[HN Gopher] 'Three norths' alignment about to end
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       'Three norths' alignment about to end
        
       Author : altilunium
       Score  : 71 points
       Date   : 2025-12-24 15:17 UTC (7 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.spatialsource.com.au)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.spatialsource.com.au)
        
       | oersted wrote:
       | > when the true, magnetic and grid norths met in the village of
       | Langton Matravers in Dorset
       | 
       | Love that, sounds like something Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett
       | would write :)
        
         | rwmj wrote:
         | Langton is obviously "long town", but Matravers is a very
         | strange non-English sounding name, and indeed according to
         | Wikipedia it's from French:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton_Matravers#History
        
           | dspillett wrote:
           | There are a lot of French influence in England's place names
           | (and the language in general) from the couple of centuries
           | after 1066 when the Normans ruled the roost.
        
             | jfengel wrote:
             | The Normans still rule the roost. The dynasty name changes
             | every so often but King Chuck 3 can trace his line straight
             | back to William the Bastard.
        
               | umanwizard wrote:
               | Charles doesn't "rule the roost" in any meaningful sense.
               | Who knows whether Keir Starmer descends from Normans, but
               | his predecessor certainly doesn't.
        
               | exe34 wrote:
               | Hey now, at least Rishi was elected to rule Britain - the
               | old lady Vicky wasn't remotely connected to India but she
               | was still Empress.
        
           | antonvs wrote:
           | Town names in England are full of historical quirks that
           | don't sound like modern English - try browsing a map, it's
           | fun. Some of its place names are thousands of years old.
           | 
           | Even names that seem very English now, like "York", only seem
           | that way because of their long historical presence. The town
           | of that name started out around 70 CE as the Roman fortress
           | Eboracum, which was a Latinized version of a Celtic name.
           | 
           | Later, around 600 CE, the Anglo-Saxons reinterpreted the name
           | as Eoforwic, because "eofor" meant "boar" in Old English,
           | although the earlier name had nothing to do with boars, other
           | than sounding similar.
           | 
           | Then the Vikings came along in the 860s and called it Jorvik,
           | an Old Norse adaptation of Eoforwic.
           | 
           | Around 1000 CE, after the Norman conquest, the name was
           | shortened to York. That has no meaning in English, other than
           | the place name and its derivatives. Fundamentally, it's no
           | more or less English than Matravers.
        
             | louthy wrote:
             | I've just bought a house in Alderwasley in Derbyshire, the
             | nearest town is Wirksworth [1]. I assumed that, because
             | this area was the heart of the industrial revolution [2],
             | the town was an eponymously named workers town built for
             | mill workers (there are actually entire towns in the area
             | that were built for mill workers).
             | 
             | Then I read the history on wikipedia:
             | 
             |  _The name was recorded as Werchesworde in the Domesday
             | Book of 1086 A.D. Outlying farms (berewicks) were Cromford,
             | Middleton, Hopton, Wellesdene [sic], Carsington, Kirk
             | Ireton and Callow. It gave its name to the earlier
             | Wirksworth wapentake or hundred. The Survey of English
             | Place-Names records Wyrcesuuyrthe in 835, Werchesworde in
             | 1086, and Wirksworth(e) in 1536.
             | 
             | The toponym might be "Weorc's enclosure", or "fortified
             | enclosure"._
             | 
             | I just love how place names in the UK have evolved.
             | 
             | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirksworth
             | 
             | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromford_Mill
        
           | MangoToupe wrote:
           | > Langton is obviously "long town"
           | 
           | Are we speaking another language? C'mon, this isn't obvious
           | at all.
           | 
           | > but Matravers is a very strange non-English sounding name,
           | and indeed according to Wikipedia it's from French
           | 
           | Duh? Was "vers" not a major clue?
           | 
           | ...what kind of language education did you receive? I was
           | taught english, french, and latin. Were you taught german or
           | dutch by any chance?
        
         | dave1010uk wrote:
         | Langton Matravers is about 2km north of the coast. The 3 norths
         | will have met land at a place called Dancing Ledge, at about SZ
         | 00000 76833 (50.59121, -2.00000).
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Ledge
         | 
         | The quarry caves at Winspit are worth an explore if you're in
         | the area - they've been used in the set for Dr Who, Blake's 7
         | and Andor.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winspit
        
       | skrebbel wrote:
       | How can "north" be a place? I feel like they forgot to add the
       | content.
        
         | x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
         | I think they are referring to a moving point on earth's surface
         | where all 3 norths appear to be in the same direction. I agree
         | it wasn't clear.
         | 
         | What's also unclear to me is how all 3 could reliably be
         | colinear, but maybe it's an aspect of spherical geometry that
         | eludes me.
        
           | tor825gl wrote:
           | The locus of points where magnetic north aligns with true
           | north is a (one dimensional) curve. On one side of the curve
           | magnetic north is too far to the east, on the other side too
           | far to the west.
           | 
           | Same for the locus of points where grid north matches true
           | north.
           | 
           | The two curves meet in some finite number of isolated points,
           | at each of these all three directions are the same.
        
         | oersted wrote:
         | I agree, but the video at the bottom helped.
         | 
         | You can draw a line between your location and the north pole,
         | they talk about three variants:
         | 
         | - _Magnetic North_ : Shortest surface line to the magnetic
         | north pole (simply in the direction of the compass at your
         | location).
         | 
         | - _True North_ : Shortest surface line from where you are to
         | the geographic north pole (based on the rotation axis?).
         | 
         | - _Grid North_ : A line to the same geographic north pole, but
         | aligned to the longitude lines (EDIT: for a local UK grid
         | standard, slightly different from the global one). I didn't
         | fully understand the subtleties of why it's different from True
         | North, something about the projection. Not sure if it's exactly
         | to the same north pole, the rotation axis might also change
         | slightly and I assume that the grid north point is fixed by
         | convention?
         | 
         | They are saying that there's a particular point where all three
         | lines point in the same direction, and that point is moving.
        
           | chippiewill wrote:
           | In the UK there's a standard grid used for local-only
           | mapping:
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_National_Grid
           | 
           | It's a transverse mercator projection rather than a mercator
           | as you might often see because it minimises distortion over
           | the UK as a whole which means that the distortion is as you
           | move away from the meridian, rather than as you move away
           | from the equator (with a regular mercator I think all points
           | have the grid aligned with true North)
           | 
           | This grid is setup such that it's origin is not on the prime
           | meridian (at Greenwich), but 2deg west so only points on the
           | line 2deg west are aligned with true north.
        
             | gonzus wrote:
             | One of the advantages of doing this seemingly weird
             | projection is that you can treat "local" maps (for some
             | definition of local) as flat rectangular grids without
             | introducing a lot of errors: drawing straight lines between
             | two points, measuring the distance / angle between them,
             | etc., just by dealing with a flat piece of paper. VERY
             | convenient, but the farther you are from the center of the
             | projection, the higher the errors that are introduced.
        
               | Sharlin wrote:
               | In short, you can treat the local geometry as Euclidean.
        
               | bregma wrote:
               | Or, to put it simply, the shape of the Earth can be
               | considered flat for local mapping purposes.
               | 
               | If grid north and true north are the same everywhere, it
               | would be proof the entire Earth is flat.
        
               | tialaramex wrote:
               | If your planet is tiny, it's very easy to figure out that
               | it's a ball, a child can see it with their bare eyes. The
               | planets in "Outer Wilds" are like that.
               | 
               | Because this planet is larger, smart people trying to
               | figure out how it works used simple tools and
               | measurements to conclude that it's a ball, we know that
               | Greeks and Romans figured this out, I'm sure other
               | civilisations did too.
               | 
               | Greg Egan's "Incandescence" has people who live somewhere
               | where you can discover, in this same way, General
               | Relativity. There's a small but noticeable difference
               | between the simple linear results we'd see for Newtonian
               | physics in rudimentary experiments and what they can
               | observe and they figure out why. Since they have no
               | context for what it means to observe this and have (to
               | their memory) always lived somewhere this happens, they
               | aren't terrified by this discovery any more than we were
               | terrified to discover how our Sun must work - so much
               | hydrogen in one place that it undergoes spontaneous
               | nuclear fusion which releases so much energy that we can
               | easily see by it even after it is no longer directly
               | visible, OK cool, I still need groceries.
        
               | teamonkey wrote:
               | It's easy to see that the surface of the earth is a ball
               | - or at least a curved surface - simply by going to the
               | seaside and watching ships dip below the horizon before
               | they fully disappear.
               | 
               | The ancient Greeks _proved_ it was a ball and measured
               | the dimensions of it using mathematics, but the concept
               | of a curved earth was known to seafarers long before
               | that.
        
           | Luc wrote:
           | > Magnetic North: Shortest surface line to the magnetic north
           | pole (simply in the direction of the compass at your
           | location).
           | 
           | Magnetic North is the local horizontal direction of the
           | magnetic field. But that doesn't generally coincide with the
           | shortest surface line (geodesic) to the magnetic north pole
           | (however you define that - there's several).
           | 
           | If you followed your compass you could end up in a loop
           | without reaching the magnetic north pole.
        
         | rcxdude wrote:
         | This video explains it a lot better:
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcFvegnQpPo
         | 
         | Basically, there's a "true north" which is where the axis of
         | rotation of the earth intersects with its surface, and for
         | local mapping in the UK there is a grid which is not longitude
         | and latitude but instead locally flat (i.e. each grid square
         | has the same area) but that means that it only lines up with
         | true north along one line that goes north-south through roughly
         | the middle of the UK.
         | 
         | Then the third is magnetic north, and this is one that both
         | varies from place to place and with time. Magnetic north, as in
         | the place where the earth's magnetic field intersects with its
         | surface, doesn't necessarily line up with true north. Even more
         | complicatedly, compasses don't actually point to the magnetic
         | north pole, but can be about ten degrees off to the east or
         | west depending on where you are on the planet's surface (for
         | most of the surface. Near the poles it can be wildly off.
         | Obviously if you're walking around near magnetic pole your
         | compass is going to be all over the place). And to top it all
         | off, this changes from year to year. If you have charts for
         | navigating by compass, it will give you a table and formula for
         | correcting what you read on your compass to grid or true north,
         | and those depend on the date. This also needs to be kept up to
         | date with an almanac or similar because it can't be predicted
         | arbitrarily far into the future.
         | 
         | What this means, is that there's basically a funny-shaped line
         | on the earth's surface where the magnetic north happens to line
         | up with the true north, and this line moves over time (you can
         | see a current map here:
         | https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/inline-
         | images/...). At the moment, this line intersects with the line
         | where the UK's grid north and true north line up within the UK
         | mainland, but it's been moving for the past three years and
         | this intersection point will soon be off the coast.
        
         | jstanley wrote:
         | If the shortest route from your current location to the English
         | channel crosses the M4 then you're in the north, otherwise
         | you're not.
        
           | teamonkey wrote:
           | Anything outside the M25 is "The North", regardless of
           | latitude.
        
       | lrasinen wrote:
       | For most of Great Britain, the grid north differs from true north
       | because the grid cells are fixed size, so they "fan out" compared
       | to longitude lines. The exception is the 2degW meridian where the
       | grid lines up.
       | 
       | The magnetic north wanders around, and it now happens to match
       | along the 2deg meridian.
       | 
       | But really the article is a year early, as the alignment point
       | should make a brief landfall in Scotland late next year (which
       | the article acknowledges later on). Or perhaps they expect
       | Scotland to secede before that.
        
       | bjackman wrote:
       | The title is written specifically for UK readers, the actual
       | subject is about the point of alignment leaving GB.
       | 
       | (Also for anyone who was confused by this, it's not about the
       | poles, it's about the point where the bearings for all three
       | norths are equivalent. So a "compass" would point in the same
       | direction regardless of what kind of north it reported. Took me a
       | moment to understand!)
        
         | louthy wrote:
         | > The title is written specifically for UK readers
         | 
         | Is it? The `.au` TLD might suggest otherwise.
        
           | MangoToupe wrote:
           | True. There may be australians interested in other otherwise-
           | obscure islands
        
           | LeifCarrotson wrote:
           | Not having thought about it too hard, if the three norths all
           | align at -2 degrees west longitude, wouldn't they also be
           | aligned at 178 degrees East longitude, somewhere near the
           | east coast of New Zealand?
           | 
           | Do the analogous "three souths" also have an alignment, and
           | is it precisely opposite the north poles?
        
             | Majromax wrote:
             | > Not having thought about it too hard, if the three norths
             | all align at -2 degrees west longitude, wouldn't they also
             | be aligned at 178 degrees East longitude, somewhere near
             | the east coast of New Zealand?
             | 
             | There is no required equivalent 'three souths' alignment
             | because the Earth's magnetic field is not a pure dipole.
             | Higher-moment variations can cause essentially arbitrary
             | (but small) deviations of magnetic north/south from its
             | dipole approximation.
        
         | MadnessASAP wrote:
         | To clarify, it was an alignment of True, Magnetic, and Grid
         | North. It was occurring at a point that happened to occur in
         | England and was travelling slowly North for the past few years
         | and now exists over water.
         | 
         | Magnetic North is the direction a compass points in a
         | particular location and moves with shifts in earths magnetic
         | field as well as local anomalies.
         | 
         | True North is parallel to the axis of Earths rotation and moves
         | as earth wobbles and sways like a slightly unbalanced spinning
         | top.
         | 
         | Grid North is perpendicular to lines of Longitude which is
         | "fixed" to a given geographic reference frame. For the UK that
         | would be OGSB36, GPS uses WGS84, other countries may adopt
         | different systems.
         | 
         | All this means that an alignment of all 3 norths can occur at
         | multiple places on earth or none at all.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-12-31 23:01 UTC)