldn't matter though - you mentioned 'several things' wrong with the globe - do you have some more observations that contradict the model?
-
Whether or not somebody has navigated to the North Pole solely using a gyrocompass is not a problem with a model. I have no idea whether it’s been done - I would speculate that the early submarines that did it probably used gyrocompasses, but they may have had other tech as well - I don’t know. Had I found something, would you have changed your views or would you have dismissed it as being military, perhaps, and therefore suspect / part of the conspiracy?
When I say observable problems with the model I mean something that you can see or detect that isn’t what you would expect it to be given the proposed globe shape of the earth. I don’t recall you offering up any such thing, although I’m very happy to discuss one should you produce it.
How is it NOT a huge problem for your model? If you claim that you can get to the North Pole with it but there is no evidence of that.
Next you're going to say that the fact there are no tangible measurements of the globe is not a problem for the globe model??
Don't do that...
It's not a problem for the same reason it's not a problem that nobody has circumnavigated the equator wearing a luminous balaclava whilst riding a unicycle, or travelled to the centre of the earth's core in a horse-drawn ambulance. The only difference is that they might have actually done it, I just can't verify it, or rather I'm not going to expend energy doing so as I believe, for good reason, that you will dismiss anything I find anyway - just as you did with the various expeditions to the magnetic north pole.
It shouldn't matter though - you mentioned 'several things' wrong with the globe - do you have some more observations that contradict the model?
Hahahaha! From globe teacher to globe politician, and now globe comedian!! ;D Marvelous!
Don't lie, I didn't dismiss the magnetic NP expeditions, I told you they are BS because they are. You didn't even know what you were sending, you just ASSUMED! I told you we need to explore that area I highlighted, DON'T flip that on me when you're the one dismissing Arctic exploration and the best your cult can come up with for an excuse is that no exploration goes on because it's pointless or dangerous.
I have mentioned more things that are wrong with your beloved cartoon globe model, you can look at my previous posts. And there are of course many more. Since I'm not here to please you and that's not the topic, I will ignore your request. But I already told you the big one, which is that there are no tangible measurements of the globe - and I will repeat this until the day I "die" because it is a fact.
Ultimately the globe model does generally work because it is derived from reality. But it is nothing except MATHEMATICAL MODELS and EXPLANATIONS, which AREN'T reality. There's a reason why we aren't allowed to explore Arctic and Antarctic freely, on a mass scale - It would debunk your model very quickly (not that it hasn't been debunked already in multiple different ways).
-
Hahahaha! From globe teacher to globe politician, and now globe comedian!! ;D Marvelous!
I aim to please.
Don't lie, I didn't dismiss the magnetic NP expeditions, I told you they are BS because they are.
That's an utterly brilliant sentence - thank you.
You didn't even know what you were sending, you just ASSUMED! I told you we need to explore that area I highlighted, DON'T flip that on me when you're the one dismissing Arctic exploration and the best your cult can come up with for an excuse is that no exploration goes on because it's pointless or dangerous.
I have mentioned more things that are wrong with your beloved cartoon globe model, you can look at my previous posts. And there are of course many more. Since I'm not here to please you and that's not the topic, I will ignore your request.
Well, people reading this will probably interpret that as you not actually having anything decent to offer. Your call.
But I already told you the big one, which is that there are no tangible measurements of the globe - and I will repeat this until the day I "die" because it is a fact.
What evidence do you have to support that claim? There are people navigating all over the world using globe earth measurements, with flawless precision. Civil engineers build large-scale structures, pipelines, cables etc, all with the same precision using the same measurements. You can track aircraft and ships flying / sailing all over the world and their travel times correspond perfectly with the globe expected distances. If there were discrepancies, that would be a perfect observed flaw in the model for you to raise - the problem you have is that there just aren't any.
Ultimately the globe model does generally work because it is derived from reality.
Well, yes it does, and yes it is indeed derived from reality.
But it is nothing except MATHEMATICAL MODELS and EXPLANATIONS, which AREN'T reality.
Nobody is saying that a model is reality. What we are saying is that we can build useful mathematical / computer models of the earth, and indeed physical processes, that we can use to help us understand and predict the world around us. A map is ultimately a model - it will have certain limitations, but as long as it's accurate to a certain level then it will be useful. For simple work we can model the earth as sphere. That might be helpful for some analysis, but it might be overly simplistic for more precise use cases - for that we need to include its slight 'bulge' around the middle - it is an oblate spheroid, not a sphere. Likewise, we say it rotates once every 24 hours. It actually doesn't - it's a tiny bit less than that, and that difference might matter in some situations. There are numerous examples of this kind of thing - models will always have some simplification involved, it's just a question of what level of fidelity we need.
There's a reason why we aren't allowed to explore Arctic and Antarctic freely, on a mass scale. It would debunk your model very quickly (not that it hasn't been debunked already).
Your obsession with the Arctic and Antarctic is odd. They are both extremely inhospitable places, which means that not many people get to go there, but they still can and still do. It's similar to the bottom of the oceans - not easy places to be. But there is plenty of evidence available to you without needing to go there. Why not start at home?
-
...
But I already told you the big one, which is that there are no tangible measurements of the globe - and I will repeat this until the day I "die" because it is a fact.
...
Why do not the last couple of thousand years of all the various sorts of travel (time*speed=distance) plus explicit surveying plus of course https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes in 200 BC or so not constitute "tangible measurements"? Even more so now with GPS the earth has been extensively measured.
-
What you call Coriolis effect is in fact an effect from toroidal deflation (deflating flow towards the center point). Earth is not a ball and it does not rotate.
Any questions?
Yes. What is "toroidal deflation"? What is deflating and what experiments have been performed to confirm this the existence phenomenon?