Magnetic poles?

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:

Quote

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.

Quote from: John Davis on May 10, 2011, 03:30:24 AM

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 0.53^o, 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 and if you're too lazy to do the maths like me this website does it for you: http://www.1728.com/angsize.htm. Using the RE figure for distance it calculated the correct diameter.

Quote from: Ali on May 10, 2011, 03:57:48 AM

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 0.53^o, 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 and if you're too lazy to do the maths like me this website does it for you: 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.

Quote from: MostlyLurking on May 10, 2011, 04:44:30 AM

I did a quick search but couldn't find anything so just did it myself. The sun has an angular size of about 0.53^o, 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 and if you're too lazy to do the maths like me this website does it for you: 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.

Quote from: John Davis on May 10, 2011, 05:00:53 AM

Quote from: MostlyLurking on May 10, 2011, 04:44:30 AM

I did a quick search but couldn't find anything so just did it myself. The sun has an angular size of about 0.53^o, 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 and if you're too lazy to do the maths like me this website does it for you: 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.

Quote from: John Davis on May 10, 2011, 03:57:16 AM

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.

Quote from: vhu9644 on May 09, 2011, 11:22:29 PM

Quote from: Ali on May 09, 2011, 03:31:39 PM

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.

Quote from: John Davis on May 10, 2011, 03:57:16 AM

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

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2011, 06:59:13 AM

Quote from: John Davis on May 10, 2011, 03:57:16 AM

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.

Quote from: vhu9644 on May 10, 2011, 05:09:21 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2011, 06:59:13 AM

Quote from: John Davis on May 10, 2011, 03:57:16 AM

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

Quote from: john_hand on May 10, 2011, 12:25:11 AM

Quote from: vhu9644 on May 09, 2011, 11:22:29 PM

Quote from: Ali on May 09, 2011, 03:31:39 PM

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

Quote from: vhu9644 on May 09, 2011, 11:38:40 PM

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