[franklinho]

How is it possible to circumnavigate the Earth longitudinally? I want to ask the question that if we go from the North Pole to the South Pole, how come we don't just fall off the Earth? Please read this link - it shows that a person actually did this once. I still want to reiterate the question of why the Earth bulges at the equator. By understanding seismic activities, and how the waves travel through the Earth, we can see that the Earth has a horizontal radius that is 26.58 miles longer than the vertical radius. Why? In the 17th century, following the invention of the pendulum clock, French scientists found that clocks sent to French Guiana, on the northern coast of South America, ran slower than their exact counterparts in Paris. Measurements of the acceleration due to gravity at the equator must also take into account the planet's rotation. Any object that is stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth is actually following a circular trajectory, circumnavigating the Earth's axis. Pulling an object into such a circular trajectory requires a force. The acceleration that is required to circumnavigate the Earth's axis along the equator at one revolution per sidereal day is 0.0339 m/s². Providing this acceleration decreases the effective gravitational acceleration. At the equator, the effective gravitational acceleration is 9.7805 m/s2. This means that the true gravitational acceleration at the equator must be 9.8144 m/s2. This difference in acceleration is massive, all because of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which, according to the law, shows that the Earth must be round because all mass is attracted toward's one another.

[franklinho]

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface
 here is the link.

[AstralSentient]

How is it possible to circumnavigate the Earth longitudinally? I want to ask the question that if we go from the North Pole to the South Pole, how come we don't just fall off the Earth?

That is indeed a problem in the ice wall model, how circumnavigation via the poles could be done. The only possibility I know of is that they crossed past the ice wall and circled around the circumference of the antarctic circle above the ice to make it to the other side. The distance would be longer and there would need to be some exaggeration of the speed of the plane, distance traveled, and the navigation method for this to be true.
Otherwise, there is the bi-polar flat earth map, where they crossed the south pole and came back around:


And then there is my favorite model (the one I adhere to), the Davis relativity model, where aether (space-time), bends around the Earth, where you can traverse the Earth in a straight line as a flat plane, but the aether you are traversing within curves and you circle back. Basic entry here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

Please read this link - it shows that a person actually did this once. I still want to reiterate the question of why the Earth bulges at the equator. By understanding seismic activities, and how the waves travel through the Earth, we can see that the Earth has a horizontal radius that is 26.58 miles longer than the vertical radius. Why? In the 17th century, following the invention of the pendulum clock, French scientists found that clocks sent to French Guiana, on the northern coast of South America, ran slower than their exact counterparts in Paris. Measurements of the acceleration due to gravity at the equator must also take into account the planet's rotation. Any object that is stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth is actually following a circular trajectory, circumnavigating the Earth's axis. Pulling an object into such a circular trajectory requires a force. The acceleration that is required to circumnavigate the Earth's axis along the equator at one revolution per sidereal day is 0.0339 m/s². Providing this acceleration decreases the effective gravitational acceleration. At the equator, the effective gravitational acceleration is 9.7805 m/s2. This means that the true gravitational acceleration at the equator must be 9.8144 m/s2. This difference in acceleration is massive, all because of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which, according to the law, shows that the Earth must be round because all mass is attracted toward's one another.

I recommend you look into Mach's principle. Essentially, any frame of reference (FoR) considered as geocentric would involve a 'celestial gravitation' as influencing the local physical characteristics of such a local physical FoR, in such a way so that the term "mass out there influences inertia here" holds true when taking geocentricity as your preferred relative movement.
Here's a great example:
Suppose we took a bucket of water at rest, and stirred the water so that the water rotates relative to the bucket, then, we got the water rotating relative to the stationary bucket. Now, lets suppose we rotated the bucket instead, so the bucket was rotating relative to the stationary water, but if you do this, the water will start to rotate with it, giving the same effects that water rotating relative to the stationary bucket would have. So, we can postulate, that in a local frame of reference, the rotation of the Earth relative to the stationary celestial bodies is indistinguishable from the rotation of the celestial bodies relative to the stationary earth, because of how the celestial bodies would affect the Earth, giving centrifugal force by interaction between these masses.

A good basic read: http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/machs_principle_and_the_concept_of_mass_fos_v16n3.pdf

[StinkyOne]

How is it possible to circumnavigate the Earth longitudinally? I want to ask the question that if we go from the North Pole to the South Pole, how come we don't just fall off the Earth?

That is indeed a problem in the ice wall model, how circumnavigation via the poles could be done. The only possibility I know of is that they crossed past the ice wall and circled around the circumference of the antarctic circle above the ice to make it to the other side. The distance would be longer and there would need to be some exaggeration of the speed of the plane, distance traveled, and the navigation method for this to be true.
Otherwise, there is the bi-polar flat earth map, where they crossed the south pole and came back around:


And then there is my favorite model (the one I adhere to), the Davis relativity model, where aether (space-time), bends around the Earth, where you can traverse the Earth in a straight line as a flat plane, but the aether you are traversing within curves and you circle back. Basic entry here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

Please read this link - it shows that a person actually did this once. I still want to reiterate the question of why the Earth bulges at the equator. By understanding seismic activities, and how the waves travel through the Earth, we can see that the Earth has a horizontal radius that is 26.58 miles longer than the vertical radius. Why? In the 17th century, following the invention of the pendulum clock, French scientists found that clocks sent to French Guiana, on the northern coast of South America, ran slower than their exact counterparts in Paris. Measurements of the acceleration due to gravity at the equator must also take into account the planet's rotation. Any object that is stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth is actually following a circular trajectory, circumnavigating the Earth's axis. Pulling an object into such a circular trajectory requires a force. The acceleration that is required to circumnavigate the Earth's axis along the equator at one revolution per sidereal day is 0.0339 m/s². Providing this acceleration decreases the effective gravitational acceleration. At the equator, the effective gravitational acceleration is 9.7805 m/s2. This means that the true gravitational acceleration at the equator must be 9.8144 m/s2. This difference in acceleration is massive, all because of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which, according to the law, shows that the Earth must be round because all mass is attracted toward's one another.

I recommend you look into Mach's principle. Essentially, any frame of reference (FoR) considered as geocentric would involve a 'celestial gravitation' as influencing the local physical characteristics of such a local physical FoR, in such a way so that the term "mass out there influences inertia here" holds true when taking geocentricity as your preferred relative movement.
Here's a great example:
Suppose we took a bucket of water at rest, and stirred the water so that the water rotates relative to the bucket, then, we got the water rotating relative to the stationary bucket. Now, lets suppose we rotated the bucket instead, so the bucket was rotating relative to the stationary water, but if you do this, the water will start to rotate with it, giving the same effects that water rotating relative to the stationary bucket would have. So, we can postulate, that in a local frame of reference, the rotation of the Earth relative to the stationary celestial bodies is indistinguishable from the rotation of the celestial bodies relative to the stationary earth, because of how the celestial bodies would affect the Earth, giving centrifugal force by interaction between these masses.

A good basic read: http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/machs_principle_and_the_concept_of_mass_fos_v16n3.pdf

Davis doesn't get much love around here. I've seen him describe as a senile old man or just crazy. (I personally don't know anything about him)

What you are describing is aether dragging if anyone wants to Google it. Are you familiar with frame dragging? Essentially spacetime being dragged along around a rotating massive object. Very interesting. Confirmed experimentally and similar to aether without requiring a physical aether, which has never been detected.

[AstralSentient]

How is it possible to circumnavigate the Earth longitudinally? I want to ask the question that if we go from the North Pole to the South Pole, how come we don't just fall off the Earth?

That is indeed a problem in the ice wall model, how circumnavigation via the poles could be done. The only possibility I know of is that they crossed past the ice wall and circled around the circumference of the antarctic circle above the ice to make it to the other side. The distance would be longer and there would need to be some exaggeration of the speed of the plane, distance traveled, and the navigation method for this to be true.
Otherwise, there is the bi-polar flat earth map, where they crossed the south pole and came back around:


And then there is my favorite model (the one I adhere to), the Davis relativity model, where aether (space-time), bends around the Earth, where you can traverse the Earth in a straight line as a flat plane, but the aether you are traversing within curves and you circle back. Basic entry here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

Please read this link - it shows that a person actually did this once. I still want to reiterate the question of why the Earth bulges at the equator. By understanding seismic activities, and how the waves travel through the Earth, we can see that the Earth has a horizontal radius that is 26.58 miles longer than the vertical radius. Why? In the 17th century, following the invention of the pendulum clock, French scientists found that clocks sent to French Guiana, on the northern coast of South America, ran slower than their exact counterparts in Paris. Measurements of the acceleration due to gravity at the equator must also take into account the planet's rotation. Any object that is stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth is actually following a circular trajectory, circumnavigating the Earth's axis. Pulling an object into such a circular trajectory requires a force. The acceleration that is required to circumnavigate the Earth's axis along the equator at one revolution per sidereal day is 0.0339 m/s². Providing this acceleration decreases the effective gravitational acceleration. At the equator, the effective gravitational acceleration is 9.7805 m/s2. This means that the true gravitational acceleration at the equator must be 9.8144 m/s2. This difference in acceleration is massive, all because of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which, according to the law, shows that the Earth must be round because all mass is attracted toward's one another.

I recommend you look into Mach's principle. Essentially, any frame of reference (FoR) considered as geocentric would involve a 'celestial gravitation' as influencing the local physical characteristics of such a local physical FoR, in such a way so that the term "mass out there influences inertia here" holds true when taking geocentricity as your preferred relative movement.
Here's a great example:
Suppose we took a bucket of water at rest, and stirred the water so that the water rotates relative to the bucket, then, we got the water rotating relative to the stationary bucket. Now, lets suppose we rotated the bucket instead, so the bucket was rotating relative to the stationary water, but if you do this, the water will start to rotate with it, giving the same effects that water rotating relative to the stationary bucket would have. So, we can postulate, that in a local frame of reference, the rotation of the Earth relative to the stationary celestial bodies is indistinguishable from the rotation of the celestial bodies relative to the stationary earth, because of how the celestial bodies would affect the Earth, giving centrifugal force by interaction between these masses.

A good basic read: http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/machs_principle_and_the_concept_of_mass_fos_v16n3.pdf

Davis doesn't get much love around here. I've seen him describe as a senile old man or just crazy. (I personally don't know anything about him)

What you are describing is aether dragging if anyone wants to Google it. Are you familiar with frame dragging? Essentially spacetime being dragged along around a rotating massive object. Very interesting. Confirmed experimentally and similar to aether without requiring a physical aether, which has never been detected.

I was actually considering mentioning that, something important in a geocentric Davis relativity model, but thinking of it in terms of just point 'charge' attraction is generally more basic thought.
Also, I do use the term "aether" interchangeably with "space-time", but not referring to the hypothetical physical luminiferous aether.

[3DGeek]

This map makes no sense even in FE terms...I have no idea why anyone even mentions it.

Look at my favorite airline route.  Sydney Australia to Santiago Chile.  It takes off from Sydney and flies to the North-East to arrive 13 hours later in Santiago.

Where exactly doe the plane fly on this map?  Where *is* North in Australia...I mean...simple question: Which way does the compass point?

If it points towards the North pole - then the other end of the needle points to...where?   Not toward the south pole, that's for sure.   Where is the pole star sitting above?   Where is the southern cross?

When it's noon over the UK, it looks like the sun  would be setting in the Northern skies of Texas.   I live in Texas...I'm quite sure I'd have noticed that!

The unipolar map - for all of it's horrific faults - has at least some measure of credibility.   This one is just a mess.

[TomInAustin]

How is it possible to circumnavigate the Earth longitudinally? I want to ask the question that if we go from the North Pole to the South Pole, how come we don't just fall off the Earth?

That is indeed a problem in the ice wall model, how circumnavigation via the poles could be done. The only possibility I know of is that they crossed past the ice wall and circled around the circumference of the antarctic circle above the ice to make it to the other side. The distance would be longer and there would need to be some exaggeration of the speed of the plane, distance traveled, and the navigation method for this to be true.
Otherwise, there is the bi-polar flat earth map, where they crossed the south pole and came back around:


And then there is my favorite model (the one I adhere to), the Davis relativity model, where aether (space-time), bends around the Earth, where you can traverse the Earth in a straight line as a flat plane, but the aether you are traversing within curves and you circle back. Basic entry here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

Please read this link - it shows that a person actually did this once. I still want to reiterate the question of why the Earth bulges at the equator. By understanding seismic activities, and how the waves travel through the Earth, we can see that the Earth has a horizontal radius that is 26.58 miles longer than the vertical radius. Why? In the 17th century, following the invention of the pendulum clock, French scientists found that clocks sent to French Guiana, on the northern coast of South America, ran slower than their exact counterparts in Paris. Measurements of the acceleration due to gravity at the equator must also take into account the planet's rotation. Any object that is stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth is actually following a circular trajectory, circumnavigating the Earth's axis. Pulling an object into such a circular trajectory requires a force. The acceleration that is required to circumnavigate the Earth's axis along the equator at one revolution per sidereal day is 0.0339 m/s². Providing this acceleration decreases the effective gravitational acceleration. At the equator, the effective gravitational acceleration is 9.7805 m/s2. This means that the true gravitational acceleration at the equator must be 9.8144 m/s2. This difference in acceleration is massive, all because of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which, according to the law, shows that the Earth must be round because all mass is attracted toward's one another.

I recommend you look into Mach's principle. Essentially, any frame of reference (FoR) considered as geocentric would involve a 'celestial gravitation' as influencing the local physical characteristics of such a local physical FoR, in such a way so that the term "mass out there influences inertia here" holds true when taking geocentricity as your preferred relative movement.
Here's a great example:
Suppose we took a bucket of water at rest, and stirred the water so that the water rotates relative to the bucket, then, we got the water rotating relative to the stationary bucket. Now, lets suppose we rotated the bucket instead, so the bucket was rotating relative to the stationary water, but if you do this, the water will start to rotate with it, giving the same effects that water rotating relative to the stationary bucket would have. So, we can postulate, that in a local frame of reference, the rotation of the Earth relative to the stationary celestial bodies is indistinguishable from the rotation of the celestial bodies relative to the stationary earth, because of how the celestial bodies would affect the Earth, giving centrifugal force by interaction between these masses.

A good basic read: http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/machs_principle_and_the_concept_of_mass_fos_v16n3.pdf

Davis doesn't get much love around here. I've seen him describe as a senile old man or just crazy. (I personally don't know anything about him)

What you are describing is aether dragging if anyone wants to Google it. Are you familiar with frame dragging? Essentially spacetime being dragged along around a rotating massive object. Very interesting. Confirmed experimentally and similar to aether without requiring a physical aether, which has never been detected.

Yes, Junker even laughs at him.

[Tom Bishop]

This map makes no sense even in FE terms...I have no idea why anyone even mentions it.

Look at my favorite airline route.  Sydney Australia to Santiago Chile.  It takes off from Sydney and flies to the North-East to arrive 13 hours later in Santiago.

Where exactly doe the plane fly on this map?  Where *is* North in Australia...I mean...simple question: Which way does the compass point?

If it points towards the North pole - then the other end of the needle points to...where?   Not toward the south pole, that's for sure.   Where is the pole star sitting above?   Where is the southern cross?

When it's noon over the UK, it looks like the sun  would be setting in the Northern skies of Texas.   I live in Texas...I'm quite sure I'd have noticed that!

The unipolar map - for all of it's horrific faults - has at least some measure of credibility.   This one is just a mess.

What makes you think that North always has to point to the North Pole as opposed to just taking you to the North Pole if you follow it long enough?

[3DGeek]

This map makes no sense even in FE terms...I have no idea why anyone even mentions it.

Look at my favorite airline route.  Sydney Australia to Santiago Chile.  It takes off from Sydney and flies to the North-East to arrive 13 hours later in Santiago.

Where exactly doe the plane fly on this map?  Where *is* North in Australia...I mean...simple question: Which way does the compass point?

If it points towards the North pole - then the other end of the needle points to...where?   Not toward the south pole, that's for sure.   Where is the pole star sitting above?   Where is the southern cross?

When it's noon over the UK, it looks like the sun  would be setting in the Northern skies of Texas.   I live in Texas...I'm quite sure I'd have noticed that!

The unipolar map - for all of it's horrific faults - has at least some measure of credibility.   This one is just a mess.

What makes you think that North always has to point to the North Pole as opposed to just taking you to the North Pole if you follow it long enough?

Because "North" is also the direction to the Pole Star...so if you flew along from (say) Borneo to the North Pole following the compass needle - you'd go in a gigantic arc...but if you aimed for the Pole star, you'd go at a 45 degree angle to the equator and get to the pole in a much shorter distance.

This would completely screw up celestial and magnetic navigation in ways that we simply know for sure do not happen.

It's even worse in the southern hemisphere...if you follow the compass North instead of flying away from the Southern cross, you end up going in completely, 180 degrees the opposite direction!

If you're in the ocean at the very bottom of this map - which way does the compass point exactly?   TOWARDS the Southern cross?!?   No?  Then AWAY from the North Pole?!?  No?  Then I'm confused.

[CriticalThinker]

This map makes no sense even in FE terms...I have no idea why anyone even mentions it.

Look at my favorite airline route.  Sydney Australia to Santiago Chile.  It takes off from Sydney and flies to the North-East to arrive 13 hours later in Santiago.

Where exactly doe the plane fly on this map?  Where *is* North in Australia...I mean...simple question: Which way does the compass point?

If it points towards the North pole - then the other end of the needle points to...where?   Not toward the south pole, that's for sure.   Where is the pole star sitting above?   Where is the southern cross?

When it's noon over the UK, it looks like the sun  would be setting in the Northern skies of Texas.   I live in Texas...I'm quite sure I'd have noticed that!

The unipolar map - for all of it's horrific faults - has at least some measure of credibility.   This one is just a mess.

What makes you think that North always has to point to the North Pole as opposed to just taking you to the North Pole if you follow it long enough?

Because magnets Tom.  Because rare earth magnets don't get to point to varying degrees of polarity.  Rare earth magnets remain constant in their magnetism no matter where on the earth they are.  Rare earth magnets line up with the constellations just like they did years ago when we didn't have NASA, Satellites, GPS or RADAR to guide us.  When we hadn't taken to the air in flight and we couldn't maintain line of sight with land as we crossed the great waters, we had to rely on the stars and compasses to guide us.  First stars, then compasses and they have allowed for great travels and discoveries that the flat maps of old said didn't exist.  No we didn't find the edge of the world guarded by dragons when we took to the seas, we found that if we sailed long enough we would get right back to where we started.  We even have circumnavigation races that surely would have bumped into the great ice wall barrier by now if it existed.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[Tom Bishop]

Because magnets Tom.  Because rare earth magnets don't get to point to varying degrees of polarity.  Rare earth magnets remain constant in their magnetism no matter where on the earth they are.  Rare earth magnets line up with the constellations just like they did years ago when we didn't have NASA, Satellites, GPS or RADAR to guide us.  When we hadn't taken to the air in flight and we couldn't maintain line of sight with land as we crossed the great waters, we had to rely on the stars and compasses to guide us.  First stars, then compasses and they have allowed for great travels and discoveries that the flat maps of old said didn't exist.  No we didn't find the edge of the world guarded by dragons when we took to the seas, we found that if we sailed long enough we would get right back to where we started.  We even have circumnavigation races that surely would have bumped into the great ice wall barrier by now if it existed.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

What are you talking about? If you put a compass right next to the North end of a bar magnet, the South end of the compass doesn't point at the bar magnet's South Pole.

[3DGeek]

Because magnets Tom.  Because rare earth magnets don't get to point to varying degrees of polarity.  Rare earth magnets remain constant in their magnetism no matter where on the earth they are.  Rare earth magnets line up with the constellations just like they did years ago when we didn't have NASA, Satellites, GPS or RADAR to guide us.  When we hadn't taken to the air in flight and we couldn't maintain line of sight with land as we crossed the great waters, we had to rely on the stars and compasses to guide us.  First stars, then compasses and they have allowed for great travels and discoveries that the flat maps of old said didn't exist.  No we didn't find the edge of the world guarded by dragons when we took to the seas, we found that if we sailed long enough we would get right back to where we started.  We even have circumnavigation races that surely would have bumped into the great ice wall barrier by now if it existed.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

What are you talking about? If you put a compass right next to the North end of a bar magnet, the South end of the compass doesn't point at the bar magnet's South Pole.

If the magnet is sufficiently larger than the compass, that's exactly what happens.  Obviously if you take a small bar magnet and a tiny compass, then you're not going to see that.

HOWEVER:  In the real world, the North end of the compass points towards the (magnetic) North pole of the Earth.

But it's OK if the south pole thing confuses you.  Let's just imagine that we take a compass into that piece of ocean below Antarctica on your map - and ask ourselves which way the compass will point.   It's a simple enough question.   If the North end of the compass points towards the North pole - then it's ALSO Pointing towards the South pole - and we know that doesn't happen because plenty of old time sailors sailed all the way around antarctica and didn't report any weirdnesses like that.

[CriticalThinker]

Because magnets Tom.  Because rare earth magnets don't get to point to varying degrees of polarity.  Rare earth magnets remain constant in their magnetism no matter where on the earth they are.  Rare earth magnets line up with the constellations just like they did years ago when we didn't have NASA, Satellites, GPS or RADAR to guide us.  When we hadn't taken to the air in flight and we couldn't maintain line of sight with land as we crossed the great waters, we had to rely on the stars and compasses to guide us.  First stars, then compasses and they have allowed for great travels and discoveries that the flat maps of old said didn't exist.  No we didn't find the edge of the world guarded by dragons when we took to the seas, we found that if we sailed long enough we would get right back to where we started.  We even have circumnavigation races that surely would have bumped into the great ice wall barrier by now if it existed.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

What are you talking about? If you put a compass right next to the North end of a bar magnet, the South end of the compass doesn't point at the bar magnet's South Pole.

If you fly over the North pole, to the far side, the bar magnet in a compass reverses direction to continue to point at the north pole.  In the RE model, this is fine as the south pole end of the magnet continues to point directly at the south pole once you cross the north pole.  If you were to follow your trajectory straight forward, you would end up at the south pole with the Southern Cross visible overhead.  In your model, once you flew over the north pole, the compass would have to do one of two things.  Reverse directions and point away from the south pole, or not reverse directions and continue to point away from the north pole.  If it did the former, continuing to fly straight forward would take you to the rim making finding the south pole impossible from the north pole or you would have to fly in a tangential arc from the north pole to the south pole yet would not see any sideways waver from the compass.  Please explain how you could be flying tangentially between the north and south poles without being able to see any compass disturbances due to the non-linear relationship of the flight path.


Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[Tom Bishop]

continuing to fly straight forward

http://wiki.tfes.org/Circumnavigation

Traveling in a Straight Line

Q. Can't we just circumnavigate the earth by traveling in a straight line without a navigational aid?

A. It is not possible to travel in a perfectly straight line for very long without a navigational aid.

It's not even possible to drive down a long length of highway without turning the steering wheel left or right. Get in a car and see if you can drive down a long stretch of highway without turning the wheel left or right. It's a near impossible thing to do. And when it comes to planes, ships, helicopters, et all., no craft has the ability of traveling in a perfectly straight line without the operator adjusting the craft with regards to visual terrain, compass readings, or what have you.

When one navigates, hands on control is paramount. You wouldn't find a ship captain in New York pointing his vessel in the direction of London, turning on cruise control, and then taking a three week nap in the lower decks. Who knows where he'd end up.

[3DGeek]

continuing to fly straight forward

http://wiki.tfes.org/Circumnavigation

I think this only applies to the unpolar map - not your bipolar thing.

Traveling in a Straight Line

Q. Can't we just circumnavigate the earth by traveling in a straight line without a navigational aid?

A. It is not possible to travel in a perfectly straight line for very long without a navigational aid.

It's not even possible to drive down a long length of highway without turning the steering wheel left or right. Get in a car and see if you can drive down a long stretch of highway without turning the wheel left or right. It's a near impossible thing to do. And when it comes to planes, ships, helicopters, et all., no craft has the ability of traveling in a perfectly straight line without the operator adjusting the craft with regards to visual terrain, compass readings, or what have you.

When one navigates, hands on control is paramount. You wouldn't find a ship captain in New York pointing his vessel in the direction of London, turning on cruise control, and then taking a three week nap in the lower decks. Who knows where he'd end up.

OK - but we're not talking about flying/sailing without control.

We're asking where you go if you:

1) Steer to follow the compass needle.

...AND/OR...

2) Steer to aim towards (or away from) the Pole Star or the Southern Cross.

Please try to concentrate on the question that's actually being asked and not continually try to deflect the difficult bits.

This is a simple enough question Tom.

How can the compass and the pole star/southern cross directions be reconciled on the bipolar map?


Clearly - as both I and CriticalThinker have pointed out, there are SERIOUS anomalies that cannot easily be handwaved away.

Place yourself somewhere "above" the North pole.   Which way does the compass needle point?   Which way does the pole star appear to be?

Now place yourself on the equator - somewhere off to the right hand side of your map.  Same question:  Which way does the compass needle point?  Which way does the pole star appear to be?

The answer from you has to be either (a) inconsistent or (b) one of your classic "I don't know" answers.   Sadly, we DO know.  Mariners and early airmen navigated using both the pole star/southern cross *AND* the compass.   Those two things had to be consistent over all points on the globe - or long complicated treatises on the subject of these horrible inconsistencies would exist...we'd know about them.   They don't exist.

Your maps are screwed up.

In fact, mathematics says (in effect) that no possible FE map can match compass and pole star everywhere on the globe because of the "Hairy Ball Theorem" in topology.  (Per Wikipedia: "A consequence of the hairy ball theorem is that any continuous function that maps an even-dimensional sphere into itself has either a fixed point or a point that maps onto its own antipodal point. This can be seen by transforming the function into a tangential vector field as follows.")

It follows that you cannot draw ANY FE map which is devoid of horrible compass/celestial navigation screwups...but it's going to be amusing to watch you try - so have at it!

[Tom Bishop]

1) Steer to follow the compass needle.

If you follow the compass needle you will eventually get to the South Pole.

[CriticalThinker]

continuing to fly straight forward

http://wiki.tfes.org/Circumnavigation

Traveling in a Straight Line

Q. Can't we just circumnavigate the earth by traveling in a straight line without a navigational aid?

A. It is not possible to travel in a perfectly straight line for very long without a navigational aid.

It's not even possible to drive down a long length of highway without turning the steering wheel left or right. Get in a car and see if you can drive down a long stretch of highway without turning the wheel left or right. It's a near impossible thing to do. And when it comes to planes, ships, helicopters, et all., no craft has the ability of traveling in a perfectly straight line without the operator adjusting the craft with regards to visual terrain, compass readings, or what have you.

When one navigates, hands on control is paramount. You wouldn't find a ship captain in New York pointing his vessel in the direction of London, turning on cruise control, and then taking a three week nap in the lower decks. Who knows where he'd end up.

I asked specifically about passing over the north pole in the dual pole map and you present me with the single pole map instead.  Which one are we working with here Tom?  If you continue north beyond the north pole in the dual pole map, what happens to the compass?  How can it simultaneously point at both the north and south poles at that point in time?  How can you follow a path from north to south in a dual pole map from the north pole through Russia, and China to the south pole without seeing any compass deviation along the side bending arc of that journey?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[Tom Bishop]

If you continue north beyond the north pole in the dual pole map, what happens to the compass?

Again, see the quote I provided about traveling in a straight line.

[CriticalThinker]

If you continue north beyond the north pole in the dual pole map, what happens to the compass?

Again, see the quote I provided about traveling in a straight line.

Please note the decidedly curved lines representing longitude in your dual pole model.  That shape is incongruent with the actual shape of a bar magnet.  At the peak of the arc, you would expect and equal pull from both poles at a tangent to the magnet causing it to wobble in an arc.

There is an area beyond the north pole in your model that is further from the south pole than the north pole.  Even a slight distance into that zone should still see a reversing of the magnetic compass at which point the south end of the bar magnet no longer points south.

Please explain.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[Tom Bishop]

Please note the decidedly curved lines representing longitude in your dual pole model.  That shape is incongruent with the actual shape of a bar magnet.  At the peak of the arc, you would expect and equal pull from both poles at a tangent to the magnet causing it to wobble in an arc.

There is an area beyond the north pole in your model that is further from the south pole than the north pole.  Even a slight distance into that zone should still see a reversing of the magnetic compass at which point the south end of the bar magnet no longer points south.

Please explain.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

The only way you would know that the compass does not point South is by following it South, following the curve, eventually reaching the South Pole.