Strength of Earth's Magnetic Field - FE vs RE models

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 point!

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.

Look at the flat earth illustration above. The magnetic field lines are coming out of the area around the North Pole, passing over the middle latitudes, and dipping back down into the area around the South Pole. Of course the magnetic field seem stronger in those areas. That's where the field lines are touching the earth.

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.

Source?

Anyone with a sensitive enough magnetometer can make these measurements.

Uh, no. You also have to be standing on government property in Antarctica.

Look at the flat earth illustration above. The magnetic field lines are coming out of the area around the North Pole, passing over the middle latitudes, and dipping back down into the area around the South Pole. Of course the magnetic field would be stronger in those areas. That's where the field lines are touching the earth.

Quote

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.

I'm not sure where your logic is failing Tom, because I don't understand what point you're trying to make.  So let me quickly rephrase:  The north pole and south pole will always have the strongest magnetic field measurements on either flat earth or round earth.  My point is that if we are indeed living on a flat Earth, why is it that the magnetic field is strongest at both the north pole and "ice wall"?  By our mutual understanding of magnetics, and per the drawing above, since the ice wall is not a pole, it SHOULD have a weaker magnetic field strength.  Yet when actually measured with instruments, the magnetic field strength at the ice wall is just as strong as the north pole.  Why is that?  Your drawing does not explain it all.

Just use a megnetic senso (compass) and see where the lines are?
They point to the south, not downwards, you can make a 3d compass if you like.

Quote

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.

Source?

Quote

Anyone with a sensitive enough magnetometer can make these measurements.

Uh, no. You also have to be standing on government property in Antarctica.

I knew I shouldn't have posted numbers.  Anything that isn't personally verifiable is subject to claims of conspiracy, so I can already foretell your next post.  But the numbers are from the National Geophysical Data Center  http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomagmodels/IGRFWMM.jsp.  And as for going to Antarctica, 1) There is a slice of Antarctica that is not claimed by any government.  2)  I'm pretty sure it's safe to travel to at least the edge, you'll still get a reading that's closer to the north pole's strength as opposed to the equator.

edit: bad link

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 16, 2011, 06:06:38 PM

Look at the flat earth illustration above. The magnetic field lines are coming out of the area around the North Pole, passing over the middle latitudes, and dipping back down into the area around the South Pole. Of course the magnetic field would be stronger in those areas. That's where the field lines are touching the earth.

Quote

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.

I'm not sure where your logic is failing Tom, because I don't understand what point you're trying to make.  So let me quickly rephrase:  The north pole and south pole will always have the strongest magnetic field measurements on either flat earth or round earth.  My point is that if we are indeed living on a flat Earth, why is it that the magnetic field is strongest at both the north pole and "ice wall"?  By our mutual understanding of magnetics, and per the drawing above, since the ice wall is not a pole, it SHOULD have a weaker magnetic field strength.  Yet when actually measured with instruments, the magnetic field strength at the ice wall is just as strong as the north pole.  Why is that?  Your drawing does not explain it all.

You're assuming that density has anything to do with field strength and that the magnetic field lines aren't so dense together that any spread-out at the South Pole isn't imperceptible.

The field lines could be so dense that any spread out is imperceptible, have you thought about that? No one knows how many magnetic fields lines per square inch comes out of a magnet.

Where is the evidence supporting these sweeping assumptions you're making?

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.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3363151982_2f3bea71f8.jpg

How does that image prove that Point A is experiencing more or less powerful magnetism than point B?

Quote from: Yoduh on September 16, 2011, 06:18:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 16, 2011, 06:06:38 PM

Look at the flat earth illustration above. The magnetic field lines are coming out of the area around the North Pole, passing over the middle latitudes, and dipping back down into the area around the South Pole. Of course the magnetic field would be stronger in those areas. That's where the field lines are touching the earth.

Quote

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.

I'm not sure where your logic is failing Tom, because I don't understand what point you're trying to make.  So let me quickly rephrase:  The north pole and south pole will always have the strongest magnetic field measurements on either flat earth or round earth.  My point is that if we are indeed living on a flat Earth, why is it that the magnetic field is strongest at both the north pole and "ice wall"?  By our mutual understanding of magnetics, and per the drawing above, since the ice wall is not a pole, it SHOULD have a weaker magnetic field strength.  Yet when actually measured with instruments, the magnetic field strength at the ice wall is just as strong as the north pole.  Why is that?  Your drawing does not explain it all.

You're assuming that density has anything to do with field strength and that the magnetic field lines aren't so dense together that any spread-out at the South Pole isn't imperceptible.

Where is the evidence supporting these sweeping assumptions you're making?

I guess I was wrong in assuming you understood electromagnetics.  So I'll tell you something you probably didn't know and let you go do some research homework - another name for "magnetic field" is "magnetic flux density".

And to your last post - that little bar magnet does not actually have an effect on the iron filings at that distance.  That's simply where all the excess iron filings got pushed out to, notice how there's a lot of empty space left of the "A", that's where that excess filings came from.  Really Tom if that's the best you can do we're going to have a really short thread.

Noone is measuring the field strength at point A. All the measurements possible would be at a point somewhat below B and near C:




And I've seen no documentation that the field strength is significantly different at either the Pole or the rim country.

I guess I was wrong in assuming you understood electromagnetics.  So I'll tell you something you probably didn't know and let you go do some research homework - another name for "magnetic field" is "magnetic flux density".

So how dense are the magnetic field lines? Is it 10 lines per square inch? 1000? 1,000,000,000?, 10^23?

What makes you think that they would "spread out" enough at the South Pole as to be significantly lessened?

TB ur clutching at straws really by now you should of got TEH point

Quote

I guess I was wrong in assuming you understood electromagnetics.  So I'll tell you something you probably didn't know and let you go do some research homework - another name for "magnetic field" is "magnetic flux density".

So how dense are the magnetic field lines? Is it 10 lines per square inch? 1000? 1,000,000,000?, 10^23?

What makes you think that they would "spread out" enough at the South Pole as to be significantly lessened?

From where on Earth have you gotten the idea that a magnetic field is measured in lines? Or in lines per square anything, for that matter? Do you even have an idea of what waves are? And I don't even imagine myself asking you about Maxwell's laws.

Just buy a magnet at your local hardware store and play with it. You will find the same thing as everybody else on this planet above the age of 7 has: magnetism decreases with distance. I could not even find a place where they would explain to you that magnetism decreases with the square of the distance at large distances from the magnet, because it is so damn elementary that nobody seems to care about explaining it without differential equations.

Quote

I guess I was wrong in assuming you understood electromagnetics.  So I'll tell you something you probably didn't know and let you go do some research homework - another name for "magnetic field" is "magnetic flux density".

So how dense are the magnetic field lines? Is it 10 lines per square inch? 1000? 1,000,000,000?, 10^23?

What makes you think that they would "spread out" enough at the South Pole as to be significantly lessened?

Because at the south pole, it is further away from the magnetic core.  The magnetic field lines would have to spread out and become less dense.