[Dual1ty]

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.

[SteelyBob]

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.

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?

[Dual1ty]

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?

[SteelyBob]

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.

[Dual1ty]

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?

[ichoosereality]

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.

[Dual1ty]

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.

[SteelyBob]

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.

[ichoosereality]

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.

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.

[Dual1ty]

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.

[ichoosereality]

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...".

[Dual1ty]

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.

[SteelyBob]

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.

[DuncanDoenitz]

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. 

[Dual1ty]

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?

[SteelyBob]

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?

[Dual1ty]

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".

[SteelyBob]

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)
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?

[Dual1ty]

From: 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?

[DuncanDoenitz]

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?

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.