[Dual1ty]

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. 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.

[Dual1ty]

It's white board time.

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.

[ichoosereality]

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. 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.

[Dual1ty]

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.

[ichoosereality]

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).

[Dual1ty]

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).

[ichoosereality]

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?

[Dual1ty]

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.

[ichoosereality]

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.

[Dual1ty]

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?

[ichoosereality]

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.

[SteelyBob]

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?

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Dual1ty]

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?

[Dual1ty]

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:

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.

[SteelyBob]

Watch:

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.

[Dual1ty]

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.

[SteelyBob]

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://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

...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/

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/

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/

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/

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?

[Dual1ty]

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://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

...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/

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/

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/

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/

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.

[SteelyBob]

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?