Re: 1507 text ref of Inventio Fortunata

From: Philip Deitiker (Donevenask_at_worlnet.att.net)
Date: 08/17/04 

Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 04:14:49 GMT

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> says in
news:f2p2i0h1p08ad0u12jmm8t3b2hchoddm6s@4ax.com:

> That you should say that seems to confirm that you believe
> the position of the North Pole at a particular date can
> only have been determined by contemporary measurement.

It is the best measure for that date. The fact that you have two
plots, one that deviates to the west and the other that deviates
to the east, and still neither overly what was plotted, and also
given the 1904 measurement is very close to the 1831, I will
stick with the 1831, thank you.
  The USGS claims that between 1904 and 1831 the vector of
motion reversed explaining the juxtopostion, however others
contest this feild jerk. Some of my readings on the internet
show that the number of harmonics used to estimate past
positions is on the rise, therefore the map produced is likely
to change. In addition they claim that extrapolation based on
magnetic deviation since 1700 shows that pole to be 110'W and
~75'N and ossicilating. They also claim there was a pole 'run'
during the lifetime of ezekial for which the maximum declination
was 60', over russia. They claim a great many things; however
their claims cannot be verified and to start, they admit just
that, and they are trying to improve their models. The best way
to test a model is to see if the future motion agrees with the
predicted motion, if it does not, it means that the estimations
of the past are also in error.

> Hopefully you will by now have received my article bearing
> a diagram of the principles of geo-magnetism.

I read it before you started throwing out your squink.

>>here is a better picture.
>>
>>http://www.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/long_mvt_nmp_e.shtml
>>
>>Now see if either of your maps fit over the original data
>>points.
>
> Why do you persist in acting as though the location of the
> pole is as definitive as a peg driven into the ground?

You sound like an argument on a bad date. The location of the
'north pole' that is an oval that rotates over a 24 hour period,
that degree of rotation is increasing, it was somewhat easier to
measure in 1831.

This pole give one an approximation of where the declination
lines are going to be; however I did not make that assumption
and instead of assuming that I gave you important magnetic
deviation data for airports about greenland, which you ignored
because you do not understand their meaning.

In your thick head, however, you should have created a
abstraction called an inclination map.

I didn't need the map because based on airfeild magnetic
deviations one can guess (perpendicularize) the approximate
feild lines. And also in prolonged flights heading along any
latitude one observes the change in compass heading relative to
true heading the feild lines are the inverse of the magnetic
course corrections required to stay on latitude. However, my
assumption that you would understand the inclinations are a
roughly perpendicular function of magnetic deviation was
probably too much to ask of you. This is what you need to suckle
your thumb with

http://geomag.usgs.gov/IGRF_I.html

Follow the 70' inclination line in the north and the -60'
inclination line in the south. This is the problem with
traveling in the atlantic by compass.

OK, so if you think that the Mercator map is based on measured
observations of greenland based on the compass, I have given you
all the data you need, take this data and superimpose greenland
onto any globe of your choice, distort it such that the
concavity of inclination lines around greenland is compensated
for and reinsert this image with flattened out inclination lines
on a latitude and see if this map image reconciles with any
known map of the period. When you have done this and realize
that it does not, you can then waste lots of time trying to
reposition the earths internal dipole such that the inclination
lines will roll and angle themselves such that it will
superimpose on those maps. Otherwise I don't want to hear any
more of your crap about why I don't think the poles move or why
I don't beleive your version of polar localization over the real
charts. The point is that with my model or your model the
outcome is the same. Conceptually speaking I have a much better
understanding of the poles than you do, and in addition if the
poles had swept over norway, there would be lots of reports of
magnetic bearing changes because this change would have altered
navigation within the Indian ocean. If you take a look at the
map you will see, as I said the inclination lines are
essentially flat, as they have been for the last 1000 years.
(And I repeat this can be estimated based on the position of the
north pole within canada, i.e. on the american hemisphere),

If you can't figure it out with the above html, I can't help you
to figure it out, please consult your psychiatrist or
pediatrician. Alternatively go suckle up to your swedish marm
and gather your information from her Prime sources. 

-- 
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mol. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.    
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux      
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Quantcast