The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: indifference on July 12, 2006, 10:32:23 AM
-
Ok, please work this out for me. I'm looking to get my head around the FE logic, but I'm stuck over this one:
Last year I got on a plane in Tokyo. (Right side of the map). I flew to Singapore and then to London, which took about 22 hours in 2 flights.
I WAS HEADING LEFT ACROSS THE MAP.
After a week in London I continued to New York, (LEFT AGAIN), 9 hour flight. 5 hours more and I landed in Seattle, LEFT AGAIN.
After a week I boarded a plane in Seattle and flew back to Tokyo, which took 9 HOURS. (LEFT AGAIN).
TOKYO - LONDON 22 hrs WEST
LONDON - NEW YORK 9 hrs WEST
NEW YORK - SEATTLE 5 hrs LEFT
TOTAL 36 hours going WEST
AFTER GOING WEST FOR 36 HOURS IN THE AIR, HOW DID I GET BACK TO MY STARTING POINT IN THE FAR EAST IN 9 HOURS?
How did I end up in Tokyo only 9 hours after Seattle?
My ticket did say AROUND the world, but let's assume for the time being this is NOT what happened.
Would you like me to scan my ticket receipts and post them? I'm 100% serious!! How did I get back to Tokyo in 9 hours?
I would appreciate a genuine answer from a FE'er.
-
the correct term is east, not left ;)
-
Actually deadlock, east and west are not safe to use in these kid of forums. As the FE compas has magnetic north as the middle of the world, circumnavigation is made posible through that manner. This makes east reletive to where you are, althought on an atlas east is always "right" not "left" last time i checked
-
Actually deadlock, east and west are not safe to use in these kid of forums. As the FE compas has magnetic north as the middle of the world, circumnavigation is made posible through that manner. This makes east reletive to where you are, althought on an atlas east is always "right" not "left" last time i checked
The compass in my hand on my plane was telling me that I was going constantly West, now for this to occour on a FE the polane would need to be constantly changing direction in order to remain heading west.. why could I not feel the plane turn at all?
-
The compass in my hand on my plane was telling me that I was going constantly West, now for this to occour on a FE the polane would need to be constantly changing direction in order to remain heading west.. why could I not feel the plane turn at all?
Constantly, but very slowly, changing. Just like REers use the explanation "The Earth looks flat when you're standing on it because the curvature is so small," FEers get to use the explanation: "Circumnavigatory trajectoriesa feel straight when you're on them because the curvature is so small."
-
The compass in my hand on my plane was telling me that I was going constantly West, now for this to occour on a FE the polane would need to be constantly changing direction in order to remain heading west.. why could I not feel the plane turn at all?
It happens to pilots all the time. It's called spatial disorientation. A slight bank in the aircraft will barely register on the fluid in the middle ear. As the aircraft continues the turn, the fluid settles back down, making the pilot believe the aircraft has ended it's banking manuver.
-
You're forgetting something though. A plane heads unnoticeably (at least to the naked eye) downwards as it banks. Using this logic, if a plane is continually banking to "circle" the "center of the earth", then it would end up at a considerably lower altitude than when it began, which we know is not true. Also, a flight between Seattle and Tokyo would take much shorter than a flight from the western most part of Africa to the eastern most part of South America (these flights are about the same distance) using the FE map, in which everything expands from the center, making everything farther apart the further you get from the center. However, the two flights take about the same amount of time. Explain that one, FE fucktards.
-
You're forgetting something though. A plane heads unnoticeably (at least to the naked eye) downwards as it banks. Using this logic, if a plane is continually banking to "circle" the "center of the earth", then it would end up at a considerably lower altitude than when it began, which we know is not true. Also, a flight between Seattle and Tokyo would take much shorter than a flight from the western most part of Africa to the eastern most part of South America (these flights are about the same distance) using the FE map, in which everything expands from the center, making everything farther apart the further you get from the center. However, the two flights take about the same amount of time. Explain that one, FE fucktards.
How do you know how fast you're going in an aeroplane? Usually there's just a speedometer on the TV-screens-in-the-backs-of-seats. How easy would it be to fake the actual speed of the plane?
Excuse me calling conspiracy on this one - I know you hate it - but this is my real, honest explanation here.
-
How do you know how fast you're going in an aeroplane? Usually there's just a speedometer on the TV-screens-in-the-backs-of-seats. How easy would it be to fake the actual speed of the plane?
Excuse me calling conspiracy on this one - I know you hate it - but this is my real, honest explanation here.
Holy Jesus! Are you seriously suggesting that all air operators are faking the speed? Are the pilots "in on it"? This is just insane. :P
-
Holy Jesus! Are you seriously suggesting that all air operators are faking the speed? Are the pilots "in on it"? This is just insane. :P
Not at all - the autopilot could easily lie to the pilots themselves as well. Almost all airline pilots are only in control of the plane at takeoff and landing.
-
What would the airline manufacturers (or more precisely, the computer software engineers) have to gain from "faking" aircraft speed? Are these engineers also part of the conspiracy?
-
What would the airline manufacturers (or more precisely, the computer software engineers) have to gain from "faking" aircraft speed? Are these engineers also part of the conspiracy?
Boeing, British Airways, etc., mostly have massive subsidies to gain from the government (this is conspiracy-free, hard-grounded fact. You can probably get the figures from the website or annual general report of each company). Millions of dollars worth of subsidization (enough to stop your industry crashing and burning (no pun intended)) is a good enough reason to fiddle a few numbers on some computer screen. It's possible the airlines don't even know or care why - all they know is that they government will pay them to change the numbers and keep quiet about it.
-
No. You see, the people that make that computer software would be fearing for the lives of the people in the planes those computers get sent to. A few miscrunched numbers, and the entire guidance system can be literally thousands of miles off. There's no way the programmers would just silently accept the government's wants. That being said, I want to take this time to apologize for my earlier actions. Most of what I said probably belonged in the anger forums thing, it's just I find the notion of a flat earth so utterly ridiculous, that I cannot comprehend someone believing in it, and I acted thus per my reactions. It was something I shouldn't have done. Anyone that was insulted by any of my posts, I apologize, but the evidence I brought up in them still remains valid.
-
No. You see, the people that make that computer software would be fearing for the lives of the people in the planes those computers get sent to. A few miscrunched numbers, and the entire guidance system can be literally thousands of miles off. There's no way the programmers would just silently accept the government's wants. That being said, I want to take this time to apologize for my earlier actions. Most of what I said probably belonged in the anger forums thing, it's just I find the notion of a flat earth so utterly ridiculous, that I cannot comprehend someone believing in it, and I acted thus per my reactions. It was something I shouldn't have done. Anyone that was insulted by any of my posts, I apologize, but the evidence I brought up in them still remains valid.
Apology accepted.
In response to the rest of your post: The GUI displayed in the back-of-seat-TV-screens blatantly isn't directly connected to the actual software which guides the plane. Even if the Earth was round and there was no conspiracy, I'd tell you that the speedometer readings were taken from the exterior of the plane using factors like air resistance and the emission of fuel.
-
Both of which are completely reliable factors, unless you're going to say that the government has also been telling scientists to tell us half-truths and whole lies about science for thousands of years.
-
Both of which are completely reliable factors, unless you're going to say that the government has also been telling scientists to tell us half-truths and whole lies about science for thousands of years.
No no, what I'm saying is that we can both agree that those speedometers aren't hooked up to the autopilot software directly, so there's no danger of diddling the numbers because it won't affect the actual running of the plane.
-
Even if the Earth was round and there was no conspiracy, I'd tell you that the speedometer readings were taken from the exterior of the plane using factors like air resistance and the emission of fuel.
So then the speed readings would be accurate, surely? Also, these readings would still need to be calculated through the onboard computer and sent to the monitors.
-
Just read your above post.
So how can you say that one component of the computer system, like autopilot, is using genuine calculations, but the computer that generates airspeed calculations are faked or purposefully mis-calculated?
-
Just read your above post.
So how can you say that one component of the computer system, like autopilot, is using genuine calculations, but the computer that generates airspeed calculations are faked or purposefully mis-calculated?
The internal calculations performed by the autopilot software are necessarily accurate in order for the plane to fly properly. The "calculations" "performed" by the speedometer equipment don't have to bear any relation to reality. The plane can be travelling at thousands of miles per hour to get quickly across a highly southern trajectory (like Australia to South America) and still the "speedometer" on the back of the seat can tell you you're flying at 500 miles per hour.
-
Either way, navigational equpiment such as magnetic compasses would be obsolete. The way magnetism works, is there is a magnetic pole running from the North Pole to the South Pole. For this to fit the FE theory, the entire disc of earth would be a magnet, since the entire outside edge of it would be the South Pole, and compasses would not work. Point and case, this should put a dent in your theory and guess what, you can't claim conspiracy on this one, because this is something outside of the government's control.
-
Just read your above post.
So how can you say that one component of the computer system, like autopilot, is using genuine calculations, but the computer that generates airspeed calculations are faked or purposefully mis-calculated?
The internal calculations performed by the autopilot software are necessarily accurate in order for the plane to fly properly. The "calculations" "performed" by the speedometer equipment don't have to bear any relation to reality. The plane can be travelling at thousands of miles per hour to get quickly across a highly southern trajectory (like Australia to South America) and still the "speedometer" on the back of the seat can tell you you're flying at 500 miles per hour.
This is quite a complex computer system you are talking about here. It has to adjust the actual aircraft speed depending on where on the disc it's flying. I wouldn't want to have to develop that kind of software. It sounds like the government has everything covered in FE theory.
-
Either way, navigational equpiment such as magnetic compasses would be obsolete. The way magnetism works, is there is a magnetic pole running from the North Pole to the South Pole. For this to fit the FE theory, the entire disc of earth would be a magnet, since the entire outside edge of it would be the South Pole, and compasses would not work. Point and case, this should put a dent in your theory and guess what, you can't claim conspiracy on this one, because this is something outside of the government's control.
You're right. But why wouldn't compasses work on a Flat Earth? The North Pole still emits a magnetic field, and the South pole exists, it's just an enormous ring around the outside of the Earth.
-
Dogplatter that notion of auto-pilot is insane!
first of all, if youre going "thousands of miles per hour" you would pass the sound barrier, and according to all accounts, the plane shakes like a thing possessed when it passes the sound barrier. A passenger plane's engines do not generate NEARLY the amount of thrust needed for the entire weight to get past the sound barrier. I know this from my friends father being a pilot, and he knows what he flys.
Having the airspeed not being accurate would be INCREDIBLY dangerous. Any small glitch in the autopilot and the pilots are supposed to take control, and not knowing how fast youre going would be very, very bad
-
You're forgetting something though. A plane heads unnoticeably (at least to the naked eye) downwards as it banks. Using this logic, if a plane is continually banking to "circle" the "center of the earth", then it would end up at a considerably lower altitude than when it began, which we know is not true.
Wow, this totally sounds like a problem that pilots/avionics would have absolutely no idea how to overcome. Now that you mention it, it's a miracle airplanes are able to stay in the air at all: last time I was in an airplane I'm pretty sure it made 180° turns -- one during takeoff, and another during landing. That's a total of 360° worth of turning, which is the same that it takes to go all the way around the (flat) world, so obviously the plane I was in ought to have crashed.
Wierd.
-
You're forgetting something though. A plane heads unnoticeably (at least to the naked eye) downwards as it banks. Using this logic, if a plane is continually banking to "circle" the "center of the earth", then it would end up at a considerably lower altitude than when it began, which we know is not true.
Wow, this totally sounds like a problem that pilots/avionics would have absolutely no idea how to overcome. Now that you mention it, it's a miracle airplanes are able to stay in the air at all: last time I was in an airplane I'm pretty sure it made 180° turns -- one during takeoff, and another during landing. That's a total of 360° worth of turning, which is the same that it takes to go all the way around the (flat) world, so obviously the plane I was in ought to have crashed.
Wierd.
Damn, I was thinking the same thing. It's amazing that I have not crashed (being a pilot and all), since I have made upwards of 720 degree turns and never came close to the ground. I guess I was just lucky physics forgot about me at the time.
-
I meant in no way that the plane dips in a drastic measure, in fact it is very slight, but the dipping factor is still there. For the flat-earth theory to be correct, the plane would to be in a constant turn, and therefore be at a lower altitude than it originally started at (I'm refferring to the leg of the journey where it's supposed to remain a constant altitude). I'm sure our pilot here can tell you that doesn't happen (at least not on a straight trajectory) and therefore, your theory about planes circulating the North Pole are incorrect.
And Dogplatter, why wouldn't compasses work on a flat earth? Didn't I just tell you in my post above. If the South Pole is the entire outer rim of the disc planet, then there would have to be an infinite number of magnetic axises stretching from the North Pole to the South Pole for this fact to remain true. That means that all 360 degrees of the circle would be taken up by magnetic pulls, and when the entire planet is a magnet (instead of just one line running from the North to the South Pole straight through the center of the earth) then a compass could not point to any kind of North.
-
And Dogplatter, why wouldn't compasses work on a flat earth? Didn't I just tell you in my post above. If the South Pole is the entire outer rim of the disc planet, then there would have to be an infinite number of magnetic axises stretching from the North Pole to the South Pole for this fact to remain true. That means that all 360 degrees of the circle would be taken up by magnetic pulls, and when the entire planet is a magnet (instead of just one line running from the North to the South Pole straight through the center of the earth) then a compass could not point to any kind of North.
I don't understand what you are saying. The RE has an infinite number of mag. field lines running south to north. The FE would have the same set-up, but with them eminating from the rim and going into the center. Compasses line up with the field lines outside the core not the ones inside it. Also, in the RE, there is not just one line running through the earth, there are an infinite number.
-
And Dogplatter, why wouldn't compasses work on a flat earth? Didn't I just tell you in my post above. If the South Pole is the entire outer rim of the disc planet, then there would have to be an infinite number of magnetic axises stretching from the North Pole to the South Pole for this fact to remain true. That means that all 360 degrees of the circle would be taken up by magnetic pulls, and when the entire planet is a magnet (instead of just one line running from the North to the South Pole straight through the center of the earth) then a compass could not point to any kind of North.
If a compass is pointing South, then it is invariably pointing North.
-
I meant in no way that the plane dips in a drastic measure, in fact it is very slight, but the dipping factor is still there. For the flat-earth theory to be correct, the plane would to be in a constant turn, and therefore be at a lower altitude than it originally started at (I'm refferring to the leg of the journey where it's supposed to remain a constant altitude). I'm sure our pilot here can tell you that doesn't happen (at least not on a straight trajectory) and therefore, your theory about planes circulating the North Pole are incorrect.
One of the maneuvers required for a pilot's licence is to hold a 45 degree bank and make a complete 360 degree turn without deviating from altitude. As people have pilots licences, this is obviously possible.
-
OK,
I appreciate the discussion that has evolved, but I'm not yet satisfied by any concrete answer. Let's try to stay on topic:
The only answer I have gotten out of this is that I have been tricked by a change in speed and subtle turn around by the plane.
In other words, I get on the last leg in Seattle and the plane secretly turns 180, than flies without refuling at what must be faster than sound back to Japan, all across the map, EAST.
Also, keep in mind that I'm the only guy on the last leg who actually came from all the way in Japan. The rest got on in Chicago and Seattle.
Is this flight maneuver setup to specifically trick me, and, how does the 'tricking' schedule account for the coverups necessary in the 300+ other people on the plane, all with their respective travel schedules?
This is a simple everyday trip. We need more than an FE theory to explain it. Please, respond with some facts!
-
The FE would have the same set-up, but with them eminating from the rim and going into the center.
Magnets don't work like that though. A flat circle shaped magnet behaves like a bar magnet over its surface area. So in other words, magnetic fields lines would be going down INTO the surface of the earth. This makes it completely useless for navagation as the tendancy of the compass would be to point toward the sky or to point toward the ground.
You would need to create a magnetic field some other way that gives the appearance of a uniform field across the surface of the earth without tearing the earth apart.
-
Magnets don't work like that though. A flat circle shaped magnet behaves like a bar magnet over its surface area. So in other words, magnetic fields lines would be going down INTO the surface of the earth.
Unless you are visualizing a magnet that's north mag. pole is over the surface of one side and the south mag. pole is over the other side, magnets dont work like that. And that is not how the FE's magnetic field is set up.
-
OK,
I appreciate the discussion that has evolved, but I'm not yet satisfied by any concrete answer. Let's try to stay on topic:
The only answer I have gotten out of this is that I have been tricked by a change in speed and subtle turn around by the plane.
In other words, I get on the last leg in Seattle and the plane secretly turns 180, than flies without refuling at what must be faster than sound back to Japan, all across the map, EAST.
Also, keep in mind that I'm the only guy on the last leg who actually came from all the way in Japan. The rest got on in Chicago and Seattle.
Is this flight maneuver setup to specifically trick me, and, how does the 'tricking' schedule account for the coverups necessary in the 300+ other people on the plane, all with their respective travel schedules?
This is a simple everyday trip. We need more than an FE theory to explain it. Please, respond with some facts!
Why would it have to turn around? You can circumnavigate the Flat Earth to the same or an extremely similar effect.
-
Unless you are visualizing a magnet that's north mag. pole is over the surface of one side and the south mag. pole is over the other side, magnets dont work like that. And that is not how the FE's magnetic field is set up.
A disk shaped magnet works like that. One surface is north, the other side is south. You can try to cut it into a different shape, but then you'll find you have a bar magnet.
In order to get a field of magnetism that can be used for navagation over a flat earth, you'd need a magnetic field with field lines pointing toward the ice wall. In order to get this, we can visualize a bar magnet with it's north pole toward the ice wall. But we have a problem. This only covers a portion of the Earth. If we envision a bunch of bar magnets (enough to cover the Earth's surface) that works. But we have another problem. At our geographic north pole, all of our magnets are trying to push each other apart. We have another problem. This particular arrangement will create a different magnetic field, one that will not allow the northern lights to occur.
The disk-shaped magnet I suggest will create a magnetic field that will allow the northern lights to occur. However, it is useless for navagation. Your suggestion will be useful for navagation, but won't allow the northern lights to occur. A magnetic sphere will satisfy both knowns. We know this because we can model it using field equations based on known and freely observable magnetic interactions. Known and freely observable magnetic interactions means this: we can determine these equations ourselves (which I have done). We can know we're not dealing with "tainted" field equations given to us by the government because we can derive this information ourselves.
-
Unless you are visualizing a magnet that's north mag. pole is over the surface of one side and the south mag. pole is over the other side, magnets dont work like that. And that is not how the FE's magnetic field is set up.
A disk shaped magnet works like that. One surface is north, the other side is south. You can try to cut it into a different shape, but then you'll find you have a bar magnet.
In order to get a field of magnetism that can be used for navagation over a flat earth, you'd need a magnetic field with field lines pointing toward the ice wall. In order to get this, we can visualize a bar magnet with it's north pole toward the ice wall. But we have a problem. This only covers a portion of the Earth. If we envision a bunch of bar magnets (enough to cover the Earth's surface) that works. But we have another problem. At our geographic north pole, all of our magnets are trying to push each other apart. We have another problem. This particular arrangement will create a different magnetic field, one that will not allow the northern lights to occur.
The disk-shaped magnet I suggest will create a magnetic field that will allow the northern lights to occur. However, it is useless for navagation. Your suggestion will be useful for navagation, but won't allow the northern lights to occur. A magnetic sphere will satisfy both knowns. We know this because we can model it using field equations based on known and freely observable magnetic interactions. Known and freely observable magnetic interactions means this: we can determine these equations ourselves (which I have done). We can know we're not dealing with "tainted" field equations given to us by the government because we can derive this information ourselves.
Well said. The Danimal (a.k.a. Araltih) concurs with the above statement and wishes to send his congratulations and best regards to darkghost for a clean blow to the flat-earthers. Well done.
-
Unless you are visualizing a magnet that's north mag. pole is over the surface of one side and the south mag. pole is over the other side, magnets dont work like that. And that is not how the FE's magnetic field is set up.
A disk shaped magnet works like that. One surface is north, the other side is south. You can try to cut it into a different shape, but then you'll find you have a bar magnet.
In order to get a field of magnetism that can be used for navagation over a flat earth, you'd need a magnetic field with field lines pointing toward the ice wall. In order to get this, we can visualize a bar magnet with it's north pole toward the ice wall. But we have a problem. This only covers a portion of the Earth. If we envision a bunch of bar magnets (enough to cover the Earth's surface) that works. But we have another problem. At our geographic north pole, all of our magnets are trying to push each other apart. We have another problem. This particular arrangement will create a different magnetic field, one that will not allow the northern lights to occur.
The disk-shaped magnet I suggest will create a magnetic field that will allow the northern lights to occur. However, it is useless for navagation. Your suggestion will be useful for navagation, but won't allow the northern lights to occur. A magnetic sphere will satisfy both knowns. We know this because we can model it using field equations based on known and freely observable magnetic interactions. Known and freely observable magnetic interactions means this: we can determine these equations ourselves (which I have done). We can know we're not dealing with "tainted" field equations given to us by the government because we can derive this information ourselves.
Quite nice.
Though I don't believe there could only be two magnetic field possibilities as is suggested.
Remember, magnetic fields only need certain configurations of electric currents revolving; the example of which being, well, Round Earth. While I see no reason for this to be impossible on a Flat Earth, I realize that it would be time consuming to create a model of how FE's magnetic field equates on a Flat Earth to the magnetic field on a round Earth. I may try my hand at some concepts, but magnetic field stuff is sticky business. We still don't know that much about magnets.
-
Remember, magnetic fields only need certain configurations of electric currents revolving; the example of which being, well, Round Earth. While I see no reason for this to be impossible on a Flat Earth, I realize that it would be time consuming to create a model of how FE's magnetic field equates on a Flat Earth to the magnetic field on a round Earth. I may try my hand at some concepts, but magnetic field stuff is sticky business. We still don't know that much about magnets.
Well consider that there is only one actual observed magnetic field on Earth. So, our field possibilities are extremely limited by that notion. Whatever explanation we come up with, we're no doubt going to have an intense magnetic force concentrated right over the North pole. There is no force in a spherical model, but there would be in a flat model as the fields would be always at opposition over that point.
-
Unless you are visualizing a magnet that's north mag. pole is over the surface of one side and the south mag. pole is over the other side, magnets dont work like that. And that is not how the FE's magnetic field is set up.
A disk shaped magnet works like that. One surface is north, the other side is south.
Isn't that what I just said?
In order to get a field of magnetism that can be used for navagation over a flat earth, you'd need a magnetic field with field lines pointing toward the ice wall.
The lines would actually point towards the north pole, just like the RE.
In order to get this, we can visualize a bar magnet with it's north pole toward the ice wall. But we have a problem. This only covers a portion of the Earth. If we envision a bunch of bar magnets (enough to cover the Earth's surface) that works.
This is Erasmus' visualization of the mag. field on the FE (I've put in my 2 cents about the actual arangement in the thread):
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1361
This particular arrangement will create a different magnetic field, one that will not allow the northern lights to occur.
Why?
Well consider that there is only one actual observed magnetic field on Earth.
The Earth's mag. field is just one of many mag. fields observed on earth.
-
That whole "the plane flies faster than the monitor in my seat tells me"-thing seems strange. I don't doubt that it's possible to fly the plane per autopilot at a certain speed and at the same time show a different speed on the passenger's monitors.
A simple test: Next time one of you flies on a route where the plane had to travel faster then it says, take out you PocketPC or whatever GPS-device you have and see how fast GPS says you're going.
You'll all agree with me when I say the personal GPS devices are not programmed to give you wrong numbers when you are flying on a certain route, the system on the plane itself seems possible, but myPocketPC lying as well just is a step too far.
-
You'll all agree with me when I say the personal GPS devices are not programmed to give you wrong numbers when you are flying on a certain route, the system on the plane itself seems possible, but myPocketPC lying as well just is a step too far.
There are many different FE models, but one thing they all perforce have in common is the belief that GPS data must be fake.
-
You'll all agree with me when I say the personal GPS devices are not programmed to give you wrong numbers when you are flying on a certain route, the system on the plane itself seems possible, but myPocketPC lying as well just is a step too far.
Using a GPS system onboard an aircraft in flight is prohibited at all times. The use of anything that recieves or transmits a radio signal is prohibited... could that be part of the big cover up?
-
You'll all agree with me when I say the personal GPS devices are not programmed to give you wrong numbers when you are flying on a certain route, the system on the plane itself seems possible, but myPocketPC lying as well just is a step too far.
Using a GPS system onboard an aircraft in flight is prohibited at all times. The use of anything that recieves or transmits a radio signal is prohibited... could that be part of the big cover up?
I don't see how the benefits of using a GPS device outweighs possibly interfering with air traffic control's attempt to make sure the pilot does what is necessary to maintain a safe airspace.
-
I know that it is prohibited.
Same with gameboys, but kids keep on using them.....
just try and see what it tells you.
How come they don't lie when you are in your car checking how fast you go (cars have/or have had mechanical speedometers)? Only when being on a plane they are supposed to give you wrong numbers? How come?
-
The lines would actually point towards the north pole, just like the RE.
However, the lines would be vertical over the surface of the Earth and not horizontal. Vertical lines will not give you an accurate navagational reading. The field lines would need to be horizontal relative to the Earth's surface to be useful as a form of navation. That means we'd need poles at the north pole and the ice wall.
This is Erasmus' visualization of the mag. field on the FE
This was one of my suggestions in my thread. However the magnetic field in that situation is not correctly aligned to give us the northern lights.
Why?
The magnetic field is the wrong shape. Charged particles would be crashing into the atmosphere during the daytime, not at night. You wouldn't ever be able to see the northern lights over the intensity of the sun.
The Earth's mag. field is just one of many mag. fields observed on earth.
There is only one "Earth's magnetic field". There are small localized fields found on Earth produced by ferrite minerals such as barium or strontium however we don't call these the "Earth's magnetic field."
-
Well consider that there is only one actual observed magnetic field on Earth. So, our field possibilities are extremely limited by that notion. Whatever explanation we come up with, we're no doubt going to have an intense magnetic force concentrated right over the North pole. There is no force in a spherical model, but there would be in a flat model as the fields would be always at opposition over that point.
Do you mean to say of magnetic fields in general or simply the magnetic fields of celestial bodies?
-
However, the lines would be vertical over the surface of the Earth and not horizontal.
They would only be vertical near the poles. Which is the same way as the RE.
That means we'd need poles at the north pole and the ice wall.
About time you understand.
The magnetic field is the wrong shape. Charged particles would be crashing into the atmosphere during the daytime, not at night. You wouldn't ever be able to see the northern lights over the intensity of the sun.
The aurora happens during the day as well. It just gets washed out.
There is only one "Earth's magnetic field". There are small localized fields found on Earth produced by ferrite minerals such as barium or strontium however we don't call these the "Earth's magnetic field."
You said:
Well consider that there is only one actual observed magnetic field on Earth.
There are numerous mag. fields on earth, and the Earth's field is one of them.
-
Do you mean to say of magnetic fields in general or simply the magnetic fields of celestial bodies?
Ah, my apologies for being obscure (and wrong) on this point. I am talking about the magnetic field of celestial bodies. In this discussion, we're talking about the magnetic field of Earth as a whole (the one we can use with a compass.) The magnetic model for a flat earth must conform to the magnetic field of Earth as a body (round or flat).
They would only be vertical near the poles. Which is the same way as the RE.
However, there are horizontal lines at lower latitudes in the real Earth, and not in the situation you are describing. All the lines would be vertical because they would be going up and away from the Earth, wrapping around the sides of the Earth, and going underneath the Earth.
About time you understand.
I've understood all along.
The aurora happens during the day as well. It just gets washed out.
That is not the point though. The point is that given the shape of the magnetic field under the flat earth scenario as you suggest a night time aurora will not happen. Thus, we should never see any auroras given the model you describe.
There are numerous mag. fields on earth, and the Earth's field is one of them.
Earth's field is the relevant field to this discussion. Again, my apologies for misstating this.