Firstly I'd like to say this is the first time I've been back to his board in almost 4 years. I was going through some very old bookmarks when I re-stumbled upon this site and I couldn't resist coming back to see how things have been. Though I was and still am convinced this place is just a training ground for trolls, what I like about this board is how the FE "believers" here can imagine some really creative pseudoscience which makes for very entertaining threads.
Anyways, I'm actually re-making a thread I made from '07 that never produced any real counter-argument from the FE side. Eventually the FE posters just kind of left the thread after I imagine they realized they had no real way of arguing against my RE evidence. I did a search today and looks like no other similar thread has been created since, so I'm wondering if anyone can in 2011 provide a rebuttal to my 2007 argument.
My argument is quite simple to understand, it involves the magnetic field of a sphere (RE) vs. a disk or cylinder (FE).
So here is the RE magnetic field
It has a north and south pole where magnetic field lines originate from. We can intuitively reason by just looking at the picture that we would expect the magnetic field to be strongest where the lines are most dense (north and south pole) and weakest where least dense (equator).
Here is the FE magnetic field
Can you already see where I'm going with this? The magnetic field of a disc is strongest at the poles, same with a sphere. The weakest
point of the magnetic field on a disc/flat Earth is along the edge, where the reported icewall is. But the icewall on a round earth is the south pole, which is what we intuitively deduced should be (along with the north pole) the strongest
Sadly for FE believers, the strength of the magnetic fields at different locations on Earth isn't just intuitive, it's measurable, and indeed the Earth's magnetic field strength along any point of the equator is measured to be around 36,000 nanoTesla (nT). While the North and South pole are around 56,000 nT. These are facts, and they can not be disputed. Anyone with a sensitive enough magnetometer can make these measurements. Hell you can take any bar magnet and with iron filings prove to yourself the simple fact that magnetic fields are strongest at the poles while anywhere else
must be weaker, which is the only thing we actually need to realize to know that a flat Earth can't possibly have the magnetic field that we measure and observe.
So the Earth's magnetic field all makes perfect sense from an RE perspective. So how then can it be explained that a flat Earth possesses a round Earth magnetic field?
As an added bonus to this discussion, I provide you with Tom Bishop's 2007 very technical drawing of the flat Earth's magnetic field that still failed to prove how the ice wall has a magnetic field just as strong as the north pole
Note the spelling of "teh core". A true scientific mind at work.