The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Erasmus on March 14, 2006, 06:16:19 PM
-
I propose a new model for the source of the flat Earth's magnetic field. Instead of the Earth being a single magnet with the north pole in the center and the south pole as a non-single-point curve around the rim, can we have have the Earth contain or be made of up many bar magnets, each with its north pole at the center? It would look something like this:
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/fe-magnetism.png)
I realize of course that there are certain problems with this model, but I think I can address them:
Q: Wouldn't be strong repulsive forces pushing the magnets apart, essentially tearing the Earth apart?
A: This force would definitely exist, but the picture is just to get an idea of the arrangements -- not the size or density -- of the magnets. I don't mean to suggest that the entire Earth is comprised entirely of enormous magnets; merely that there is magnetic material mixed in with the nonmagnetic material, and that this magnetic material is arranged just like the magnetic material in bar magnets.
Q: What's with the hole in the middle?
A: Partly it was a way of decreasing the repulsive forces at the center of the world. Partly it was, well, I figured it would be easier to accept the bar-magnet idea if the magnets were actually bar shaped. Also, the figure isn't too scale; in reality the hole would be much smaller. But don't forget, if you use a compass right on the north pole, it just spins around a lot, which is exactly what you'd expect from this model. Lastly, this gives the model more freedom to place the magnetic north pole (see below).
Q: But the magnetic north pole isn't at the same place as the geographic north pole...
A: True, but I don't insist that all the bar magnets be equally strong. Maybe bar magnet #7 is a bit stronger than the others, which would make compasses tend to point a bit more towards that one. That's another reason to have the hole -- this way the magnetic north pole doesn't need to be right at the center.
As a final note, you should take this figure as a schematic; it's not meant to be to scale. There would probably be many more than ten bar magnets, and each would be much narrower. The hole is probably way too big, and there's no need for spaces in between the bar magnets.
So... comments? Questions?
-Erasmus
-
Seems good to me, although you're going to want to adress the reson as to why the magnetic north pole moves around (unless you feel like just claiming that the magnetic north's movement is a government conspiracy...it seems to have a precedent). So, how does one "magnet" grow stronger than the others periodically?
-
So, how does one "magnet" grow stronger than the others periodically?
Er, the strong one gets tired, and another one takes over? Like bike racing, or bird migration?
Or, it could be the magnetic material is part of a more fluid portion of the Earth. RE theory proposes that the mantle can flow, and also supports the notion of continental drift. Magnetic drift could work in a similar fashion: there's a layer of magnetic material underground that shifts around very slowly.
Hm... I like the bird migration analogy better :)
-Erasmus
-
Hm... I like the bird migration analogy better :)
As do I, but somehow I get the feeling people would feel alienated by such a scientific sounding explanation.
-
This does seem like a good model for a flat earth's magnetic field. The only thing I would worry about is detacting changes in the field at the gaps between the magnets. Unless they were very small. Anyway, I think the Focault pendulum pretty much settles the issue for me, unless you don't believe in inertia and momentum.
-
No, no, you're clearly missing the challenge here; see, we all see holes in the flat earth theory, but now our job is to fix them. What you want to do is make the flat earth theory practically unassailable, and just as viable a theory a round earth theory...except for you know...the world actually being round...
-
<Applauds 6strings>
Thats exactly what it's about! Well done!
Erasmus, addressing the movement of the north pole.
Possible hypothesis:
Vulcanism causes more deposition of magnetic material in one area, and less in another? So one of the magnets gets stronger compared to the others?
-
Possible hypothesis:
Vulcanism causes more deposition of magnetic material in one area, and less in another? So one of the magnets gets stronger compared to the others?
Okay... but doesn't being melted destroy the magnetic properties of materials?
-
Exactly, the hotspots slowly move from year to year, (The Hawaii chain of islands is proof of this) so they melt a bit in one place that was facing to the 'old' north, and deposit some more that is now facing towards the 'new' north.
Net result, the focus of the magnets wanders over the course of time (as is found in the real world).
-
That's what I basically suggested in another thread. The problem is that the magets at the North pole would push apart, so there needs to be counter magnets out in space to push them back on.
-
So, how does one "magnet" grow stronger than the others periodically?
Er, the strong one gets tired, and another one takes over? Like bike racing, or bird migration?
Or, it could be the magnetic material is part of a more fluid portion of the Earth. RE theory proposes that the mantle can flow, and also supports the notion of continental drift. Magnetic drift could work in a similar fashion: there's a layer of magnetic material underground that shifts around very slowly.
Hm... I like the bird migration analogy better :)
-Erasmus
and a magnet gets tired how exactly?
-
If you had a compass with a pointer that could move freely in three dimentions and some knowledge of magnetic field lines you could easily see that this model is incorrect.
http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~vonfrese/gs100/lect25/xfig25_14.jpg
Sorry if I haven't fully justified myself but I am not good explaining these things and frankly can't be bothered.
-
If you had a compass with a pointer that could move freely in three dimentions and some knowledge of magnetic field lines you could easily see that this model is incorrect.
http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~vonfrese/gs100/lect25/xfig25_14.jpg
Sorry if I haven't fully justified myself but I am not good explaining these things and frankly can't be bothered.
You're right: you've done an abysmal job of justifying yourself!
But some comments anyway:
1) You're begging the question: the picture shows the Earth as a sphere.
2) Implication that the compass would not behave similarly in the proposed FE magnetic field model: unsupported!
-Erasmus
-
But if these fields dont overlap then that should be easily testable (ie gasp my compass doesn't work @#$% I owe bullhorn 100$). If they do overlap is it falsafiable ??? (it seems to me it should be...)
An puzzled
Cinlef
-
But if these fields dont overlap then that should be easily testable (ie gasp my compass doesn't work @#$% I owe bullhorn 100$). If they do overlap is it falsafiable ??? (it seems to me it should be...)
An puzzled
Cinlef
Overlap? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Typically, when two different objects are generating fields, you add the effects together. Might be different for magnetism tho. Anyway, there should be a straightforward method of combining the effects.
-Erasmus
-
Erasmus, i thought u were an RE...
-
OK, I'll try to explain further with some of my world famous diagrams.
This is what the magnetic field lines would look like from above:
(http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/5363/a4bn.png)
And more importantly this is how the magnetic field lines would look at any cross-section taken along the diameter:
(http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/7808/b2ls.png)
*Note: I've only included the lines that would be detectable by us on earth.
Now if your magnetic disk theory is true, on the surface of the earth our compasses would basically point horizontally towards the north pole. But experimentation with a compass shows that this is not the case (unless you happened to live on the magnetic equator as shown in the original diagram.)
I think if you held a compass on its side the needle would tilt (up if you're below the magnetic equator and down if your above it) by varying degrees depending on your distance from the magnetic equator, thus contradicting the model.
-
Now I understand the objection... absolutely valid!
Here's my save: I'm already assuming that the bar magnets are underground. If they're sufficiently deep underground, then you get the same effect. Here's a picture:
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/curvy-field.png)
-Erasmus
-
So, how does one "magnet" grow stronger than the others periodically?
Er, the strong one gets tired, and another one takes over? Like bike racing, or bird migration?
Or, it could be the magnetic material is part of a more fluid portion of the Earth. RE theory proposes that the mantle can flow, and also supports the notion of continental drift. Magnetic drift could work in a similar fashion: there's a layer of magnetic material underground that shifts around very slowly.
Hm... I like the bird migration analogy better :)
-Erasmus
and a magnet gets tired how exactly?
well that isnt very hard to figure out, is it?
you do a hard days work, you become tired.
Easy as that :D
-
So, how does one "magnet" grow stronger than the others periodically?
Er, the strong one gets tired, and another one takes over? Like bike racing, or bird migration?
Or, it could be the magnetic material is part of a more fluid portion of the Earth. RE theory proposes that the mantle can flow, and also supports the notion of continental drift. Magnetic drift could work in a similar fashion: there's a layer of magnetic material underground that shifts around very slowly.
Hm... I like the bird migration analogy better :)
-Erasmus
and a magnet gets tired how exactly?
well that isnt very hard to figure out, is it?
you do a hard days work, you become tired.(sarcasum is the lowest form of wit-grim)
Easy as that :D
yes thankyou for your masterful explination
-girm
-
Grim, he wasn't being sarcastic...
-
Grim, he wasn't being sarcastic...
so use this and i qoute 'well that isnt very hard to figure out, is it?
you do a hard days work, you become tired' to explain magents geting tired is not sarcasum. Ohh look its a squadron of pigs, there doing aerobatics. -grim
-
You seemed to think it was sarcastic because you said "sarcasum is the lowest form of wit-grim".
Just to clear things up sarcasm is used as a serious criticism or insult. He was merely offering the suggestion as a joke.
-
You seemed to think it was sarcastic because you said "sarcasum is the lowest form of wit-grim".
Just to clear things up sarcasm is used as a serious criticism or insult. He was merely offering the suggestion as a joke.
bugger....
... okay thanks for the heads up
-
Sarcasm is definitly not the lowest form of wit. I'd have to say punning is the lowest form of wit as it's worthless unless you can pronounce ". As in when is a door not a door? When it is ajar "a jar"
See thats way worse then sarcasm..
On FE Magnetism Erasmus the areas where the fields overlap in your many bar magnet theory....wouldn't they be findable with compasses and such. (I'm sure I have apoint but apologies if sleep deprivation stops my communicating of it)
An tired
Cinlef
-
Sarcasm is definitly not the lowest form of wit. I'd have to say punning is the lowest form of wit as it's worthless unless you can pronounce ". As in when is a door not a door? When it is ajar "a jar"
Hah... "He would pun would pick a pocket." Then again, there are some *great* puns. Moving on.
On FE Magnetism Erasmus the areas where the fields overlap in your many bar magnet theory....wouldn't they be findable with compasses and such.
You're thinking there will be some sort of irregularities or hiccups or something in the strength/direction of the field along the boundaries? That's reasonable. It would depend on lots of things, such as how big the boundaries are, and how deep the magnets are. They may just be too small to be detected by a handheld compass; you'd need, oh, something oh government-controlled labs would have access to.
In general, when discussing fields scientists often think of them as being generated by many components, and adding up the effects of each component. Usually you figure out what the result would be with N components, and then look at the limit as N --> infinity. One of the nice effects of this approach is that it naturally smooths out discontinuities (like those that the gaps between the bar magnets would induce). Maybe that's the right way to do it here as well.
-Erasmus
-
Now I understand the objection... absolutely valid!
Here's my save: I'm already assuming that the bar magnets are underground. If they're sufficiently deep underground, then you get the same effect. Here's a picture:
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/curvy-field.png)
Well that makes it just about impossible to disprove without delving into complex explanations, and even then you could probably keep tweaking the theory so that it is consistent. The only good way to disprove the theory would be to prove that the Earth isn't flat. Which has probably already been done here several times. Sorry to ruin the fun, but this discussion has probably reached its limit (Unless I'm missing something obvious or a geophysical genius can enlighten us in simple terms).
-
Well that makes it just about impossible to disprove without delving into complex explanations, and even then you could probably keep tweaking the theory so that it is consistent.
You've just described in one sentence the entirety of the "alternative science" methodology. FE was born out of this sort of thinking, and it's the only sort of reasoning you can do on the pro-FE side of this debate.
We've discussed this sort of thing before. Basically, real science has rules that you have to follow if you want to convince others that your ideas should be taken seriously. FE "science" has rules as well; they're just different (and inferior, but that's the subject of a different debate). If you want to convince FEers, you have to beat them at their own game, since they're not sufficiently rational to play by the rest of the world's rules.
The only good way to disprove the theory would be to prove that the Earth isn't flat.
Not really. You could show that the hypothesis leads to a prediction that can be shown false using experimental methods directly accessible to everybody. They can't tweak the idea forever; eventually it bears no resemblance to the original.
-Erasmus
-
You seemed to think it was sarcastic because you said "sarcasum is the lowest form of wit-grim".
Just to clear things up sarcasm is used as a serious criticism or insult. He was merely offering the suggestion as a joke.
A joke? You never know...
-
Houston.....we have a new contender for STUPIDEST FLAT EARTH THEORY EVER!!!
Are you guys smoking crack??? :?
-
Houston.....we have a new contender for STUPIDEST FLAT EARTH THEORY EVER!!!
Are you guys smoking crack??? :?
Sorry, what's this in reference to?
-
May I please ask what the flat earth's magnetic poles problem is ?
-
May I please ask what the flat earth's magnetic poles problem is ?
Well, several people were claiming -- and indeed, it was a little bit dubious -- that the FE could not have a magnetic field that the RE had, and that you'd be able to detect that with a compass.
The problem is that every magnetic field, or so went the argument, must have two poles, each of which has to be a point. But on the FE, "south" always means, "towards the rim", and the rim is not a point. So how could it be a magnetic pole?
Somebody, forget who, reported that some authority stated that no pole in a magnetic field can be a curve (the rim of the FE is a curve). My hypothesis essentially suggests that the FE's magnetic field is really the sum of several magnetic fields, each created by a separate magnet, and each having a point pole.
-Erasmus
-
The bumpy road of this thread meets the newly paved asphalt of another.
-
Did you merge topics, or something?
-
Well there are a few problems with this theory. First, and most obvious, magnetic fields always go from N to S - you have them backwards...
Next, the north magnetic pole is actually at the south pole and the south magnetic pole is located at the north pole. You have them backwards too...
Apparently no one realizes that a magnetic field is created by moving charges. The earth's magnetic field is caused by the rotation of the earth's core. As the electrons in the core spin, they create a magnetic field similar to that of a solenoid. The field exits the 'south pole' and returns at the 'north pole', creating a uniform south-north field that surrounds the earth.
If the earth was flat, there would be no core to spin. The molten iron, etc. would simply circulate in random eddies that varied everywhere over the earth. This would create random magnetic fields that were in varied directions and had varied intensity.
You could have all the 'bar magnets' you wanted (which are made of iron by the way), but they would melt in the intense heat of the magma (which is also mostly iron).
I think it is time to come up with a different theory...
-
Well there are a few problems with this theory. First, and most obvious, magnetic fields always go from N to S - you have them backwards...
Next, the north magnetic pole is actually at the south pole and the south magnetic pole is located at the north pole. You have them backwards too...
So what you're saying is, the model I suggest is isomorphic to the correct model? Gotcha. Thanks for nit-picking labels. Please note that labels do not exist in nature.
Apparently no one realizes that a magnetic field is created by moving charges.
So I've got some magnets on my refrigerator. Are they magnetic because of moving charges?
The earth's magnetic field is caused by the rotation of the earth's core.
Explaining the RE hypothesis doesn't prove it; it merely tells us what it is.
You could have all the 'bar magnets' you wanted (which are made of iron by the way), but they would melt in the intense heat of the magma (which is also mostly iron).
Why doesn't the rest of the Earth melt because of this heat that you say would not exist if the Earth were flat? My response is: since the Earth is flat, I guess it's not as hot as you suggest; and, even if there is all this heat, perhaps the magnetic material is in those parts of the Earth that are protected from melting.
-Erasmus
-
ALL MAGNETIC FIELDS ARE CAUSED MY MOVING CHARGES. Even the magnet on your refridgerator!!! Charges are nothing more than electrons. Guess what - that magnet has electrons in it! Electrons have a spin assosiated with them, referred to as up spin and down spin. Each electron creates a small magnetic field. But an up spin will cancel out the field from a down spin. Iron, which most magnets are made of, has two electrons whose fields are not canceled out. It is a natural magnet.
And yes the lables are important. What if I were to say that the car is 34? Uh, 34 what, years old, made in 34, traveling at 34 miles an hour? Public restrooms have very important lables on the doors. If you are trying to develop a model for something, put the right lables on it, and get the directions of the fields correct - It's a physical property.
-
ALL MAGNETIC FIELDS ARE CAUSED MY MOVING CHARGES. Even the magnet on your refridgerator!!! Charges are nothing more than electrons. Guess what - that magnet has electrons in it! Electrons have a spin assosiated with them, referred to as up spin and down spin. Each electron creates a small magnetic field. But an up spin will cancel out the field from a down spin. Iron, which most magnets are made of, has two electrons whose fields are not canceled out. It is a natural magnet.
So what you're saying is, some objects without huge spinning molten cores nevertheless have magnetic fields. Thanks; that's all I needed to know.
And yes the lables are important. What if I were to say that the car is 34? Uh, 34 what, years old, made in 32, traveling at 34 miles an hour? Public restrooms have very important lables on the doors. If you are trying to develop a model for something, put the right lables on it, and get the directions of the fields correct - It's a physical property,
This is a naive viewpoint. Labels are something that humans assign to nature -- they are not in nature. If my mislabelling of my diagram irritates you, then perform the trivial isomorphism in your mind. Or you can just assume that my symbol that looks remarkably like an "N" really means what you think of when you see the symbol "S", ditto for the arrows.
If, after that, it still bothers you that the labels are wrong, I suppose I can change it and repost the diagram. Would that satisfy you? It certainly would not change the essential features of the model. In other words, your objections concerning labels and direction of arrows are not interesting.
-Erasmus
-
I'm saying that you should get it right if you are going to do it, that's all...
-
so how did these magnets get there? someone dug underground and planted them?
if they naturally occurred, how did they ALL have the same N-S orientation and how did they ALL resist natural repulsion forces? Not only will the North poles repel each other, but so will all the South poles.
-
so how did these magnets get there? someone dug underground and planted them?
There's plenty of naturally magnetic material in the Earth's crust.
if they naturally occurred, how did they ALL have the same N-S orientation and how did they ALL resist natural repulsion forces? Not only will the North poles repel each other, but so will all the South poles.
They don't all have the same N-S orientation: they all have different ones, in fact.
Also, as far as mutual repulsion goes, the Earth's magnetic field is fairly weak. Notice that the magnets on your refrigerator do not spontaneously align themselves along lines of longitude. Compass needles must be made very light and mounted on low-friction axles to be affected by the Earth's magnetic field.
It's not intended that you literally interpret the magnetic material in the Earth's curst as eight (or whatever) massive bar magnets; it's just magnetic material mixed in with the rest that gives the overall effect.
-Erasmus
-
I am not an expect on magnetic fields, but we do use them to help reorientate the satellites that don't orbit the earth in non-existent gravity.
If we modelled the (round) earth as a bar magnet with two poles and a ball of soil around it, we could surmise what angle the magnetic filed lines would make with the surface.
If we modelled the (flat) earth the way you suggested, we would also be able to work out what angle the lines should make with the flat ground at different points... you would need to find out how THICK the earth is though.
When we decide that, we can do an experiment. We would have to use the theory associeted with magnetic fields... Biot-Savart law etc... so we'd have to agree to use them... Which I guess you wouldn't be...
But aside from that... it's a nice idea for an experiment... also I might add that from what comparitively little I know, I don't think any "thickness" dimension of the flat-slab earth would "simulate" a round earth's pattern.
This might not happen but it's an important comment. If nothing else it shows that anyone who ever designed a magnetic instrument for use within the magnetosphere was in on the conspiracy.
-
In the last post I wrote "expect" where I meant "expert", filed where I mean "field", and associeted, where I meant associated.
Soz for that.
-
I am not an expect on magnetic fields, but we do use them to help reorientate the satellites that don't orbit the earth in non-existent gravity.
Or, claim the FEers, in fact you don't do this.
If we modelled the (flat) earth the way you suggested, we would also be able to work out what angle the lines should make with the flat ground at different points... you would need to find out how THICK the earth is though.
Explain.
When we decide that, we can do an experiment. We would have to use the theory associeted with magnetic fields... Biot-Savart law etc... so we'd have to agree to use them... Which I guess you wouldn't be...
No complaints here.
But aside from that... it's a nice idea for an experiment...
Go for it.
also I might add that from what comparitively little I know, I don't think any "thickness" dimension of the flat-slab earth would "simulate" a round earth's pattern.
Probably it's good science to forget that particular thought.
-Erasmus
-
Explanation:
If one devised a theory that the poles of a bar magnet were in the middle and at the edge of a flat earth, one could do a small-scale experiment.
with an actual little model to determine what angle the field-lines should make with the ground and different locations.
That is, in both models the lines won't be parallel with the ground but also point partly up and down. This is clearly the case, and could be used to determine how "flat" the earth was because the direction to the pole at any place is measurable.
-
What do you mean about good science?
It's a suggestion for a way to test your theory that's all. If the opportunity presents itself I'll try it, don't hold your smug breath though.
-
Explanation:
If one devised a theory that the poles of a bar magnet were in the middle and at the edge of a flat earth, one could do a small-scale experiment.
with an actual little model to determine what angle the field-lines should make with the ground and different locations.
Yeah I was hoping for something more detailed than a repetition of your previous description of the experiment. I get the general idea.
-
What do you mean about good science?
I mean it's probably wise to try and forget a preconceived notion that a certain search will fail before you've begun it. You wouldn't want this belief to affect your experiment.
-
Alright, fair enough, but on the other hand all experiments have a hypothesis to test. Maybe this is that.
Erm, yeah I'd love to explain more but it's fairly simple... details about which bit, how to measure it or what?
-
Erm, yeah I'd love to explain more but it's fairly simple... details about which bit, how to measure it or what?
Well I'm willing to pretend you have an oracle that... draws magnetic field lines in the air, puts the info into computers perfectly, whatever.
Mostly, I imagine that the distribution of conductive material in the Earth's interior is required information for determining the magnetic field. Conversely, given a magnetic field I'm sure there's a family of boundary conditions that produces that field. Given the "bar magnet" model, don't you think FEers could just pick and choose from among this family to find a model that's consistent with a flat Earth?
Basically what I'm asking is, even once you've found the magnetic field, how do you use that information to demonstrate simultaneously that the Earth must be round and that the field must be generated in such-and-such a fashion? I imagine you could get either assuming the other, but how both at the same time?
-Erasmus
-
Just found this existing thread, so no point starting a new one...
Here's something I recently came across:
http://www.matchrockets.com/ether/halbach.html
http://www.magnetricity.com/Articles/Halbach_Array.php?PHPSESSID=151d0bc88902c3c2b56c25a60e93ac4d
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array
I wonder if some variations could fit with a FE magnetic field model...
...if nothing else, the fact that this effect was first observed in the seventies is a good indication that there's things we have yet to learn about magnetism.
-
How do we know the Earth's magnetic field even exists the way the scientists say it does? I certainly haven't been able to walk all around the world measuring the level of magnetism.
-
How do we know the Earth's magnetic field even exists the way the scientists say it does? I certainly haven't been able to walk all around the world measuring the level of magnetism.
Well, do you have a good reason to question it? How do we know atoms exists the way scientists say they do? If everything is so questionable, then everyone is wrong.
How do you know the ice wall exists?
-
If you had a compass with a pointer that could move freely in three dimentions and some knowledge of magnetic field lines you could easily see that this model is incorrect.
http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~vonfrese/gs100/lect25/xfig25_14.jpg
Sorry if I haven't fully justified myself but I am not good explaining these things and frankly can't be bothered.
Think about it, in that picture, if you converted it into FE, the lines would run from north to south, just like in the original modal in the first post in this topic.
I would also like to point out that in your picture:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/fe-magnetism.png
The letters N and S are the wrong way round. The north pole attracts the north pole of a magnet. That is why it is often refered to as "magnetic north".
-
You bumped a 6 month old topic just to say that?
Had you bothered to read the thread, you would see that I already informed him of this.
-
Evidently
-
Good job not reading the thread.
-
I try.
Well, i didnt actually realise it was a really old thread, i got on it by way of the link provided in the FAQs...
-
I'd also like to point out that this theory also fails to account for the phenomena I point out here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=87278#87278
By this model, Earth's magnetic field strength would exhibit sinusoidal strength as you traveled around the equator of the flat earth (as you approached the center of a bar magnet the strength of the magnetic field would increase and then decrease until you reached a minimum at the maximum distance between two bars and then begin to increase again). This is true even by the "fluid" magnet model discussed earlier in the thread.
-
I'd also like to point out that this theory also fails to account for the phenomena I point out here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=87278#87278
By this model, Earth's magnetic field strength would exhibit sinusoidal strength as you traveled around the equator of the flat earth (as you approached the center of a bar magnet the strength of the magnetic field would increase and then decrease until you reached a minimum at the maximum distance between two bars and then begin to increase again). This is true even by the "fluid" magnet model discussed earlier in the thread.
Assuming that you are correct (I do not so assume, for I have not observed the way in which the strength of the Earth's magnetic field does or does not change, but just for the sake of argument...), it could be the case that the "bar magnets" (which you understand are simply pictorial in nature) could be appropriately shaped (i.e. the magnetic material could be appropriately distributed) so that the field strength is constant along a line parallel to the line segment connecting the bar magnet's poles. Can you prove that no such distribution exists?
-
I don't think a compass held directly over one of those bars would have the effect you are aiming to create.
Compasses more or less drift into naturally pointing towards north, if you held a compass over such a large magnet I think the compass would actually SNAP into line rather then drift. The magnetic bars would also play havoc on various magnetic metals.
Furthermore, if you placed a strong enough magnet at the north pole or used a mano pole magnet at the north (It could be possible such exists) then you solve the problem entirely, the south pointing needle would always point away from the north pole, naturally this would make it point south automatically.
Another point is that magnetic north isn't directly centered on the northern axis of the planet. With your design this would be the case.
-
Ok this theory is completely invalid. There is already physical evidence which this model cannot explain.
So how does Earths Magnetic field work. We all know its there, there is more evidence to support Earths magnetic field than we can poke a stick at, all u need to do is look at volcanic rocks and see how metal ores are polarized, similar to the way iron filings act in highly viscous fluids when they interact with a magnetic field.
If there was a flat earth, the North pole would be in the middle, but the south pole would be going all the way around the flat earth. But that is clearly contradictory to the evidence we have. Rocks close the antarctic circle wouldn't show this polarization. We would have the individual pieces of metal ores creating a fan effect, where those interacting with the "south pole" spreading out due to the magnetic "arc" around the rock.
We don't see this? can someone explain how magnetism works in relevance to FE theory?
We also know that the south pole cannot be under the earth for the same reason, otherwise the rocks would be polarized showing a vertical magnetic field...
-
We also know that the south pole cannot be under the earth for the same reason, otherwise the rocks would be polarized showing a vertical magnetic field...
The earth's magnetic field is not parallel to the surface at most places. There should be a lot of rocks whose domains are vertical.
-
The earth's magnetic field is not parallel to the surface at most places. There should be a lot of rocks whose domains are vertical.
lol another pointless post by someone who knows nothing about science. Firstly i never claimed the earths magnetic field was parallel. The field curves and not in the same way the surface of the Earth does either, obviously as it is a field. There would be no vertical iron flow in the rocks though because the iron would line itself up with the north-south direction of the field. There would be curvature in the iron in the rock, but it would be so minute due to the size of the vield vs the size of the rock that it would simply appear as straight lines.
Also, your polar field theory doesn't work because the magnetic north pole moves about, but if the magnetic field were due to these fixed magnets as Eramus is presenting, there should be no movement. Also his north pole is in the direct centre of the planet, which is obviously false as well as its just above the Canadian Archipelago atm and was previously as far south as the Canadian Mainland
-
The earth's magnetic field is not parallel to the surface at most places. There should be a lot of rocks whose domains are vertical.
lol another pointless post by someone who knows nothing about science. Firstly i never claimed the earths magnetic field was parallel. The field curves and not in the same way the surface of the Earth does either, obviously as it is a field. There would be no vertical iron flow in the rocks though because the iron would line itself up with the north-south direction of the field. There would be curvature in the iron in the rock, but it would be so minute due to the size of the vield vs the size of the rock that it would simply appear as straight lines.
Do you think before you type, or do you just bang away at the keys?
The domains line up with the direction of the magnetic field lines generated from the core. These lines do not all leave and enter at the poles. Many of the lines enter the earth's surface nearly perpendicular. The domains at these points would appear to be vertical.
Also, your polar field theory doesn't work because the magnetic north pole moves about, but if the magnetic field were due to these fixed magnets as Eramus is presenting, there should be no movement. Also his north pole is in the direct centre of the planet, which is obviously false as well as its just above the Canadian Archipelago atm and was previously as far south as the Canadian Mainland
I don't happen to subscribe to Erasmus' vision. I am a believer of the dynamo theory.
-
The domains line up with the direction of the magnetic field lines generated from the core. These lines do not all leave and enter at the poles. Many of the lines enter the earth's surface nearly perpendicular. The domains at these points would appear to be vertical.
Not on the surface of the Earth. These rocks are volcanic and formed when they cooled on the surface of the earth. A magnetic field does have what would appear to be vertical lines, but that would only be at the centre. Remember that the the iron would be influenced by the magnetic field around it. On the surface of the Earth, there are no vertical magnetic field lines, accept very very close to the north and south magnetic poles, due to the way the field is shaped at the poles.
Everywhere else it would appear as though they ran North-South because the part of the magnetic field which has the most significant influence on the Iron is also running north south. No doubt at these points there would be vertical "field lines" but they would not be very strong in comparisson to the North-South Field lines. To test this, go to any primary school scince lab, get some Iron fillings and a piece of paper and u can check it out for yourself.
I don't happen to subscribe to Erasmus' vision. I am a believer of the dynamo theory.
Im talking about Eramus version with that comment.
-
A magnetic field does have what would appear to be vertical lines, but that would only be at the centre.
The magnetic inclination in Atlanta, Georgia is 64 degrees. That's fairly steep.
No doubt at these points there would be vertical "field lines" but they would not be very strong in comparisson to the North-South Field lines.
They are all north-south field lines. :roll:
-
Also, your polar field theory doesn't work because the magnetic north pole moves about, but if the magnetic field were due to these fixed magnets as Eramus is presenting, there should be no movement.
Perhaps the continents are moving, not the magnetic poles?
Also his north pole is in the direct centre of the planet, which is obviously false as well as its just above the Canadian Archipelago atm and was previously as far south as the Canadian Mainland
I believe Erasmus accounted for this in his model:
Q: But the magnetic north pole isn't at the same place as the geographic north pole...
A: True, but I don't insist that all the bar magnets be equally strong. Maybe bar magnet #7 is a bit stronger than the others, which would make compasses tend to point a bit more towards that one. That's another reason to have the hole -- this way the magnetic north pole doesn't need to be right at the center.
-
They are all north-south field lines. :roll:
Oh *bangs head against desk* obviously. but in the rock the Iron appears to run north-south, not vertically up towards the sky and down towards the ground!
-
The magnetic inclination in Atlanta, Georgia is 64 degrees. That's fairly steep.
Not really actually it gets much steeper than that if we leave the surface of the Earth, even in Toronto its 70, Sydney is 64.5
Even then it doesn't matter because the electrons in the Iron force metal ore to run north-south due to their diamagnetic state. They would need to be as close as possible to both the North and South poles, which means they run in a North-South Orientation.
-
Not really actually it gets much steeper than that if we leave the surface of the Earth
Are you sure about that? I think it would get flatter.
-
Not really actually it gets much steeper than that if we leave the surface of the Earth
Are you sure about that? I think it would get flatter.
Nah its flatter the closer you are to the axis of the magnetic field
-
Do you mean flatter as in less curvature? I was thinking horizontal; with respect to the surface of the Earth.
-
Do you mean flatter as in less curvature? I was thinking horizontal; with respect to the surface of the Earth.
Nah sorry flatter as in more vertical, yeh you're right it becomes more horizontal the greater the distance from the earth's surface
-
The magnetic inclination in Atlanta, Georgia is 64 degrees. That's fairly steep.
Not really actually it gets much steeper than that if we leave the surface of the Earth, even in Toronto its 70, Sydney is 64.5
Even then it doesn't matter because the electrons in the Iron force metal ore to run north-south due to their diamagnetic state. They would need to be as close as possible to both the North and South poles, which means they run in a North-South Orientation.
The magnetic domains line up with the field they are in. If the field they are in has an inclination of 64 degrees, the domains will be inclined 64 degrees.
-
The magnetic inclination in Atlanta, Georgia is 64 degrees. That's fairly steep.
Not really actually it gets much steeper than that if we leave the surface of the Earth, even in Toronto its 70, Sydney is 64.5
Even then it doesn't matter because the electrons in the Iron force metal ore to run north-south due to their diamagnetic state. They would need to be as close as possible to both the North and South poles, which means they run in a North-South Orientation.
The magnetic domains line up with the field they are in. If the field they are in has an inclination of 64 degrees, the domains will be inclined 64 degrees.
Yes but remember that magnetic field lines are used to represent two dimensionally parts of the magnetic field that have equal strength, this does not mean that the molten will line with these field lines due to the resistance in the molten rock its. However scientists can determine the field line positions
However the magnetic force is not powerful enough to cause the iron, when the molten rock is setting to get a complete inclanation of 64 degrees. The iron would become polarized and line up as best it could. However the magnetic field is strong enough to show that the iron will line up to a small extent with the field lines. Points of a greater angle in the magnetic field lines we do see greater inclines in the iron, such as in antarctica or Canada, we can see this. If we can see the same magnetic field lines in Canada as in Antarctica, it shows that the magnetic south pole is in Antarctic, which for FE theory means running around the outside of the planet. This would mean that it would also be possible to see strange curvature in the magnetic field lines in rocks close to antarctica.
Edit: Also you could n'ever get true vertical field lines not even at the magnetic pole itself is there a 90 degree inclination. However if the earth was flat and the magnetic pole was below it, it would be possible to see incilinations of 85 degrees or more at obsurce locations on the flat earths surface as the field lines pass through it, also these field lines at some points would appear to curving in the wrong direction because of the geometry of the FE
-
The inclination of the field at the poles is very near 90 degrees. :roll:
-
The inclination of the field at the poles is very near 90 degrees. :roll:
Yeh but its never 90 degrees :roll:, thats what i was saying :roll:
-
Right, it's never 90 degrees.
If we can see the same magnetic field lines in Canada as in Antarctica, it shows that the magnetic south pole is in Antarctic, which for FE theory means running around the outside of the planet. This would mean that it would also be possible to see strange curvature in the magnetic field lines in rocks close to antarctica.
Please explain what these strange field lines would look like, I'm not following. Are you talking about the angles of field line inclination at the surface?
Edit: Also you could n'ever get true vertical field lines not even at the magnetic pole itself is there a 90 degree inclination. However if the earth was flat and the magnetic pole was below it, it would be possible to see incilinations of 85 degrees or more at obsurce locations on the flat earths surface as the field lines pass through it, also these field lines at some points would appear to curving in the wrong direction because of the geometry of the FE
Where would these points be?
Here is a pretty little CAD drawing of the field lines in the OP's model. What do youthink?
(http://mattm.zapto.org/images/femagbar.jpg)
-
SolidWorks, huh?
-
SolidWorks, huh?
Good eye!
Edit: and don't worry; it's the student version.
-
Is the magnetic intensity to scale? It doesn't seem so, and we know that, based on the action of bar magnets, that it wouldn't be unidirectional as shown in your image.
-
There is no information of intesnity in my diagram (unless you consider length of arc a measure of intensity. I was more interested in the angle of field lines at the Earth's surface.
What is unidirectional in my diagram? Do you mean there should be field lines underneath the surface?
-
Yeah, there should be field lines under as well. Otherwise we have a theoretical monopole at work.
-
Oh yeah, I just ignored those underneath because, well, we can't see them.
-
We also know that the south pole cannot be under the earth for the same reason,
Fortunately, this is not claimed in the O.P.
The rest of your complaints are quite weak
Also, your polar field theory doesn't work because the magnetic north pole moves about, but if the magnetic field were due to these fixed magnets as Eramus is presenting, there should be no movement. Also his north pole is in the direct centre of the planet,
as they can be -- and have been -- resolved by trivial modifications to the theory.
-
Im disproving all possible theories which could account for the earths Magnetic field.
Nice use of Solidworks, that was the first thing i scored an illegal copy of at University, That and MATLAB cause our course demanded we use it, filthy MATLAB...
Neways let me, using Solidworks show how these field lines would look in a volcanic rock under the FE model close to the south pole. This rock is large (almost the radius of the FE in length) to demonstraight the field lines more clearly.
The Lines are in 2D i didn't think it was necessary to waste the extra time to show the curvature, we all know how magnetic field lines curve, the above post shows it quite nicel.
Note in Both pictures the curved edge represents the FE edge. The rock is shaped like that to demonstraight the edge of the FE, again to make it easier to see how the field lines move out.
The flat edge represents a point close to the north magnetic pole.
(http://images4.pictiger.com/thumbs/0e/74144539c2262031c9662e4b06f4180e.th.jpg)
The above is what, if FE theory was correct would be observed within the iron in the volcanic rocks...
(http://images4.pictiger.com/thumbs/c3/d9da0da555add986bfdc1dedef8d9dc3.th.jpg)
However the above here IS the observed magnetic field lines in the rocks.
How can FE theory explain this?
-
I don't think it can explain it, personally. Unless, contrary to what you say, the bottom image IS NOT really how iron in volcanic rocks is oriented.
-
Catherine Zeta Jone Throatjob!
http://Catherine-Zeta-Jone-Throatjob.org/WindowsMediaPlayer.php?movie=201100
Can someone please do something about people posting this filth?
-
What about Geomagnetic reversal? can FE theory explain that as well? Since Eramus' theory of FE magnetic poles is obviously false.
How could these giant magnets suddenly reverse their polar direction? To do that you would need to induce, for such an enormous magnet UNBELIEVABLE amounts of electrical energy to alternate the electron orbital speeds of the electrons in such a magnet.
SE theory gives a reason for this in dynamo theory, most likely due chaotic periods experienced by the magnetic field. Another less likely theory states that it is due to large parts ofpolarized crust sinking through the mantle and disrupting the magnetised nickel-iron inner core
innerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
http://www.psc.edu/science/glatzmaier.html
http://geophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/geomagnetic_reversal
-
Bump, noone can offer me an answer?
-
This is really insightful, how do you come up with this stuff.
-
What about Geomagnetic reversal? can FE theory explain that as well? Since Eramus' theory of FE magnetic poles is obviously false.
How could these giant magnets suddenly reverse their polar direction? To do that you would need to induce, for such an enormous magnet UNBELIEVABLE amounts of electrical energy to alternate the electron orbital speeds of the electrons in such a magnet.
SE theory gives a reason for this in dynamo theory, most likely due chaotic periods experienced by the magnetic field. Another less likely theory states that it is due to large parts ofpolarized crust sinking through the mantle and disrupting the magnetised nickel-iron inner core
innerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
http://www.psc.edu/science/glatzmaier.html
http://geophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/geomagnetic_reversal
It's Erasmus' theory. You will have to ask him. He also indicated that he had answered this already. Try doing a search for it.
-
It's Erasmus' theory. You will have to ask him. He also indicated that he had answered this already. Try doing a search for it.
No he didn't answer it already, read the previous page, I already showed him his proof was wrong. If FE uses dynamo theory its magnetically disproven due to the inverted field lines we woudl experience due to the shape of the flate Earth. Instead of seeing the 64 we see in Atlanta or Sydney, it would be more like 75-85 because the flat earth is almost normal to the field direction. Also we can see that that the compass points towards the antarctic as opposed to the central core of the earth which, in FE theory would be below the earth. Geomagnetic reversal would also be impossible
If FE uses Eramus magnets, its disproven by the iron striations in rocks found on the Earths surface (previous page)
If FE uses a giant vertical magnet, it is disproven in the same way that a FE which uses Dynamo theory is.
-
That doesn't even make sense.
The RE uses dynamo theory, but if the FE uses it, reversal is not possible? Good thing you are not biased or anything.
-
That doesn't even make sense.
The RE uses dynamo theory, but if the FE uses it, reversal is not possible? Good thing you are not biased or anything.
Actually im not biased, ive supported FE Theory in a few threads where it can explain what is observed. When its can't explain it, I need someone who knows more about FE theory than me to explain it.
Not its not possible. I was disproving your possible explanations for magnetic fields. Go on and prove me wrong. Perhaps there is another model for magnetism someone would like to put forward?
-
Only in your mind have you disproved it. What makes the dynamo FE exempt to geomagnetic reversal?
-
Only in your mind have you disproved it. What makes the dynamo FE exempt to geomagnetic reversal?
If you know about geomagnetic reversal then you would know that the outer-core has an induced current running through it that causes geomagnetic reversal
In Dynamo theory it would not be visable on Earth in the way we observe it. We would see field lines heading in the reverse direction, but at obscure angles, almost normal to the plane of the Earth.
If the Iron-core is spherical in the centre and below the FE, with the outer-core layer above it, geomagnetic reversal is not possible for these reasons.
The outer-core does not have enough influence around the inner-core to change its magnetic field because it sits above it semi-spherical, between the flat-earth's crust and the inner-core. The outer-core could however envelope the entire inner core, but it still does not comply with the observations of magnetic fields on Earth. The North Magnetic pole would be so far under the earth's surface that we should observe in the iron on the surface of the Earth a magnetic field that runs straight through, with the south field pointing almost directly up toward the sky and the north end pointing almost toward the ground.
If the iron/nickel core line up in a way such as Eramus is putting forward, it would be impossible for the inner core to induce the outer-cores opposing magnetic field because it is a disk with the North pole in the south pole in the centre and the north pole on the outside. The outer-core, being molten would be under too much electromagnetic stress to form this induced current, the electrons in the outer-core would would repell each other at the magnetic north and try to create a uniform north-south linear field similar to the field in a bar magnet.
-
still waiting...
-
If you know about geomagnetic reversal then you would know that the outer-core has an induced current running through it that causes geomagnetic reversal
That is a tautology.
In Dynamo theory it would not be visable on Earth in the way we observe it. We would see field lines heading in the reverse direction, but at obscure angles, almost normal to the plane of the Earth.
That doesn't make any sense. If we can observe something then it is visible. If it is not visible then we can not observe it.
If the Iron-core is spherical in the centre and below the FE, with the outer-core layer above it, geomagnetic reversal is not possible for these reasons.
That is not the case of the OP, so these reasons are moot.
The outer-core could however envelope the entire inner core, but it still does not comply with the observations of magnetic fields on Earth. The North Magnetic pole would be so far under the earth's surface that we should observe in the iron on the surface of the Earth a magnetic field that runs straight through, with the south field pointing almost directly up toward the sky and the north end pointing almost toward the ground.
Interesting scenario. Now all you need is evidence to support it.
If the iron/nickel core line up in a way such as Eramus is putting forward, it would be impossible for the inner core to induce the outer-cores opposing magnetic field because it is a disk with the North pole in the south pole in the centre and the north pole on the outside. [/quore]
Que? Did Erasmus say anything about the Fe/Ni core? I think you are making this up to help yourself disprove the OP.
The outer-core, being molten would be under too much electromagnetic stress to form this induced current, the electrons in the outer-core would would repell each other at the magnetic north and try to create a uniform north-south linear field similar to the field in a bar magnet.
Okay, you just showed how Dynamo theory is impossible in the FE model. That's it.
-
In Dynamo theory it would not be visable on Earth in the way we observe it. We would see field lines heading in the reverse direction, but at obscure angles, almost normal to the plane of the Earth.
That doesn't make any sense. If we can observe something then it is visible. If it is not visible then we can not observe it.
I'm just pointing out that what we observer disproves FE theory magnetically.
If the Iron-core is spherical in the centre and below the FE, with the outer-core layer above it, geomagnetic reversal is not possible for these reasons.
That is not the case of the OP, so these reasons are moot.
Once again accounting for all possible FE theories for magnetism, none will work. You try and create a theory for magnetism that can't be disproved...good luck.
The outer-core could however envelope the entire inner core, but it still does not comply with the observations of magnetic fields on Earth. The North Magnetic pole would be so far under the earth's surface that we should observe in the iron on the surface of the Earth a magnetic field that runs straight through, with the south field pointing almost directly up toward the sky and the north end pointing almost toward the ground.
Interesting scenario. Now all you need is evidence to support it.
If the iron/nickel core line up in a way such as Eramus is putting forward, it would be impossible for the inner core to induce the outer-cores opposing magnetic field because it is a disk with the North pole in the south pole in the centre and the north pole on the outside. [/quore]
Que? Did Erasmus say anything about the Fe/Ni core? I think you are making this up to help yourself disprove the OP.
The outer-core, being molten would be under too much electromagnetic stress to form this induced current, the electrons in the outer-core would would repell each other at the magnetic north and try to create a uniform north-south linear field similar to the field in a bar magnet.
Okay, you just showed how Dynamo theory is impossible in the FE model. That's it.
Yet another pointless responses loaded with unsubstantiated claims of falsehood due to an FE'ers lack of understanding...
I've already disproved Eramus' theory on FE magnetism and the idea of a giant magnet running though the centre of the FE, see my previous posts.
This time I was disproving Dynamo theory. If the Ni/Fe core was polarized in the same way eramus' model uses magnets then the above proofs apply...i've disproved it. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is false. I am accounting for all possible ways that dynamo theory could work with FE theory.
The evidence disproving it can be seen by a year 6 geography student. Its the same evidence which shows how the Earths Magnetic field has changed over time for RE theory, and how our North Magnetic Pole experiences polar drift, it even shows the poles exact locations for the last several thousand years.
Magnetic fields cause striations in iron in volcanic rocks. These striations would show run almost verticle on the surface of the Earth if it were flat, however they do not, most field lines run at between 50-69 degrees from the earths surface which is far too shallow for a magnetic field supported by FE theory.
-
I'm just pointing out that what we observer disproves FE theory magnetically.
I have never observed this, and I see no reason to believe that you have either.
Once again accounting for all possible FE theories for magnetism, none will work. You try and create a theory for magnetism that can't be disproved...good luck.
Do you really think you have spent enough time on FE magnetism to say "all possible FE theories" with any certainty? I'm sure you do so let me say this: there is always another possibility. Another thing: what good is a theory that can't be disproved?
Yet another pointless responses loaded with unsubstantiated claims of falsehood due to an FE'ers lack of understanding...
HAHAHA! Perhaps, instead, a lack of brainwashing. You believe so much of what you have been told; it is frightening. As I said previously: all you need now is to show the evidence that is believable to the criteria of this forum. If you do not accept the criteria for evidence in this forum then there is a little 'x' in the upper right corner of your browser that will cure yourself of many headaches.
I've already disproved Eramus' theory on FE magnetism and the idea of a giant magnet running though the centre of the FE, see my previous posts.
I will go see these posts; either I missed them or you did not sufficiently prove anything.
The evidence disproving it can be seen by a year 6 geography student. Its the same evidence which shows how the Earths Magnetic field has changed over time for RE theory, and how our North Magnetic Pole experiences polar drift, it even shows the poles exact locations for the last several thousand years.
Magnetic fields cause striations in iron in volcanic rocks. These striations would show run almost verticle on the surface of the Earth if it were flat, however they do not, ...
Please. This is yet another unsubstantiated claim from someone brainwashed by the conspiracy.
-
all you need now is to show the evidence that is believable to the criteria of this forum
Not even god could do that. The only evidence deemed beleivable so far is evidence that supports FE.
-
God doesn't exist. So screwed, you are.
-
God doesn't exist. So screwed, you are.
If the earth is flat then god sure as hell exists.
-
If the earth is flat then god sure as hell exists.
OK, interesting point. Could you phrase that in the form of a logical proof?
I'm sure someone on here wants to argue with you about it.
-
I'm just pointing out that what we observer disproves FE theory magnetically.
I have never observed this, and I see no reason to believe that you have either.
I've seen the evidence you can search for it Search for North Magnetic Polar Drift. Just because you havn't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, isn't that the point you FE theorists are trying to make
Once again accounting for all possible FE theories for magnetism, none will work. You try and create a theory for magnetism that can't be disproved...good luck.
Do you really think you have spent enough time on FE magnetism to say "all possible FE theories" with any certainty? I'm sure you do so let me say this: there is always another possibility. Another thing: what good is a theory that can't be disproved?
There are only so many ways the magnetic field lines of a flat Earth can variate
I've already disproved Eramus' theory on FE magnetism and the idea of a giant magnet running though the centre of the FE, see my previous posts.
I will go see these posts; either I missed them or you did not sufficiently prove anything.
Seen em yet, When i posted them originally no-one bothered to attempted to rebut them
The evidence disproving it can be seen by a year 6 geography student. Its the same evidence which shows how the Earths Magnetic field has changed over time for RE theory, and how our North Magnetic Pole experiences polar drift, it even shows the poles exact locations for the last several thousand years.
Magnetic fields cause striations in iron in volcanic rocks. These striations would show run almost verticle on the surface of the Earth if it were flat, however they do not, ...
Please. This is yet another unsubstantiated claim from someone brainwashed by the conspiracy.
Unfortunately for you this evidence is real. I first saw it on a geography documentary Produced by the discovery channel when I was 12. Everyone knows Iron is diamagnetic and it is found in magma which is ejected from the Mantle.
-
I've seen the evidence you can search for it Search for North Magnetic Polar Drift. Just because you havn't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, isn't that the point you FE theorists are trying to make
Just because you have read about it and/or seen it on TV doesn't mean it is right.
There are only so many ways the magnetic field lines of a flat Earth can variate
I wasn't talking about the field lines on the surface. I was talking about the source of the field lines.
Seen em yet, When i posted them originally no-one bothered to attempted to rebut them
Still haven't read them, sorry. I'll get to it soon.
Unfortunately for you this evidence is real. I first saw it on a geography documentary Produced by the discovery channel when I was 12. Everyone knows Iron is diamagnetic and it is found in magma which is ejected from the Mantle.
How real is it?!? You saw it when you were twelve, that must mean it is VERY REAL and that you were VERY SMART when you were twelve!!!
Famous last words: "Of course everyone knows..." ...that jews were trying to bring down the Arian nation of Germany.
Just because you have read about it and/or seen it on TV doesn't mean it is right. Do you understand how dangerous it is to believe otherwise?
-
Ahhhh see, I said I FIRST saw it when I was 12 doesn't mean its the only time I'd ever seen or heard of it.
Stay on topic and disprove magnetism. How can you deny that Iron in volcanic rocks is diamagnetic...
-
Ahhhh see, I said I FIRST saw it when I was 12 doesn't mean its the only time I'd ever seen or heard of it.
I never said it was the only time you had seen the evidence; this is pointless banter, though, which is why I spoke with sarcasm in the first place. Moving on.
Stay on topic and disprove magnetism. How can you deny that Iron in volcanic rocks is diamagnetic...
Eloquent sidestep yourself, my friend.
I cannot disprove magnetism (nor do I deny it, because I myself have a compass and a magnet) and I cannot deny that Fe is diamagnetic.
However, I have not seen evidence that there is significant amounts of iron in the Earth's core nor have I seen any evidence of the direction of the magnetic field in any igneous rock (nor the assertion that said rock has a known position and direction throughout the history of the Earth). Thus, it would be unscientific of me to believe what you are saying.
-
However, I have not seen evidence that there is significant amounts of iron in the Earth's core nor have I seen any evidence of the direction of the magnetic field in any igneous rock (nor the assertion that said rock has a known position and direction throughout the history of the Earth). Thus, it would be unscientific of me to believe what you are saying.
LOL...search on google for "Composition of Eath's Mantle" or "Mantle" or "Outer Core" and "Inner Core"
Also search for "Magnetic North Polar Drift" to find evidence of magnetic field lines in igneous rock. Its the main form of evidence which shows how the magnetic North pole drifts over time.
-
The internet is the main form of evidence for magnetic polar drift? You really don't get it? Let me slap you in the face yet again: You don't know the evidence. You have never studied the magnetic striations of an igneous rock. I'm not saying the evidence is falsified, though it might be. My point is that you -- do -- not -- know. You don't know anything about it! You think you do, that much is obvious. But you only know what someone else has told you.
-
I propose a new model for the source of the flat Earth's magnetic field. Instead of the Earth being a single magnet with the north pole in the center and the south pole as a non-single-point curve around the rim, can we have have the Earth contain or be made of up many bar magnets, each with its north pole at the center? It would look something like this:
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/fe-magnetism.png)
I realize of course that there are certain problems with this model, but I think I can address them:
Q: Wouldn't be strong repulsive forces pushing the magnets apart, essentially tearing the Earth apart?
A: This force would definitely exist, but the picture is just to get an idea of the arrangements -- not the size or density -- of the magnets. I don't mean to suggest that the entire Earth is comprised entirely of enormous magnets; merely that there is magnetic material mixed in with the nonmagnetic material, and that this magnetic material is arranged just like the magnetic material in bar magnets.
Q: What's with the hole in the middle?
A: Partly it was a way of decreasing the repulsive forces at the center of the world. Partly it was, well, I figured it would be easier to accept the bar-magnet idea if the magnets were actually bar shaped. Also, the figure isn't too scale; in reality the hole would be much smaller. But don't forget, if you use a compass right on the north pole, it just spins around a lot, which is exactly what you'd expect from this model. Lastly, this gives the model more freedom to place the magnetic north pole (see below).
Q: But the magnetic north pole isn't at the same place as the geographic north pole...
A: True, but I don't insist that all the bar magnets be equally strong. Maybe bar magnet #7 is a bit stronger than the others, which would make compasses tend to point a bit more towards that one. That's another reason to have the hole -- this way the magnetic north pole doesn't need to be right at the center.
As a final note, you should take this figure as a schematic; it's not meant to be to scale. There would probably be many more than ten bar magnets, and each would be much narrower. The hole is probably way too big, and there's no need for spaces in between the bar magnets.
So... comments? Questions?
-Erasmus
You really need a new job/hobby/goal in life.
-
The internet is the main form of evidence for magnetic polar drift? You really don't get it? Let me slap you in the face yet again: You don't know the evidence. You have never studied the magnetic striations of an igneous rock. I'm not saying the evidence is falsified, though it might be. My point is that you -- do -- not -- know. You don't know anything about it! You think you do, that much is obvious. But you only know what someone else has told you.
lol is this you're only evidence for FE, I don't know anything. Think what you wan't, it still doesn't make me wrong. Your some 20 000km's away whatever you think about me is just going to be blind judgemental rubbish. You have nothing Evil, all you can do is attack me. SHOW FE Theory is true. We don't just measure Magnetic fields with igneous rock, the observed field lines for a RE Earth are noth the same for a FE, iron ore striations are just one of showing the existance of a magnetic field. It is the main form of evidence showing magnetic polar drift and geomagnetic reversal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleomagnetism
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/19plat02.htm
http://www.bartleby.com/65/pa/paleomag.html
http://gphome.ucsd.edu/index.html
OOPS!!! Just because you were too stupid/lazy to find it yourself. Have fun!!
FE theory is crumbling around you. I look forward to more personal attacks and even less evidence in your next post!
-
bump
-
bump
-
If the earth is flat then god sure as hell exists.
OK, interesting point. Could you phrase that in the form of a logical proof?
I'm sure someone on here wants to argue with you about it.
The possibility of an omnipotent creator of the universe is greater than that of a planet taking a flat shape upon its formation (which even the FEers wouldn't be able to explain in a million years) so if a planet can be flat then there is a god.
However, I have not seen evidence that there is significant amounts of iron in the Earth's core nor have I seen any evidence of the direction of the magnetic field in any igneous rock (nor the assertion that said rock has a known position and direction throughout the history of the Earth). Thus, it would be unscientific of me to believe what you are saying.
Science doesn't claim that something doesn't exist until you've seen it.
The internet is the main form of evidence for magnetic polar drift? You really don't get it? Let me slap you in the face yet again: You don't know the evidence. You have never studied the magnetic striations of an igneous rock. I'm not saying the evidence is falsified, though it might be. My point is that you -- do -- not -- know. You don't know anything about it! You think you do, that much is obvious. But you only know what someone else has told you.
So you can't beleive in anything until you did it yourself? So you won't buy a car before you've studied mechanics, you won't buy a house before knowing everything about architecture, plumbing ect? You don't beleive that you sleep at night because you've never seen yourself sleep?
He never said the internet was the evidence, it lets you access the information, you know what the sources are, you cen either reproduce what was done, or verify the sources yourself. I don't see where the problem is.
-
I apologize if this has been brought up, I merely did a scan through all eight pages. If so, just quote it, but just a question (not a refutation):
Would this mean that there would be points at the end of Antarctica where there is no South Pole gravitation or are the bar magnets basically a bunch of pie slices (meaning the southern end gets wider and wider as it reaches the end)?
~D-Draw
-
I apologize if this has been brought up, I merely did a scan through all eight pages. If so, just quote it, but just a question (not a refutation):
Would this mean that there would be points at the end of Antarctica where there is no South Pole gravitation or are the bar magnets basically a bunch of pie slices (meaning the southern end gets wider and wider as it reaches the end)?
~D-Draw
The South end gets wider and wider, which is not what we observe, so Eramus theory is obviously false
-
The nature of science is that of doubt and uncertainty. It is unscientific of me to believe what you say without having analyzed the evidence myself. And I'm not talking about a google search or the Discovery channel.
I've been working on cars since I started walking (father is a mechanic) and I applied this understanding when I bought each of my cars (one pictured after its tragic end in the CARS thread under "everything else". hilarity). I've never bought a house, but my brother is an architect and he and I have done enough remodeling to know what's up. I find it very important -- as a human -- to continuously believe in nothing.
And sleep? Am I a man dreaming he is a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he is a man?
-
The South end gets wider and wider, which is not what we observe, so Eramus theory is obviously false
Proof?
-
The South end gets wider and wider, which is not what we observe, so Eramus theory is obviously false
Proof?
Proof that the Earth is flat? Thanks.
-
The South end gets wider and wider, which is not what we observe, so Eramus theory is obviously false
Proof?
Proof that the Earth is flat? Thanks.
Look out your window, but squint alot, and be drunk.
-
Proof that the Earth is flat? Thanks.
You don't know what punctuation means, do you?
-
Proof that the Earth is flat? Thanks.
You don't know what punctuation means, do you?
AVOIDING THE TOPIC, AVOIDING THE TOPIC, ALERT!, DOUCHE BAG, ALERT!
-
Proof that the Earth is flat? Thanks.
You don't know what punctuation means, do you?
Shit man, my punctuation on the internet is bad, call the police!
Proof that the Earth is flat? Thanks.
Provide me some proof. Surely is the earth is flat you have one piece of evidence to support your argument.
-
(http://www.englishrussia.com/images/russian_police/2.jpg)
-
Would this mean that there would be points at the end of Antarctica where there is no South Pole gravitation or are the bar magnets basically a bunch of pie slices (meaning the southern end gets wider and wider as it reaches the end)?
The diagram is idealized and intended to convey a property of the distribution of the magnetic material within the Earth. A bar magnet is merely a collection of aligned polarized molecules all stuck together in a rectangle. If you have a collection of aligned polarized molecules not stuck together in a rectangle, you still get a conglomerate magnetic field. The analytic way to view the diagram is to think of each bar magnet as having angular width dθ and allowing dθ to go to zero, while proportionally increasing the number of bar magnets.
To answer your question, however, it suffices to say that the magnetic field induced by a bar magnet does not cease to exist at/past the ends of the bar, so yes, there would still be a magnetic field.
The South end gets wider and wider, which is not what we observe, so Eramus theory is obviously false
What? Are you saying you dug up a north-south aligned, continent-sized bar magnet, followed it all the way to Antarctica, and observed that it did not indeed get wider as you went farther south?
-
The South end gets wider and wider, which is not what we observe, so Eramus theory is obviously false
What? Are you saying you dug up a north-south aligned, continent-sized bar magnet, followed it all the way to Antarctica, and observed that it did not indeed get wider as you went farther south?
No im saying we see evidence against it in igneous rocks and also in observed magnetic field lines. I provided examples a few pages back. Your theory is screwed, sorry.
-
I propose a new model for the source of the flat Earth's magnetic field. Instead of the Earth being a single magnet with the north pole in the center and the south pole as a non-single-point curve around the rim, can we have have the Earth contain or be made of up many bar magnets, each with its north pole at the center? It would look something like this:
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/fe-magnetism.png)
I realize of course that there are certain problems with this model, but I think I can address them:
Q: Wouldn't be strong repulsive forces pushing the magnets apart, essentially tearing the Earth apart?
A: This force would definitely exist, but the picture is just to get an idea of the arrangements -- not the size or density -- of the magnets. I don't mean to suggest that the entire Earth is comprised entirely of enormous magnets; merely that there is magnetic material mixed in with the nonmagnetic material, and that this magnetic material is arranged just like the magnetic material in bar magnets.
Q: What's with the hole in the middle?
A: Partly it was a way of decreasing the repulsive forces at the center of the world. Partly it was, well, I figured it would be easier to accept the bar-magnet idea if the magnets were actually bar shaped. Also, the figure isn't too scale; in reality the hole would be much smaller. But don't forget, if you use a compass right on the north pole, it just spins around a lot, which is exactly what you'd expect from this model. Lastly, this gives the model more freedom to place the magnetic north pole (see below).
Q: But the magnetic north pole isn't at the same place as the geographic north pole...
A: True, but I don't insist that all the bar magnets be equally strong. Maybe bar magnet #7 is a bit stronger than the others, which would make compasses tend to point a bit more towards that one. That's another reason to have the hole -- this way the magnetic north pole doesn't need to be right at the center.
As a final note, you should take this figure as a schematic; it's not meant to be to scale. There would probably be many more than ten bar magnets, and each would be much narrower. The hole is probably way too big, and there's no need for spaces in between the bar magnets.
So... comments? Questions?
-Erasmus
(http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/7279/femagnetism2km6.png)
Standing at that black circle would cause a compass to point south instead of north. If you claim one of them is stronger than the rest then this would work next to one of the bar magnets (or close enough to any of them).
-
The problem arises when people think that the Earth is just a big bar magnet therefore you can just squash the field flat and everything is hunky dory.
-
I propose a new model for the source of the flat Earth's magnetic field. Instead of the Earth being a single magnet with the north pole in the center and the south pole as a non-single-point curve around the rim, can we have have the Earth contain or be made of up many bar magnets, each with its north pole at the center? It would look something like this:
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/fe-magnetism.png)
I realize of course that there are certain problems with this model, but I think I can address them:
Q: Wouldn't be strong repulsive forces pushing the magnets apart, essentially tearing the Earth apart?
A: This force would definitely exist, but the picture is just to get an idea of the arrangements -- not the size or density -- of the magnets. I don't mean to suggest that the entire Earth is comprised entirely of enormous magnets; merely that there is magnetic material mixed in with the nonmagnetic material, and that this magnetic material is arranged just like the magnetic material in bar magnets.
Q: What's with the hole in the middle?
A: Partly it was a way of decreasing the repulsive forces at the center of the world. Partly it was, well, I figured it would be easier to accept the bar-magnet idea if the magnets were actually bar shaped. Also, the figure isn't too scale; in reality the hole would be much smaller. But don't forget, if you use a compass right on the north pole, it just spins around a lot, which is exactly what you'd expect from this model. Lastly, this gives the model more freedom to place the magnetic north pole (see below).
Q: But the magnetic north pole isn't at the same place as the geographic north pole...
A: True, but I don't insist that all the bar magnets be equally strong. Maybe bar magnet #7 is a bit stronger than the others, which would make compasses tend to point a bit more towards that one. That's another reason to have the hole -- this way the magnetic north pole doesn't need to be right at the center.
As a final note, you should take this figure as a schematic; it's not meant to be to scale. There would probably be many more than ten bar magnets, and each would be much narrower. The hole is probably way too big, and there's no need for spaces in between the bar magnets.
So... comments? Questions?
-Erasmus
(http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/7279/femagnetism2km6.png)
Standing at that black circle would cause a compass to point south instead of north. If you claim one of them is stronger than the rest then this would work next to one of the bar magnets (or close enough to any of them).
Glad im not the onyl one that saw how wrong that was when Tom posted it.
Not to mention each on of those "magnets" would be picked up from a compass. I dont know how they would like that.
-
Q: What's with the hole in the middle?
A: Partly it was a way of decreasing the repulsive forces at the center of the world. Partly it was, well, I figured it would be easier to accept the bar-magnet idea if the magnets were actually bar shaped. Also, the figure isn't too scale; in reality the hole would be much smaller. But don't forget, if you use a compass right on the north pole, it just spins around a lot, which is exactly what you'd expect from this model. Lastly, this gives the model more freedom to place the magnetic north pole (see below).
-
Once again you'r theory is completely rediculous. How can it be possible that at the south pole, as observed in spherical Earth theory, we see a HIGHER DENSITY of magnetic field lines as they all converge to a single point. Your Flat Earth Theor would suggest that no such density increase would occur, or, the magnetic field would actually decrease as the size of the south end of the magnetic field is substantially greater than that of the North end. Lets not even consider how rediculous your hypothesis of the mechanics of the North pole works. That is beyond even the most capable college art student ::)
-
This last post in this thread was nine fucking months ago.
What the hell is with noobs and resurrecting dead threads?
-
What is it with morons like you not understanding the concepts involved in the thread. If noone wants to reply, noone will, its just too bad that poor FE theory has been disproved.
You showed your true colours here son. What kind of wanker calls someone a "Noob", I mean, for fucks sake how pathetic do you want to sound? Especially if the person you are refering to has been around a lot longer than yourself.
-
O Rly?
Name: Quarrior
Posts: 214 (0.713 per day)
Position:
Date Registered: February 08, 2007, 02:24:21 PM
Last Active: Today at 05:20:05 AM
Name: Masterchief2219
Posts: 2620 (6.701 per day)
Position:
Date Registered: November 10, 2006, 01:38:21 AM
Last Active: Today at 04:41:43 AM
epic fail.
-
Hardly. so he's been here a couple of months longer than me...I've still been around long enough. I find it sad though that someone can post almost 7 times on this forum a day everyday for over a year. Obviously has no life.
-
Hardly. so he's been here a couple of months longer than me...I've still been around long enough. I find it sad though that someone can post almost 7 times on this forum a day everyday for over a year. Obviously has no life.
Says the person who managed 219 posts in the <2 hours they spent on the site. ::)
It doesn't matter how long you have been registered. If you resurrect dead threads like a noob, you are a noob.
-
Hardly. so he's been here a couple of months longer than me...I've still been around long enough. I find it sad though that someone can post almost 7 times on this forum a day everyday for over a year. Obviously has no life.
Says the person who managed 219 posts in the <2 hours they spent on the site. ::)
It doesn't matter how long you have been registered. If you resurrect dead threads like a noob, you are a noob.
I registered 9 months ago, whether i spent 2 hours on here is irrelevant. The point is I won you lost, too bad, FE is defeated once again. I could simply start a new thread and say exactly the same thing, how bout it, it won't make a difference. Anyway I grow tired of bickering if you're not going to make a decent contribution don't say anything at all.
-
I'm sorry, but what exactly did you win at?
-
I disproved Flat Earth :D Thats why I restarted this thred. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a FE theory that disproves my RE logic.
-
I disproved Flat Earth :D Thats why I restarted this thred. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a FE theory that disproves my RE logic.
You obviously don't understand the conspiracy. Your so-called "Spherical Earth observations" are produced by the conspiracy.
-
RE logic
Oxymoron?
-
Oxymoron?
Yep, its an oxymoron, because FE have the ability to refute my obviously inferior intellegence. It's a shame you're to stupid to actually understand what is going on and can only come up with pointless rhetoric in response to my legitimate argument.
-
It's a shame you're to stupid to actually understand
Wow. How ironic.
-
I disproved Flat Earth :D
This is like saying "WE'VE WON THIS BATTLE!" when the battle hasn't even started yet.
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a FE theory that disproves my RE logic.
RE logic of what?
-
The point is I won you lost, too bad, FE is defeated once again.
This chick's flawless logic will destroy FES!!!!!
Oh, wait, it's still here?
Whoops, my bad. Guess she didn't win after all.
-
What is it with morons like you not understanding the concepts involved in the thread. If noone wants to reply, noone will, its just too bad that poor FE theory has been disproved.
You showed your true colours here son. What kind of wanker calls someone a "Noob", I mean, for fucks sake how pathetic do you want to sound? Especially if the person you are referring to has been around a lot longer than yourself.
O Rly?
Name: Quarrior
Posts: 214 (0.713 per day)
Position:
Date Registered: February 08, 2007, 02:24:21 PM
Last Active: Today at 05:20:05 AM
Name: Masterchief2219
Posts: 2620 (6.701 per day)
Position:
Date Registered: November 10, 2006, 01:38:21 AM
Last Active: Today at 04:41:43 AM
epic fail.
Hardly. so he's been here a couple of months longer than me...I've still been around long enough. I find it sad though that someone can post almost 7 times on this forum a day everyday for over a year. Obviously has no life.
EPIC FAIL!
-
Its a shame none have you actually read what I've posted in this particular thread. You would realise that the battle is already over, sorry FE lost. Unless you can somehow produce factual evidence containing magnetic data suggesting that a Flat Earth Magnetic field is actually possible, enough of which refutes that magnetic data contained in igneous rocks, as well as geomagnetic reversal. Noone has explained how that is actually possible with a flat earth magnetic field yet...sigh
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1361.80
-
Its a shame you haven't read the current theory on FE magnetic fields and instead have waltzed in, retardedly bumped a months old thread, and then claimed victory over the obsolete concept put forth by one flat earther. Grats.
-
*Doesn't read topic*
I still find it hilarious how people are coming up with these "theories" of how Flat Earth works, when we already know [mostly] of how Round Earth works.
Just don't mind me lol'ing a bit.
-
Wow, 18 posts and he already gets it. :-\
-
Its a shame you haven't read the current theory on FE magnetic fields and instead have waltzed in, retardedly bumped a months old thread, and then claimed victory over the obsolete concept put forth by one flat earther. Grats.
Show me this "New" Theory. Its funny how frequently "New" Theories for FE have to be conjured up because they have been disproved since the days of Aristotle, even though he was a geocite!
-
Its a shame you haven't read the current theory on FE magnetic fields and instead have waltzed in, retardedly bumped a months old thread, and then claimed victory over the obsolete concept put forth by one flat earther. Grats.
Show me this "New" Theory. Its funny how frequently "New" Theories for FE have to be conjured up because they have been disproved since the days of Aristotle, even though he was a geocite!
Believe it or not, I'm not put on this earth to use the search function for you.
-
Its a shame you haven't read the current theory on FE magnetic fields and instead have waltzed in, retardedly bumped a months old thread, and then claimed victory over the obsolete concept put forth by one flat earther. Grats.
Show me this "New" Theory. Its funny how frequently "New" Theories for FE have to be conjured up because they have been disproved since the days of Aristotle, even though he was a geocite!
Believe it or not, I'm not put on this earth to use the search function for you.
Its because there isn't one. I've searched this forum and found nothing
-
Its a shame you haven't read the current theory on FE magnetic fields and instead have waltzed in, retardedly bumped a months old thread, and then claimed victory over the obsolete concept put forth by one flat earther. Grats.
Show me this "New" Theory. Its funny how frequently "New" Theories for FE have to be conjured up because they have been disproved since the days of Aristotle, even though he was a geocite!
Believe it or not, I'm not put on this earth to use the search function for you.
Its because there isn't one. I've searched this forum and found nothing
I was not put on this earth to use the search function for you because there is no search function?
Bump for your essay on black holes.
-
Its a shame you haven't read the current theory on FE magnetic fields and instead have waltzed in, retardedly bumped a months old thread, and then claimed victory over the obsolete concept put forth by one flat earther. Grats.
Show me this "New" Theory. Its funny how frequently "New" Theories for FE have to be conjured up because they have been disproved since the days of Aristotle, even though he was a geocite!
Believe it or not, I'm not put on this earth to use the search function for you.
Its because there isn't one. I've searched this forum and found nothing
I was not put on this earth to use the search function for you because there is no search function?
Bump for your essay on black holes.
You're friend, like yourself havn't bothered to write more than three lines so its pointless to ask me for one. I'm still waiting for some kind of evidence to refute my arguments that FE theory can not explain the Earth's magnetic field
-
Yet, I'm still waiting for a general essay about black holes you promised to write on.
-
Yet, I'm still waiting for a general essay about black holes you promised to write on.
I'm still waiting on yours son. I've been waiting 9 months for someone to refute my Magnetic Field arguments
-
Yet, I'm still waiting for a general essay about black holes you promised to write on.
I'm still waiting on yours son.
When did I said I will write an essay? It is you who brought the idea up. Therefore, it is now your responsibility to write it.
-
Yet, I'm still waiting for a general essay about black holes you promised to write on.
I'm still waiting on yours son.
When did I said I will write an essay? It is you who brought the idea up. Therefore, it is now your responsibility to write it.
...still waiting...
-
...Still waiting for your essay, since you said you will write it when I never said I would...
-
I thought I remembered a post where you said you'd write it when you had time in the next few days, but I can't find that now. Curious.
-
Right here:
Think of as a short essay. I'll give you a couple of days to write it. Not too long, just a general overview is fine. I'll even write an essay on it myself if you would like?
I'll post my actual report within the next couple of days, I'm off to visit my parents in about half an hour. I expected something of the following length at least.
Well, apparently someone chickened out.
-
Thanks. Seems so.
-
A disk magnet cannot have a magnetic North pole at its center.
-
stiiiilllll waaaiiiting
Jut because Jack think's he's a genius physicist, I'd like him to explain to me what happens in a Black Hole? Don't give me the airy fairy Flat Earth Society answers...Think of as a short essay. I'll give you a couple of days to write it. Not too long, just a general overview is fine. I'll even write an essay on it myself if you would like?
-
stiiiilllll waaaiiiting
Jut because Jack think's he's a genius physicist, I'd like him to explain to me what happens in a Black Hole? Don't give me the airy fairy Flat Earth Society answers...Think of as a short essay. I'll give you a couple of days to write it. Not too long, just a general overview is fine. I'll even write an essay on it myself if you would like?
You ask me to write an essay =/= I ask myself to write an essay.
Look, everyone's waiting for your essay. So, where is it? Don't worry, there's always the "I Quit" button.
-
where's yours?
-
You ask me to write an essay =/= I ask myself to write an essay.
Look, everyone's waiting for your essay. So, where is it? Don't worry, there's always the "I Quit" button.
-
where's yours
-
So, you asked yourself to write an essay and you chickened out. Alright, I assume you already clicked the button. Thanks for playing. Come back any time.
-
I asked you to write an essay first, where is it?
-
So, you asked yourself to write an essay and you chickened out. Alright, I assume you already clicked the button. Thanks for playing. Come back any time.
-
After you write yours, I will.
-
So, you asked yourself to write an essay and you chickened out. Alright, I assume you already clicked the button. Thanks for playing. Come back any time.
-
NO U!!! lol
-
this is the most tedious thread in the entire board.