The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Ali on May 04, 2011, 11:08:22 AM
-
The Earth's magnetic field is generated due to it's iron core rotating around a central axis running between the magnetic north and south poles. Without this rotation, there would be no magnetic field, correct? Or did I miss another amusing section of the FAQ while I was laughing out loud? Did NASA dig up the surface of the planet, shove a bunch of magnets under there and run off before anyone noticed?
-
Basic questions about Flat Earth Theory should be posted in Flat Earth Q&A. Please read both the Forum Rules and the board-specific rules.
Moved.
-
Terribly sorry. But might you stoop so low as to actually hazard a guess?
-
Not all magnets are rotating iron balls, are they?
-
Not all magnets are rotating iron balls, are they?
You can think of another reason? I'll be the one rolling on the floor laughing as you explain this one.
-
Ironically, as scientists are struggling to explain anistropic seismic waves and forcing data to fit their model, they also discovered this...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080208091314.htm
-
You realise that's a sphere, don't you? And a cubic crystal lattice is very different from having a giant Rubik's Cube at the core.
-
It's a sphere they continue to mould their data around. There is no reason the earth's core must be a sphere. I have handled innumerable magnets that were not molten-, rotating spheres.
-
A disc magnet with a central northern pole and circular southern pole would produce very different magnetic behaviour from a sphere. You're not helping your argument. Amuse me more.
-
It could simply be a bar magnetic placed under the hub of the rim, but I'm sure you have it all figured out...
-
Oh, I don't need to. The Earth figured it out 5 billion years ago. It decided to be a sphere.
-
Oh, I don't need to. The Earth figured it out 5 billion years ago. It decided to be a sphere.
Not even Gaia theorists go that far.
-
THe truth is, it had no choice. Physics predetermined it.
-
THe truth is, it had no choice. Physics predetermined it.
Well if it had no choice, it didn't decide, did it?
And 'physics' doesn't predetermine anything. Physics is a field of a study, a way of interpreting the world. The world is what it is - it's up to us to figure out what it is.
-
Semantics, you know exactly what I'm referring to. If you're entire basis for arguing for your FE theory is picking up on semantics and not actually providing evidence or irrefutable theory then you have already lost.
-
Semantics, you know exactly what I'm referring to. If you're entire basis for arguing for your FE theory is picking up on semantics and not actually providing evidence or irrefutable theory then you have already lost.
Sorry, but this is not a question of "semantics". You're basically arguing that because the 'laws of physics' say that the Earth is round, it must be. However, the 'laws of physics' are ontologically conceptual and anthropic. You can scour the universe until the end of time, and you will never find E = mc2, or even the number 2.
We are challenging the models and interpretations of the universe supported by mainstream science. You can't refer to those models and interpretations as though they have some objective existence. They don't.
-
In which case, there os no point arguing at all. You are blinded by an obstinate need to be seen as different and refusal to accept laws that are long since proven.
-
In which case, there os no point arguing at all. You are blinded by an obstinate need to be seen as different and refusal to accept laws that are long since proven.
1) Empirical evidence is the test of all interpretations, models and theories.
2) Scientists never "prove" anything (and do not claim to), because of the above point.
-
Scientific proof
n.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
Validation and proof. The same thing. So feel free to validate your ship building dinosaurs and bar magnets shoved under the Earth's crust when you're ready.
-
'Validation' and 'proof' are not the same thing at all. If you did a quck Google, you'd find plenty of information explaining why.
-
Feel free to offer either.
-
Feel free to offer either.
Look out your window. The Earth looks flat. Stand on the top of a tall building. The Earth looks flat.
There you have it: empirical evidence that the Earth is flat. You can repeat this experiment yourself.
-
That is insufficient evidence. If I take a plane up beyond 30,000 feet it's curved. Please provide significantly more proof, including all the theories in your FAQ. The 32 mile diameter sun and moon for a start.
-
That is insufficient evidence. If I take a plane up beyond 30,000 feet it's curved.
Really? Because commercial airline pilots seem to think otherwise.
Also, you're still using the word proof.
-
And I'm quite happy using it. Prrof is the ultimate goal after sufficient qualitative and quantitative evidence is gathered. Once the theory is proven, there will be no further doubt. You have as much to gain from proving FE as I have in debunking it.
-
Ali can not provide proof, because he has none. He might be able to find some very good evidence, but he seems incapable of even that. Just repeating "you're wrong" ad nauseam .
Not much more than a big noise, really.
-
And I'm quite happy using it. Prrof is the ultimate goal after sufficient qualitative and quantitative evidence is gathered. Once the theory is proven, there will be no further doubt. You have as much to gain from proving FE as I have in debunking it.
You cannot 'prove' a scientific theory, or any other kind of theory that relies on empirical evidence for support. You don't even understand Round Earth Theory or the scientific method, so how can you possibly be in a position to comment on our theory or methodology?
-
Deflection, yet again. If you can't provide evidence, you merely insult. Your knowledge of me obviously knows no bounds, so as I seem to have no understanding, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide ANY evidence at all to support your theory? Keep it in small words though, wouldn't want to lose us simple folks in the explanations...
INSERT EVIDENCE BELOW
-
@Ali, I have the most wonderful news for you. You can be part of the evidence and proof if you insist on that term. I can see you have been given the resource to get your evidence. I think you realize by now that it does take your involvement. That resource takes your own senses and that will provide the "proof" you are seeking. You're welcome!
-
perhaps you could be so kind as to provide ANY evidence at all to support your theory?
I provided evidence above. You implicitly acknowledged that it was evidence, though you claimed it was "insufficient". At this point, you are being dishonest.
-
Ali, I'll be honest with you. None of us will take you seriously until you stop arguing pointlessly. The fact of the matter is, if you have a question, we've answered it before, and if you have a problem, we've most likely dealt with it before. If you want proof, go to the FAQ or FED.
-
I don't have questions, I have a requirement for evidence for your theory. You have none. There is nothing on this site that remotely resembles it.
-
I don't have questions, I have a requirement for evidence for your theory. You have none. There is nothing on this site that remotely resembles it.
And I'm telling you that it's here, but you'll have to search for it. We can't repeat out entire argument to everyone who comes here asking.
-
Your argument is that this is a conspiracy:
I accept it as fact because I'm not paranoid.
Your argument is based around literature over 120+ years old, mine is based on actual imagery from within the last 10.
-
Time lapse photography from space? This is your evidence? You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you've just watched too many sci-fi movies to know what's real.
Pretty pictures, tho, I'll give you that.
-
Observation provides empirical evidence. The Earth can very obviously be observed to be a glove. Where is the observation, from sufficient distance (looking out a window doesn't count) that FE is correct?
-
A glove? I thought it was a banana. ;D
-
A glove? I thought it was a banana. ;D
Deflection (and it's clearly a pomegranate).
-
Agreed (on the deflection). But the image was just too good to pass up. ;D Would the glove be flat, like an empty one, or round like an inflated rubber glove?
Anywhooo, for my flat earth research I made a nice spinning "melon earth" to demonstrate the concept. But I don't think I can attach images here or I'd share.
-
I thought I'd chime in by the way Ali, that since you're not going to look it up, A.R. Wallace was a round earther who demonstrated the curvature of the earth in an experiment in which two large items were placed six miles apart on a canal at the same height above the water. A telescope of equal height, when aimed at them, showed one to appear higher than the other (demonstrating that the earth is curved).
Ever since then FEers have come up with all sorts of reasons for why the experiment was wrong, flawed, mislead, dishonest, etc. Though I have a suspicion that had the experiment demonstrated a flat earth, they wouldn't be contesting any of the variables in the experiment!
-
Sure! If you're proven right, why quibble? ;D
The Bedford Level experiments fascinate me, so I'll be there next week trying to reproduce them as best I can. Stay tuned.
-
Deflection, yet again. If you can't provide evidence, you merely insult. Your knowledge of me obviously knows no bounds, so as I seem to have no understanding, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide ANY evidence at all to support your theory? Keep it in small words though, wouldn't want to lose us simple folks in the explanations...
INSERT EVIDENCE BELOW
theyre stick ons...
-
ali, a flat earth can probably still make a flattened magnetic field pattern with the same effects as a spherical one. there are certain arangement of magnets that can cause south to be outwards and north to be inwards.
i dont see your point in your argument, sorry
-
so the flat earth as a specific arrangement of magnets to replicate the effects of a magnetic pole? instead of, say, the magnetic pole being the result of a molten & spinning iron core?
-
ali, a flat earth can probably still make a flattened magnetic field pattern with the same effects as a spherical one. there are certain arangement of magnets that can cause south to be outwards and north to be inwards.
i dont see your point in your argument, sorry
Simple, the Southern Magnetic pole is already proven to be a point and not a circumference. As it currently is located off the coast of Antarctica, any ship in that region can prove it exists. I'm also intrigued as to how the FE'ers explain the fact that the magnetic poles are not set, but actually moving:
(http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/m9214enz.jpg)
(http://api.ning.com/files/SIaIJiJjRsIEA-tJD6OOEBzejrBs4lGx9VuYQCBlEqUdoHkk*PR5kQ3BueM4Wenr9fDys3NfXgBPVn*rkbOxbmbrN*uNNwII/54556main_nmppath2001_med.gif)
Why would a set disc with a set centre have wandering poles...or even have a single point southern pole?
-
magnetism has a north and a south pole, one can't exist without the other, disc world has to have a south pole if it has a magnetic north pole
inb4 magnets are a conspiracy
-
magnetism has a north and a south pole, one can't exist without the other, disc world has to have a south pole if it has a magnetic north pole
inb4 magnets are a conspiracy
In most theories, the south pole is located at the North Pole and the south pole is directly below the north pole.
-
Ineteresting. So how do you explain the point near Antarctica then?
-
Ineteresting. So how do you explain the point near Antarctica then?
The poles can still shift, and for very similar reasons as in RE theory. Its just a horizontal shift, not a rotational shift.
-
Ineteresting. So how do you explain the point near Antarctica then?
The poles can still shift, and for very similar reasons as in RE theory. Its just a horizontal shift, not a rotational shift.
You haven't answered the question. How can there be a south pole out to one side of the disc AND a pole under the disc below the north pole. I think you need to think about this and make more shit up before you answer.
-
Ineteresting. So how do you explain the point near Antarctica then?
The poles can still shift, and for very similar reasons as in RE theory. Its just a horizontal shift, not a rotational shift.
You haven't answered the question. How can there be a south pole out to one side of the disc AND a pole under the disc below the north pole. I think you need to think about this and make more shit up before you answer.
Sorry, I misunderstood your question; The north pole is below the North pole; this would create a magnetic field that acts like we would expect it to.
-
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
-
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
Where have I stated there was only one pole? Where have I said the sun was inside the atmoplane? Where does a FE say the poles are "Off towards the rim"?
-
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array
i think this solves the magnetic field problem
i dont think magnetism is one of the problems in their theories, or else someone would have tackled it a long time ago
-
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array
i think this solves the magnetic field problem
i dont think magnetism is one of the problems in their theories, or else someone would have tackled it a long time ago
if you don't think magnetism is a problem in this theory then you don't understand it in context. Nature cannot make and arrange magnets such as you would seem to be suggesting, you're inventing possible scenarios to explain away a problem with the theory, one that is given good explanation elsewhere. don't you think a properly qualified scientist in this field would have fallen upon this idea? you really think an internet forum is going to produce answers from Wikipedia that physicists have somehow missed?
-
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
Where have I stated there was only one pole? Where have I said the sun was inside the atmoplane? Where does a FE say the poles are "Off towards the rim"?
More semantics? Answer the question as to how the poles could be arranged as you're suggesting. I don't care if an FE says where the poles are, we KNOW where they are. Currently the south pole, and it is a single point, not the entire rim, is off the coast of Antarctica. The FE model puts that point just inside the rim no matter whether you consider Antarctica as a continent or a wall. The north pole is somewhere near the centre of the disc. So, how can that be explained, a completely skewed magnetic field?
And the FAQ states the sun is 9000 feet above the disc. The atmosphere ends at 3.2million feet (1000km). The Magnetosphere has a minimum shield of 70,000km. I think you'll find that the FE theory places the sun well within either. Which means that it should have destroyed the Earth's surface long ago.
-
And the FAQ states the sun is 9000 feet above the disc. The atmosphere ends at 3.2million feet (1000km). The Magnetosphere has a minimum shield of 70,000km. I think you'll find that the FE theory places the sun well within either. Which means that it should have destroyed the Earth's surface long ago.
9000 feet is less than 2 miles. The FAQ puts it at 3000 miles above the surface, 15.84million feet or a little under 5000km. Outside the atmosphere but still well within the magnetosphere. The magnetosphere must be different in FE or maybe there is no solar wind.
-
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
Where have I stated there was only one pole? Where have I said the sun was inside the atmoplane? Where does a FE say the poles are "Off towards the rim"?
More semantics? Answer the question as to how the poles could be arranged as you're suggesting. I don't care if an FE says where the poles are, we KNOW where they are. Currently the south pole, and it is a single point, not the entire rim, is off the coast of Antarctica. The FE model puts that point just inside the rim no matter whether you consider Antarctica as a continent or a wall. The north pole is somewhere near the centre of the disc. So, how can that be explained, a completely skewed magnetic field?
And the FAQ states the sun is 9000 feet above the disc. The atmosphere ends at 3.2million feet (1000km). The Magnetosphere has a minimum shield of 70,000km. I think you'll find that the FE theory places the sun well within either. Which means that it should have destroyed the Earth's surface long ago.
Of course its a single point. Clearly its not a rim. A rudimentary knowledge of magnets should be the first hint to that...
As I've said countless times, the south pole is at the North Pole, and the north pole is directly below the south pole. Exactly like a re. When this shifts, the apparent north pole moves, as does the apparent south pole.
Of course, if you want to get into fractal geographic theorem, its even simpler than that. In infinite frames, the south pole is below the North Pole; below the south pole is the north pole; in infinite parallel frames, the opposite is true; the South Pole, in these frames at the center of the disk, is above the north pole which is above the south pole. The collapse of this is identical to the magnetic field seen in the observable world.
I'm not arguing semantics at all. You simple don't seem to be understanding the theory. If you could be more useful in helping me pinpoint your confusion, I'd be happy to try to help you understand. Or if you could voice your objections to the theory more pointedly concerning configurations I've mentioned that would also be of help.
-
That partially clears that up. Except it would look far smaller if it were only 32 miles diameter and 3000 miles away (for the proportions to work, it would only be 300 miles)! As would the moon. They'd be tiny little specs of light.
As for solar wind:
The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 10 and 100 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time.
You can't not have a solar wind if you have a star. And that's before you consideration all the forms of radiation that would decimate life on Earth. Oh, and the gravitational pull of a sun that's only 32 miles across yet has contained enough fuel to prevent it's implosion over 4.5 billion years. It's only slightly larger than the average neutron star so would have very similar gravitational pull, enough to literally tear the surface of the planet apart and suck it in.
-
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
Where have I stated there was only one pole? Where have I said the sun was inside the atmoplane? Where does a FE say the poles are "Off towards the rim"?
More semantics? Answer the question as to how the poles could be arranged as you're suggesting. I don't care if an FE says where the poles are, we KNOW where they are. Currently the south pole, and it is a single point, not the entire rim, is off the coast of Antarctica. The FE model puts that point just inside the rim no matter whether you consider Antarctica as a continent or a wall. The north pole is somewhere near the centre of the disc. So, how can that be explained, a completely skewed magnetic field?
And the FAQ states the sun is 9000 feet above the disc. The atmosphere ends at 3.2million feet (1000km). The Magnetosphere has a minimum shield of 70,000km. I think you'll find that the FE theory places the sun well within either. Which means that it should have destroyed the Earth's surface long ago.
Of course its a single point. Clearly its not a rim. A rudimentary knowledge of magnets should be the first hint to that...
As I've said countless times, the south pole is at the North Pole, and the north pole is directly below the south pole. Exactly like a re. When this shifts, the apparent north pole moves, as does the apparent south pole.
Of course, if you want to get into fractal geographic theorem, its even simpler than that. In infinite frames, the south pole is below the North Pole; below the south pole is the north pole; in infinite parallel frames, the opposite is true; the South Pole, in these frames at the center of the disk, is above the north pole which is above the south pole. The collapse of this is identical to the magnetic field seen in the observable world.
I'm not arguing semantics at all. You simple don't seem to be understanding the theory. If you could be more useful in helping me pinpoint your confusion, I'd be happy to try to help you understand. Or if you could voice your objections to the theory more pointedly concerning configurations I've mentioned that would also be of help.
I don't have to because what you've stated isn't possible. Firstly, you can't explain the pole found off the coast of Antarctica, secondly, your model fails to fit with the magnetic field lines we know to connect the north pole with the point off Anatarctica, the true south pole, and lastly, feel free to run your pole distances through these equations:
http://instruct.tri-c.edu/fgram/web/mdipole.htm
And you'll find they fail to correlate with the Earth's measurable magnetic field strength and extension into the magnetosphere. Your theory also fails to explain the severe warping of the magnetosphere due to solar wind from a sun OUTWITH the magnetosphere, not with in it as the distances provided would have us think.
-
Ahh I see the source of some of your confusion; I don't hold the sun is a ridiculous 32 miles in diameter. I should have caught that earlier, sorry.
Both the theories I mentioned would explain an apparent "south pole" at a point off the coast of the antarctic, albeit, my theory is clearly superior in this aspect than other fe theories.
-
That partially clears that up. Except it would look far smaller if it were only 32 miles diameter and 3000 miles away! As would the moon. They'd be tiny little specs of light.
I vaguely remember there being some maths using its apparent size and it being 3000 miles away to calculate the 32 mile diameter.
As for solar wind:
The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 10 and 100 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time.
You can't not have a solar wind if you have a star. And that's before you consideration all the forms of radiation that would decimate life on Earth. Oh, and the gravitational pull of a sun that's only 32 miles across yet has contained enough fuel to prevent it's implosion over 4.5 billion years. It's only slightly larger than the average neutron star so would have very similar gravitational pull, enough to literally tear the surface of the planet apart and suck it in.
I believe the Earth is round, I was just throwing out a random idea. The sun isn't a standard star in all the FE models I don't think so in some models I guess they don't need a magnetosphere?
Ahh I see the source of some of your confusion; I don't hold the sun is a ridiculous 32 miles in diameter. I should have caught that earlier, sorry.
Both the theories I mentioned would explain an apparent "south pole" at a point off the coast of the antarctic, albeit, my theory is clearly superior in this aspect than other fe theories.
What size do you believe the Sun to be and how far away? Same as RE?
Also is your model written up anywhere, its completely different to the FAQ. I'd like to give it a read.
-
Ahh I see the source of some of your confusion; I don't hold the sun is a ridiculous 32 miles in diameter. I should have caught that earlier, sorry.
Both the theories I mentioned would explain an apparent "south pole" at a point off the coast of the antarctic, albeit, my theory is clearly superior in this aspect than other fe theories.
What size do you believe the Sun to be and how far away? Same as RE?
Also is your model written up anywhere, its completely different to the FAQ. I'd like to give it a read.
Roughly the same;its hard to be certain due to the affect of the space medium, but its a fair bet we aren't far off there.
Some of my model is within the faq, but I have yet to put it all in the wiki. I'll be publishing my book this year, which will have it all including data as well as likely a short description of competing models and their flaws. Markjo is right, I need to get off my ass and finish the wiki page on it, but time is pretty sparse for me unfortunately.
-
The proven distance of the sun is 149million km to it's 1.4million diameter. For it to be 32 miles across, it could only be at a height of 330 miles or it would appear 1/10 the size it does.
-
The proven distance of the sun is 149million km to it's 1.4million diameter. For it to be 32 miles across, it could only be at a height of 330 miles or it would appear 1/10 the size it does.
I did a quick search but couldn't find anything so just did it myself. The sun has an angular size of about 0.53o, using a distance of 3000 miles it should be about 28 miles in diameter. Calculated using this formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter) and if you're too lazy to do the maths like me this website does it for you: http://www.1728.com/angsize.htm (http://www.1728.com/angsize.htm). Using the RE figure for distance it calculated the correct diameter.
-
The proven distance of the sun is 149million km to it's 1.4million diameter. For it to be 32 miles across, it could only be at a height of 330 miles or it would appear 1/10 the size it does.
I did a quick search but couldn't find anything so just did it myself. The sun has an angular size of about 0.53o, using a distance of 3000 miles it should be about 28 miles in diameter. Calculated using this formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter) and if you're too lazy to do the maths like me this website does it for you: http://www.1728.com/angsize.htm (http://www.1728.com/angsize.htm). Using the RE figure for distance it calculated the correct diameter.
I believe to get that size for the sun you can find the source math in ENaG, but I'm pretty tired and I may be thinking of a different source.
-
I did a quick search but couldn't find anything so just did it myself. The sun has an angular size of about 0.53o, using a distance of 3000 miles it should be about 28 miles in diameter. Calculated using this formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter) and if you're too lazy to do the maths like me this website does it for you: http://www.1728.com/angsize.htm (http://www.1728.com/angsize.htm). Using the RE figure for distance it calculated the correct diameter.
I believe to get that size for the sun you can find the source math in ENaG, but I'm pretty tired and I may be thinking of a different source.
It's pretty close, I'm guessing 3000 miles isn't the exact distance to the sun which would probably account for the missing 4 miles of diameter if corrected.
-
I did a quick search but couldn't find anything so just did it myself. The sun has an angular size of about 0.53o, using a distance of 3000 miles it should be about 28 miles in diameter. Calculated using this formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter) and if you're too lazy to do the maths like me this website does it for you: http://www.1728.com/angsize.htm (http://www.1728.com/angsize.htm). Using the RE figure for distance it calculated the correct diameter.
I believe to get that size for the sun you can find the source math in ENaG, but I'm pretty tired and I may be thinking of a different source.
It's pretty close, I'm guessing 3000 miles isn't the exact distance to the sun which would probably account for the missing 4 miles of diameter if corrected.
Yeah I imagine so.
-
Markjo is right, I need to get off my ass and finish the wiki page on it, but time is pretty sparse for me unfortunately.
Sometimes I find that baby steps are in order. Maybe just a few lines here and there just to say that some minimal progress has been made. Done enough times, real progress can be made.
-
Markjo is right, I need to get off my ass and finish the wiki page on it, but time is pretty sparse for me unfortunately.
Sometimes I find that baby steps are in order. Maybe just a few lines here and there just to say that some minimal progress has been made. Done enough times, real progress can be made.
True; I'll try to set an hour aside each week and add to it.
-
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array
i think this solves the magnetic field problem
i dont think magnetism is one of the problems in their theories, or else someone would have tackled it a long time ago
if you don't think magnetism is a problem in this theory then you don't understand it in context. Nature cannot make and arrange magnets such as you would seem to be suggesting, you're inventing possible scenarios to explain away a problem with the theory, one that is given good explanation elsewhere. don't you think a properly qualified scientist in this field would have fallen upon this idea? you really think an internet forum is going to produce answers from Wikipedia that physicists have somehow missed?
lrn2 know your topic
also, i dont believe you or ali (no offence to you alli) are a qualified sceintist. there is a reason we understand halbach arrays, and that is becuause the quallified scientist have been researching it.
i dont think the FE theory has stated nature made the earth. i also think a qualified scientist has fallen upon this idea, hence this is the first time i have heard someone ask about it.
-
Markjo is right, I need to get off my ass and finish the wiki page on it, but time is pretty sparse for me unfortunately.
Sometimes I find that baby steps are in order. Maybe just a few lines here and there just to say that some minimal progress has been made. Done enough times, real progress can be made.
would be nice to have a reference for us RE'ers to see, so we arent corrected as often.
i also feel the FAQ needs revision too, too many newcomers not really understanding
-
Markjo is right, I need to get off my ass and finish the wiki page on it, but time is pretty sparse for me unfortunately.
Sometimes I find that baby steps are in order. Maybe just a few lines here and there just to say that some minimal progress has been made. Done enough times, real progress can be made.
would be nice to have a reference for us RE'ers to see, so we arent corrected as often.
i also feel the FAQ needs revision too, too many newcomers not really understanding
It would really just be easier for us FEers who have to answer the questions again and again. Unfortunately, the motivation is not really there because we'll have 50 angry newbs crying about how we always say "read this page of the wiki" just lik ethe currently whine about us tellin gthem to read source material or the faq.
-
Markjo is right, I need to get off my ass and finish the wiki page on it, but time is pretty sparse for me unfortunately.
Sometimes I find that baby steps are in order. Maybe just a few lines here and there just to say that some minimal progress has been made. Done enough times, real progress can be made.
would be nice to have a reference for us RE'ers to see, so we arent corrected as often.
i also feel the FAQ needs revision too, too many newcomers not really understanding
It would really just be easier for us FEers who have to answer the questions again and again. Unfortunately, the motivation is not really there because we'll have 50 angry newbs crying about how we always say "read this page of the wiki" just lik ethe currently whine about us tellin gthem to read source material or the faq.
some are justified though, but if they read the actual references, i think they would eventually find that no one said FE was made by nature
-
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array
i think this solves the magnetic field problem
i dont think magnetism is one of the problems in their theories, or else someone would have tackled it a long time ago
if you don't think magnetism is a problem in this theory then you don't understand it in context. Nature cannot make and arrange magnets such as you would seem to be suggesting, you're inventing possible scenarios to explain away a problem with the theory, one that is given good explanation elsewhere. don't you think a properly qualified scientist in this field would have fallen upon this idea? you really think an internet forum is going to produce answers from Wikipedia that physicists have somehow missed?
lrn2 know your topic
also, i dont believe you or ali (no offence to you alli) are a qualified sceintist. there is a reason we understand halbach arrays, and that is becuause the quallified scientist have been researching it.
i dont think the FE theory has stated nature made the earth. i also think a qualified scientist has fallen upon this idea, hence this is the first time i have heard someone ask about it.
I was an analytical chemist from 1992 to 2007 when I swithced to software consultancy, Ali is a qualified vet with his own practice, and I couldn't care less whether you accept that or not, it matters nothing to me. However, I fail to see what this has to do with the context of your post? I can’t read it very well, it makes no sense and you don’t seem to be saying anything. Please re-read and formulate a coherent and relevant reply, but please don't suggest nature didn't make the earth or I will ignore you going forward.
-
I was an analytical chemist from 1992 to 2007 when I swithced to software consultancy, Ali is a qualified vet with his own practice, and I couldn't care less whether you accept that or not, it matters nothing to me. However, I fail to see what this has to do with the context of your post? I can’t read it very well, it makes no sense and you don’t seem to be saying anything. Please re-read and formulate a coherent and relevant reply, but please don't suggest nature didn't make the earth or I will ignore you going forward.
i believe the earth was made by nature, but you need to get your facts straight about the FET (which should be called hypothesis in some parts)
it does you no good to state incorrect "facts"
i also dont care if you claim you are a real scientist, but when you get the definition of acceleration wrong, that doesnt help with your claim much.
and also, becuase you could not understand my post,
You stated a real scientist would have thought about a halbach array.
i agreed with you stating that of course, or else we would not know about halbach arrays.
if i have misinterpreted your post, please reform ir to a more easily understandable post, becuase you dont seem to have a much more coherent post than mine
-
I see you're confused; I never claimed to be a scientist, not once. I am an analytical chemist by trade, and that is not a scientist, so I hope that's cleared that up for you. Also, I have not defined acceleration anywhere, perhaps you're mixing me up with someone else. And finally, I didn't suggest that a scientist hadn't thought of the halbach array, as they clearly have, my point was that a modern physicist, someone who studies earths magnetism as part of their position, would surely have noticed that the earth’s magnetic field was comprised of a special arrangement of permanent magnets that augments the magnetic field on one side of the array while cancelling the field to the rear? that nature had somehow managed to arrange in exactly the fashion as required to get around the FE hypothesis on magnetic poles, and that the idea wasn’t just one produced by a random internet forum user?
I hope you're suitably enlightened.
-
I see you're confused; I never claimed to be a scientist, not once. I am an analytical chemist by trade, and that is not a scientist, so I hope that's cleared that up for you. Also, I have not defined acceleration anywhere, perhaps you're mixing me up with someone else. And finally, I didn't suggest that a scientist hadn't thought of the halbach array, as they clearly have, my point was that a modern physicist, someone who studies earths magnetism as part of their position, would surely have noticed that the earth’s magnetic field was comprised of a special arrangement of permanent magnets that augments the magnetic field on one side of the array while cancelling the field to the rear? that nature had somehow managed to arrange in exactly the fashion as required to get around the FE hypothesis on magnetic poles, and that the idea wasn’t just one produced by a random internet forum user?
I hope you're suitably enlightened.
a globe's magnetic field shape is different from the disc's. i dont really see why a scientist would investigate a flat earth magnetic field
turning is a change in velocity
you cannot be seriously proposing this as true, if you are, then I implore you to read some good modern physics books. turning is a change in direction, velocity, or, directional momentum, doesn't change
and to add to this, velocity changing is acceleration