The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: cpt_bthimes on October 29, 2007, 03:53:40 PM
-
bishop says there is a north celestial "pole" with polaris at the center. these are something like a cluster of stars that orbit a common center once every 24 hours (an idea which is problematic itself as pointed out in my previous thread post).
bishop then goes on to explain that there is a "south" celestial pole, with similar characteristics. this explains why sky timelapses in both north and south hemispheres look similar--they are pictures of different phenomenon with similar behaviors (north and south celestial poles).
polaris happens to be situated above the center point of the flat earth. which i suppose is natural since the earth is the center of the universe.
but it's not clear where (on earth--if at all) the south celestial pole is over. does it somehow orbit in the aether like the sun and moon? or excuse me, other stars? (maybe orbiting polaris while still being it it's own orbital sub-system?) or is it stuck over, say, the tip of south africa? if so, would it therefore be at different points in the sky at the same local time (say, midnight) for different longitudes?
seems like this is a pretty basic question that should be high on the list for any theory of "what, where, and why are we" to explain. (but then, so would an explanation that made a lick of sense for phases...)
-
From what I have gathered from thier (Tom & Co.) answers and pictures the southern area (not a pole) is the edge of the Earth aka the ice wall.
-
I still don't understand how a flat earth can have a magnetic field either
-
I still don't understand how a flat earth can have a magnetic field either
I've outlined it in the FAQ.
-
From what I have gathered from thier (Tom & Co.) answers and pictures the southern area (not a pole) is the edge of the Earth aka the ice wall.
i don't mean an earth pole. obviously a flat earth as modeled has a problem with a south pole. i'm talking about bishops' reference to a "celestial" south pole. (talked about in the thread "explain this" or something like that, which opens with a panoramic time lapse of star trails showing the north pole and almost the south pole.) he invoked this to explain how stars in a nighttime timelapse photo form a circular pattern around the axis of the south pole.
bishop explained it by invoking the existence of magical north and south celestial poles. i think he said the north celestial pole is over the center of the earth (or implied), but he didn't say where the south celestial pole is, or whether it moves relative to earth or not and if so, in what way. if it was stationary like the north pole, obviously that would cause alot of problems as it would be in different parts of the sky at the same local times for different longitudes, when it should appear in the same place at the same local times.
not that any of it makes any sense anyway. as someone said to tom, stars at all radii from the orbital center can't all rotate in perfect circles all in exactly 24 hours, except in bishop-land. the stars closer to the center would orbit faster, and in an elliptical orbit at that, as observed in all star clusters. bishop compared the two "celestial poles" to star clusters. or called them star clusters outright. i don't remember and i no longer care to look it up. he's just a troll as i've finally realized so there's no point.
-
I still don't understand how a flat earth can have a magnetic field either
I've outlined it in the FAQ.
Yes, but like so much of the FAQ, it makes absolutely no sense
-
The FAQ doesn't really answer the question. Where exactly is the magnetic south pole? You claim that at the ice wall the magnetic field lines are vertical, but that wouldn't make the compas needle point north-south, it would try to point up-down.
Is the magnetic south pole located under the flat earth? I believe that is the consensus.
-
The FAQ doesn't really answer the question. Where exactly is the magnetic south pole? You claim that at the ice wall the magnetic field lines are vertical, but that wouldn't make the compas needle point north-south, it would try to point up-down.
Is the magnetic south pole located under the flat earth? I believe that is the consensus.
i don't mean to dampen the conversation, but i want to get this thread (that i started i think) back on track. all good questions that fe has issues explaining, but the original question was where is the celestial south pole...
meaning, if you take a time-lapse of the sky in the souther hemisphere, you can see that the stars "orbit" a common point. bishop says that point is the "celestial south pole". the celestial north pole, he says, is over the center of the earth. where then is the celestial south pole?
-
where then is the celestial south pole?
The North Celestial Pole exists over the North Magnetic Pole. The South Celestial Pole exists over the South Magnetic Pole.
Is the magnetic south pole located under the flat earth? I believe that is the consensus.
The South Magnetic Pole on FE is the area beyond the Ice Wall where the Magnetic Field Lines are vertical. The South Celestial pole is located over this area.
Technically, the actual South Magnetic Pole is physically beneath the North Magnetic pole. The field lines justs swoop over the earth and become vertical at the Ice Wall.
bishop explained it by invoking the existence of magical north and south celestial poles. i think he said the north celestial pole is over the center of the earth (or implied), but he didn't say where the south celestial pole is, or whether it moves relative to earth or not and if so, in what way. if it was stationary like the north pole, obviously that would cause alot of problems as it would be in different parts of the sky at the same local times for different longitudes, when it should appear in the same place at the same local times.
It only causes problems because you come into the discussion assuming that the Round Earth model is the correct model. It's not.
-
The FAQ doesn't really answer the question. Where exactly is the magnetic south pole?
The 'south' magnetic pole is directly under the 'north' magnetic pole, under the Earth.
You claim that at the ice wall the magnetic field lines are vertical, but that wouldn't make the compas needle point north-south, it would try to point up-down.
Right, and that's what happens at the poles.
-
where then is the celestial south pole?
The North Celestial Pole exists over the North Magnetic Pole. The South Celestial Pole exists over the South Magnetic Pole.
Is the magnetic south pole located under the flat earth? I believe that is the consensus.
The South Magnetic Pole on FE is the area beyond the Ice Wall where the Magnetic Field Lines are vertical. The South Celestial pole is located over this area.
Technically, the actual South Magnetic Pole is physically beneath the North Magnetic pole. The field lines justs swoop over the earth and become vertical at the Ice Wall.
So, the stars in the south rotate around a fixed point over a circular area all around the earth? Sound like a contradiction to me. That explanation of the MSP is what I thought, and makes sense.
bishop explained it by invoking the existence of magical north and south celestial poles. i think he said the north celestial pole is over the center of the earth (or implied), but he didn't say where the south celestial pole is, or whether it moves relative to earth or not and if so, in what way. if it was stationary like the north pole, obviously that would cause alot of problems as it would be in different parts of the sky at the same local times for different longitudes, when it should appear in the same place at the same local times.
It only causes problems because you come into the discussion assuming that the Round Earth model is the correct model. It's not.
The real cause of the problems is people like you assuming that the Flat Earth model is the correct model. It's not.
-
The North Celestial Pole exists over the North Magnetic Pole. The South Celestial Pole exists over the South Magnetic Pole.
The South Magnetic Pole on FE is the area beyond the Ice Wall where the Magnetic Field Lines are vertical. The South Celestial pole is located over this area.
Technically, the actual South Magnetic Pole is physically beneath the North Magnetic pole. The field lines justs swoop over the earth and become vertical at the Ice Wall.
ok, tell me if this summary of your words is reasonably correct:
* the south celestial pole exists over the south magnetic pole.
* the south magnetic pole is the area beyond the ice wall where the field lines are vertical
* the south celestial pole is located over the area beyond the ice wall
* the south magnetic pole is physically beneath the north magnetic pole
bishop, do you see the contradictions in your own fe story?
furthermore, if the south celestial pole is "beyond the ice wall", where exactly is it and does it move around in the sky? how do you explain the fact that it appears in the same place in the sky at any given time at night, at any longitude and any particular latitude "south" of the equator?
or, if the south celestial pole is above the south magnetic pole which is beneath the north magnetic pole, then how does anyone see it at all?
keep in mind, you have already clearly established in previous posts that you believe the south celestial pole is visible. so arguing it away (invoking conspiracy, mass hysteria, etc) would just introduce more contradictions into your already ridiculous made-up-on-the-fly story.
oh and i almost forgot: shut the fuck up. let someone who knows what they are doing answer this.
-
* the south celestial pole exists over the south magnetic pole.
This is correct, depending on how we want to define the South Magnetic Pole. I define it as where the field lines are vertical.
* the south magnetic pole is the area beyond the ice wall where the field lines are vertical
This is how I personally define the South Pole, where the field lines are vertical. TheEngineer and other FE proponents may define the South Magnetic Pole slightly different.
* the south celestial pole is located over the area beyond the ice wall
mmm hmm
* the south magnetic pole is physically beneath the north magnetic pole
This is also correct depending on how we define the South Magnetic pole. TheEngineer has a diagram somewhere.
bishop, do you see the contradictions in your own fe story?
Nope.
furthermore, if the south celestial pole is "beyond the ice wall", where exactly is it and does it move around in the sky? how do you explain the fact that it appears in the same place in the sky at any given time at night, at any longitude and any particular latitude "south" of the equator?
This does not occur. The South Celestial Pole is in one location only. This is a proof for a Flat Earth. William Carpenter reports in his book "Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed" that the Sigma Octantis, the star which marks the center point of the South Celestial Pole, was seen misaligned with the direction of South. Sigma Ocantis was seen on several polar expeditions to be South-East or South-West of the observer. These incontestable accounts are incompatible with the Globe Earth Model, which predicts that the center of the South Celestial Pole will be directly southward at all longitudes.
or, if the south celestial pole is above the south magnetic pole which is beneath the north magnetic pole, then how does anyone see it at all?
The South Celestial pole is above the earth, not below it. The South Celestial pole is over an area beyond the Ice Wall where the field lines are vertical.
-
Tom Bishop. Are we playing this game again? You've obviously seen my request for clarification from you, seeing as you were editing your posts in the thread an hour after I made the request. Do I have to hound you again to get you to respond? What's going on?
-
Woooh Bishop you sure are entertaining. The north celestial pole is the point in the north where the stars rotate around. Are you saying that the south celestial pole is not a point, more a region?
-
If the south magnetic point is beyond the ice wall then there is something beyond the ice wall and u cant fall off the ice wall into nothing
-
If the south magnetic point is beyond the ice wall then there is something beyond the ice wall and u cant fall off the ice wall into nothing
That's correct. Beyond the Ice Wall is a tundra of ice and snow.
Tom Bishop. Are we playing this game again? You've obviously seen my request for clarification from you, seeing as you were editing your posts in the thread an hour after I made the request. Do I have to hound you again to get you to respond? What's going on?
What request would that be? This is the first time you've posted in this thread.
Woooh Bishop you sure are entertaining. The north celestial pole is the point in the north where the stars rotate around. Are you saying that the south celestial pole is not a point, more a region?
Yes, the South Celestial Pole seen in RE sky charts is actually just a region over Australia. The Flat Earth Society has found that the tip of South America also has its own Celestial Pole with a unique layout independent of known star maps.
In order for the Flat Earth Theory to be contradicted it must be proven that observers on Australia and the tip of South America can see the same stars at the same time. Saying that they do is not evidence. Personal testimonies must be presented.
-
If the south magnetic point is beyond the ice wall then there is something beyond the ice wall and u cant fall off the ice wall into nothing
The south pole is not beyond the ice wall. It is under the earth. The ice wall is where the field lines are vertical. Just because there is a magnetic field, doesn't mean there's matter beyond the ice wall, you could still fall off.
Tom Bishop is being silly.
-
Whree I hate it when he edits posts while I write mine. Saying that evidence proves the earth is flat is not evidence either.
-
Whree I hate it when he edits posts while I write mine. Saying that evidence proves the earth is flat is not evidence either.
The Flat Earth Literature has personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
-
But the personal accounts in the FEL are still just word-of-mouth, in the same way as quoting multiple independent observers that claim to have seen the south celestial pole.
You haven't answered my question regarding the nature of the south celestial pole, point or region?
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
Where are yours?
-
Tom Bishop. Are we playing this game again? You've obviously seen my request for clarification from you, seeing as you were editing your posts in the thread an hour after I made the request. Do I have to hound you again to get you to respond? What's going on?
What request would that be? This is the first time you've posted in this thread.
Yes it is. You, of course, have no idea what I'm talking about. Way to act like an adult deserving of a Ph.D.
I'm referring to the thread you, very clearly, want to forget exists.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17694.msg310797#msg310797
-
This is correct, depending on how we want to define the South Magnetic Pole. I define it as where the field lines are vertical.
* the south magnetic pole is the area beyond the ice wall where the field lines are vertical
This is how I personally define the South Pole, where the field lines are vertical. TheEngineer and other FE proponents may define the South Magnetic Pole slightly different.
* the south magnetic pole is physically beneath the north magnetic pole
This is also correct depending on how we define the South Magnetic pole. TheEngineer has a diagram somewhere.
so you just toss around all possible explanations and hope one will stick, without any caveat that one is "what you believe" and another is "what someone else believes"? seems like some non-trivial qualifiers to me, especially for directly contradictory explanations in the same post.
These incontestable accounts are incompatible with the Globe Earth Model, which predicts that the center of the South Celestial Pole will be directly southward at all longitudes.
back off folks, these accounts are incontestable. fucking dork. you know what's truly incontestable? that you are a dipshit.
The South Celestial pole is above the earth, not below it. The South Celestial pole is over an area beyond the Ice Wall where the field lines are vertical.
wait, look above. you just said the south celestial pole is below the earth. now it's above.
so let's go with your statement that the location of the south celestial pole is beyond the ice wall where the field lines are vertical...and above that. which means it is precisely anywhere within a 360 degree range on the compass, beyond the ice wall. bishop, where the fuck is the south celestial pole? when i go back to argentina i am going to look for it in the sky exactly where you tell me. since it is not moving around, it should be easy to find as long as it's dark. give me a longitude, that if extended as an imaginary line beyond the ice wall from the north pole, points to the direction of the south celestial pole.
-
That's the exact question I am awaiting an answer to.
-
Damn it. Now you guys scared him off from here too. Don't you understand how excitable Tom Bishop is? You have to be gentle with him, or he'll fly away and never come back.
-
back off folks, these accounts are incontestable. fucking dork. you know what's truly incontestable? that you are a dipshit.
Posting like this got Gulliver banned. I'm about to go get the banning stick from the tool shed...
-
back off folks, these accounts are incontestable. fucking dork. you know what's truly incontestable? that you are a dipshit.
Posting like this got Gulliver banned. I'm about to go get the banning stick from the tool shed...
:o
-
It stings like a sonofabitch.
-
But the personal accounts in the FEL are still just word-of-mouth, in the same way as quoting multiple independent observers that claim to have seen the south celestial pole.
The Flat Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
wait, look above. you just said the south celestial pole is below the earth. now it's above.
The Flat Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
back off folks, these accounts are incontestable. fucking dork. you know what's truly incontestable? that you are a dipshit.
The Flat Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
when i go back to argentina i am going to look for it in the sky exactly where you tell me. since it is not moving around, it should be easy to find as long as it's dark. give me a longitude, that if extended as an imaginary line beyond the ice wall from the north pole, points to the direction of the south celestial pole.
That's fine. Go to Argentina and look for Sigma Octantis. If you see it then we are incorrect.
Until then, the Flat Earth model is the correct model.
-
Hey Tom. Remember me? Is this thread better than mine, or something? What's so bad about my thread?
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17694.msg310797#msg310797
-
The Flat Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
The Flat Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
The Flat Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
The Flat Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
The Flat Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
The Flat Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the Round Earth model.
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
well, that was a fun excercise in futility. man bishop has blown a gasket. or a seal. or something.
-
well, that was a fun excercise in futility. man bishop has blown a gasket. or a seal. or something.
Still waiting for those accounts which proves your model of the earth.
If you do not have accounts which contradict mine, I would appreciate it if you just admitted defeat. Thanks.
-
well, that was a fun excercise in futility. man bishop has blown a gasket. or a seal. or something.
Still waiting for those accounts which proves your model of the earth.
If you do not have accounts which contradict mine, I would appreciate it if you just admitted defeat. Thanks.
The round Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the flat Earth model.
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
-
The round Earth Literature has many personal accounts from multiple independent observers which clearly contradicts the flat Earth model.
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
Your model has no literature which demonstrates your model through experiment or reference. Believe me, I've looked.
Where are those accounts? I'm waiting for a single personal account which even suggests in the slightest that your celestial model is correct.
-
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
Your model has no literature which demonstrates your model through experiment or reference. Believe me, I've looked.
Where are those accounts? I'm waiting for a single personal account which even suggests that your celestial model is correct.
You don't need to wait for anything because you are standing on a round Earth right now. Don't waste your time on this.
-
You don't need to wait for anything because you are standing on a round Earth right now. Don't waste your time on this.
So you guys have no evidence? Is that what you're saying?
I think it is.
-
By the way, you ignored this on the other thread. Answer them, please.
How do you know temperature approaches absolute zero?
Because temperature drops the further away you move from the sun. Duh.
Ok, let's assume we're on the imaginary flat Earth again, and the Sun is a spotlight. So, temperature approaches absolute zero when regions are further away from the Sun. Based on your claim, I assume the "spotlight" Sun, rather than just light things up, heats things up too. You said, in the other thread about Astronomy, that within the Sun there's no stellar fusion occurring. Therefore, this means the Sun does not emit radiation since, you know, stellar fusion is what produces radiant and heat energy after all. So, without stellar fusion, what causes the Sun to emit "something" to heat us up? What powers the sun to do this? Why and how does the Sun can emit "something"? What is this "something" that, like radiation, warms things up? If you can give me a clear, logical, and evident claim about the mechanism that causes the Sun to do this, we will get back to the topic "further away from the Sun allows temperature to approach absolute zero".
By the way, this is what you've said:
There is no direct evidence that fusion is occurring within the sun. The theory of fusion is a theory only, and a flimsy one at that. Once man masters stellar fusion get back to me.
This is the definition of stellar nucleosynthesis (stellar fusion):
Stellar nucleosynthesis is the collective term for the nuclear reactions taking place in stars to build the nuclei of the heavier elements. The processes involved began to be understood early in the twentieth century, when it was first realized that the energy released from nuclear reactions accounted for the longevity of the Sun as a source of heat and light. source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_fusion)
That is basically what I've said. I've said molecular movement ceases and matter emits/absorb no energy (heat) as absolute zero approaches. ΔS = 0.
The end.
Yes, what about it? Near zero Kelvin temperatures have been reached in laboratory settings.
I'm fine with that. Yes, there are records of temperatures reaching near absolute zero, as done in various laboratories. However, those experiments are done in a closed system. Matter would be close to impossible even at near absolute zero because molecular movement ceases and atomic movement begins to stop. There are so far no regions on Earth, as we know it, ever reached near absolute zero. Therefore, Earth plus near absolute zero will still be an impossible combination. However, if you want to discredit this claim, care to tell me what makes near absolute zero plus Earth a possible combination? What mechanism makes it possible? How and why is it possible? Why should it be possible?
Answer these, please.
-
You don't need to wait for anything because you are standing on a round Earth right now. Don't waste your time on this.
So you guys have no evidence? Is that what you're saying?
I think it is.
There are evidences, yet you will discard them as irrelevant. What's the point of giving you evidences that will simply be rejected by you? You might as well go find those evidences by yourself.
-
By the way, you ignored this on the other thread. Answer, please.
Off Topic.
Lets get back on topic: You have no evidence or references for the very basics of your model.
There are evidences, yet you will discard them as irrelevant. What's the point of giving you evidences that will simply be rejected by you? You might as well go find those evidences by yourself.
If you tell me to "look at this starmap and assume that this constellation is visible from Argentina" I will, of course, reject it.
But if you show through reference that an astronomer or explorer saw a certain star which should not appear in the Flat Earth model at his location, then that's prime evidence for your model. But you cannot even give me that. Because the Round Earth model is incorrect.
-
By the way, you ignored this on the other thread. Answer, please.
Off Topic.
Lets get back on topic: You have no evidence or references for the very basics of your model.
Then go back to the other thread and answer them. Just admit you can't, because your claims are baseless and irrelevant. I win: it's true.
Go answer them now and you still might have a chance to redeem yourself.
There are evidences, yet you will discard them as irrelevant. What's the point of giving you evidences that will simply be rejected by you? You might as well go find those evidences by yourself.
If you tell me to "look at this starmap and assume that this constellation is visible from Argentina" I will, of course, reject it.
But if you show through reference that an astronomer or explorer saw a certain star which should not be, then that's prime evidence of your model. But you can't even give me that. Because the Round Earth model is incorrect.
Stop with your fantasies and wake up.
The Round Earth model is never incorrect. If it is, all my geography classes would've been part of the conspiracy. All the maps from the Age of Discovery would be fake. Actually, since all the sciences I took is consistent with the Round Earth model, all of them would be part of the conspiracy too.
-
who the heck is banana republic?
-
Where are your personal accounts and quotes which proves your model?
bishop, get this through your self-deluded skull: personal accounts and quotes are not by themselves proof. not from me, not from you. i swear to god, if you post another "personal account" with "quotes" from a 19th-century drunken idiot who was out to prove the literalness of the bible, i am going to hunt you down myself.
i could post pages of personal quotes for you, including observations of the direct effects of a round earth such as bottom-lit clouds, time-lapse star trails, "sunken" cities, moon phases throughout a month rather than a day, oceans with pointy hats floating on them, people only seeing one side of the moon, navigation via different constellations in the sky at different latitudes, satellites floating by clear night skies, etc. etc. i could also post pages upon pages of astronaut transcript. i could post endless pages from the tens of thousands of textbook and other scientific literature demonstrating round earth. but i'll spare everyone the bother, because it would be boring for re'ers, and fe'ers would just say "it's all a conspiracy". so what's the point?
re mechanics are entirely self-consistent and easy to understand, while fe mechanics are full of giant holes, huge leaps of faith, and fundamental requirement of subscriptions to massive and unfounded conspiracy theory. and hell, you can't even explain how the sun works, for christ's sake.
the fact remains, bishop: you have not answered a single challenge i have thrown at you. not one. the title of this thread: "where is the south celestial pole located?" - you have not answered. (other than "beyond the ice wall", anywhere withing 360 degrees.) you have clearly stated and supported in other threads that there is a south celestial pole, and it is above the earth, and is visible. so where the fuck is the south celestial pole?. answer a single question directly for once. i challenge you. give me longitude, or better yet, declination and right ascension, visible from a reachable location of your choosing.
bishop, you have suggested that stars are massive, and then that stars are chemical motes the size of dust. you have said the south celestial pole is beyond the ice wall above the earth, and then under the earth.
you have also blatantly lied to this forum by submitting a picture that you stated was a lake level, that i proved was blatantly false. that makes you a pissant cowardly liar.
also bishop, don't forget about this post (http://"http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17793.msg310851#msg310851"), where you got completely owned and are suddenly silent on.
-
This is what, the third time I've told you to stop posting in this manner? Enough. I won't tell you again.
-
You take time to warn posts (albeit ones that are pushing it) without responding to their content?
Interesting. ;)
-
This is what, the third time I've told you to stop posting in this manner? Enough. I won't tell you again.
apologies. i wouldn't blame you for banning me, and it would actually be a blessing - but i will respect the rules and your warnings, and do better. plus you are right and that's not good debate form.
but man, can you blame me with bishop? his m.o. of never answering direct questions, his willingness to blatantly lie, and propensity for self-contradiction - all the while copy/pasting robot ham over and over as if it were the direct word of god and we should believe it as such; then to figure out he's a troll after all that...you get my point. it's enough to drive a guy to say...things. i'm sure troll bishop is giggling at all of this.
-
Thats a creepy image. Giggling Bishop?
eeayag!
-
Thats a creepy image. Giggling Bishop?
eeayag!
do you know where you got the image of your avatar from? that is seriously freaky. i'd like to see a bigger picture of that.
-
I honestly cannot remember. I'll try to find it again though.
-
Bumper cars.
-
ok, on the RE model, the south celestial pole would be: 90 degrees south. period. same as earth's south rotational pole.
on the FE model...it would not EXIST! there IS no south pole on the FE, that's the "edge" where the "ice wall" would supposedly stop you. that is, if "the conspiracy" didn't stop you first...
BTW, the earth's MAGNETIC poles, which compasses use, are not in the same spot. in fact, they slowly MOVE, according to this article:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm
Ever heard of a constellation called the "southen cross"? it would be nearly overhead all the time if you were at the south pole...but FErs deny it's existence!
-
BTW, the earth's MAGNETIC poles, which compasses use, are not in the same spot. in fact, they slowly MOVE, according to this article:
And?
-
BTW, the earth's MAGNETIC poles, which compasses use, are not in the same spot. in fact, they slowly MOVE, according to this article:
And?
As for my train of thought.
A magnetic pole that shifts polarity implies this to this:
/------\ /------\
S________NP________S
\ /------\ /------
SS________NP_______
NP = North pole
S = South
Whichever part of the ice wall the magnetic south pole is on it would need to jump around...
Since the shift has reversed the poles before, the center of your FE used to have the NP on the edge.
-
Those are crappy magnetic field lines above the FE surface.
/----\
-
Keeping with your 'drawings':
Current:
/------\NP/------\
\------/SP\------/
Flipped polarity:
/------\SP/------\
\------/NP\------/
-
what's your point, TheEngineer? are you saying the south magnetic pole is UNDER the north pole?
-
Uh, yea. That's my point.
-
He's quick. ::)
-
if that were true, EVERY compass would point UP or DOWN!
like this picture:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:CampoMagnetico.png
you obviously know NOTHING about magnetism. go back to school.
-
if that were true, EVERY compass would point UP or DOWN!
At the poles, and the ice wall, that is exactly what they would do. Just like the RE. Please teach me about magnetism, as I am not sure I know your version of it.
-
if that were true, EVERY compass would point UP or DOWN!
ROFL. Might want to rethink that.
-
So... um... maybe I'm thick.
Below are the two images I have: First, what I've always believed FE to believe. Second is the only way I could see the south pole being "underneath" the north pole. What do I have wrong?
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/Kaithran/untitled.jpg)
-
The bottom picture of yours is correct. Well, the poles are wrong, but that's for another discussion...
The magnetic field lines exit the north pole and rejoin at the south pole. The south pole in your top picture is simply the furthest outwards you can follow the field. At the ice wall, the field would be vertical and would pass through the surface of the FE on its way to the other pole.
-
The bottom picture of yours is correct. Well, the poles are wrong, but that's for another discussion...
The magnetic field lines exit the north pole and rejoin at the south pole. The south pole in your top picture is simply the furthest outwards you can follow the field. At the ice wall, the field would be vertical and would pass through the surface of the FE on its way to the other pole.
I never really thought much about it because Gulliver agreed with something said long ago about the field, but if we were to traverse the underside of the Earth, would going towards the middle mean you're heading south?
-
Yes.
-
The magnetic field doesn't just snapped opposites. It rotates! :o
You have the end result, not the intermediate.
-
Oh! So they're BOTH right?
Does the magnetic field go around the FE in a spherical shape?
THAT would be ironic, wouldn't it, Engy? ;D
-
The magnetic field doesn't just snapped opposites. It rotates! :o
What?
-
Oh! So they're BOTH right?
Does the magnetic field go around the FE in a spherical shape?
THAT would be ironic, wouldn't it, Engy? ;D
Yes.
Yes.
I suppose.
-
So, is this a new page in FE theory, or is it an older theory I've never heard before?
(It's kinda hard to keep track. :-X)
-
It's in the FAQ.
-
Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"
A: The magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as with the RE. Thus, the magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, just like on the RE. The magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth. The Ice Wall is not the south pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the earth that you can follow the magnetic field. The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the aurora australis.
Um... This doesn't even make sense to me. Magnetic south is geographic north and magnetic north is under the earth?? Wha.... Engy, are you sure that's right? I'm confused again. :-[
-
Common convention is that magnetic north is near geographic north, and magnetic south is near geographic south. However, this is incorrect, as can be seen by simply using a compass. The north ends repel, so the north end of the compass points to the magnetic south pole. Magnetic fields are vectors and thus have direction, so it does matter which is which.
-
Common convention is that magnetic north is near geographic north, and magnetic south is near geographic south. However, this is incorrect, as can be seen by simply using a compass. The north ends repel, so the north end of the compass points to the magnetic south pole. Magnetic fields are vectors and thus have direction, so it does matter which is which.
That's doesn't, right?
So... The terms don't really matter, they're just names? We could just lable the north end of a compass "south," and that would basically be correct, right? As far as magnetic poles are concerned, that is?
-
It does matter, as magnetic fields are vectors, and as such, have direction. Flipping the direction will result in changing the sense of the other vectors that are orthogonal to it.
-
It does matter, as magnetic fields are vectors, and as such, have direction. Flipping the direction will result in changing the sense of the other vectors that are orthogonal to it.
Engy, what I was saying though, is if we CALLED the North magnetic (south geographical) pole "South" and the South magnetic (north geographical) pole "North," it's just the same, names don't mean anything. Is that true?
(I'm trying to get my brain around it.)
-
Engy, what I was saying though, is if we CALLED the North magnetic (south geographical) pole "South" and the South magnetic (north geographical) pole "North," it's just the same, names don't mean anything. Is that true?
Yes, that is true. However, it is defined that the magnetic field emanates from the north end and returns at the south end. But the opposite could have been chosen. If you pick one orientation, you must maintain that orientation or your vectors will be meaningless.
-
Okay, got it. Thank you! ;D
-
The magnetic field doesn't just snapped opposites. It rotates! :o
What?
I think he is referring to the between state for the rotating poles. Like flipping a quarter doesn't 'snap' from heads to tails but rotates. Still, quotes would be nice Yiak. I was lost at first too.
BTW, the earth's MAGNETIC poles, which compasses use, are not in the same spot. in fact, they slowly MOVE, according to this article:
And?
As for my train of thought.
A magnetic pole that shifts polarity implies this to this:
/------\ /------\
S________NP________S
\ /------\ /------\
SS________NP________
NP = North pole
S = South
Whichever part of the ice wall the magnetic south pole is on it would need to jump around...
Since the shift has reversed the poles before, the center of your FE used to have the NP on the edge.
-
It still doesn't make sense.
-
The poles rotate around Earth. At one point on RE the North pole was jutting out of the equator. This doesn't make sense to me on FE. :-\
-
I don't see why.
-
Then whats your explanation for the poles switching sides over and over? Not that the rotate but that they just completely inverse in polarity?
<sarcasm> ...I had a refrigerator magnet do that once. 8) </sarcasm>
-
The poles switch sides over and over? What?
-
Then whats your explanation for the poles switching sides over and over? Not that the rotate but that they just completely inverse in polarity?
Chaotic environment in the geomagnetic kinematic dynamo system.
-
Then whats your explanation for the poles switching sides over and over? Not that the rotate but that they just completely inverse in polarity?
Chaotic environment in the geomagnetic kinematic dynamo system.
Has this been covered before? or could you elaborate?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
As for how it relates to FET, I'm not sure if TE would explain it; cause I sure as hell have no idea.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
As for how it relates to FET, I'm not sure if TE would explain it; cause I sure as hell have no idea.
Yes, I too am in uncharted territory. But my immediate research has yet to mention poles that reverse. I see magnetic field expansion...
In any case, I would like to know more TheEngineer. :D
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal)
-
Perhaps I misinterpreted sayings like "the magnetic field spontaneously flips over into the opposite orientation" when I was young and I associated this with the migration of the poles. I know too little at the moment to debate this further.