Nope. Because there is one magnetic north and it always stays same point.
Prove it.
All the evidence shows otherwise.
Everything is perfect in my map. Prove the opposite.
I have, repeatedly, even in this thread, but you just ignore it.
How about you deal with the disproves I have already provided, such as the longitude difference between Sydney and Perth requires it to be closer to the centre than the equator, or the 2 pairs of cities where you have the wrong one further north?
As how you can't see the sun after it gone far more than 6000kms you can't see Polaris because of same reason
You mean ~10000 km, because it is then hidden by the curvature of Earth.
It clearly has nothing to do with distance, because the math shows it should still be well above the horizon and there is no decrease in brightness as you go further from it.
Make a search and then show the results. Your claimg them being absent does not magically make them absent.
Here you go:
https://i.imgur.com/de94YvR.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/mL6DMIV.pngThe first is a crappy song.
The second is just a baseless assertion that Polaris is magnetic north with a strawman of what the RE model indicates, completely ignoring the strength of the magnetic field involved and its shape.
The 5th is a podcast primarily talking about how to circumnavigate on a pizza planet, with no evidence provided.
The 7th provides a method to find polaris using magnetic north, with a note saying it isn't as accurate as the other methods as magnetic north is not directly in line with Polaris.
The 8th is attacking the globe by fully accepting magnetic declination and trying to use that against a RE.
And plenty discussing magnetic deviation.
But perhaps the best one is this one:
A video by a flat Earthing proving that Polaris is left of magnetic north.
I guess that settles it.
Polaris isn't always in line with magnetic north.
So I guess that is one point FEers and REers can agree on.
This is what you have admitted.
I have admitted no such thing.
In no way was that post of mine any form of admission.
It was an instruction to you, telling you to provide evidence, with a specific form of evidence.
I know that the example is not evidence itself, it was an example of what said evidence should contain.
Now do you have this evidence, or should I use the above video to conclude that you are wrong?