The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: voideng on September 27, 2006, 09:30:52 AM
-
I understand why True North and Magnetic North are different under the Spherical Earth Theory, but why would they be different under the Flat Earth Theory?
-
Same reason. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1361&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=magnetism&start=0)
-
In the Spherical Earth Theory, the True North, or Rotational North Pole represents the axis that the Earth spins upon, setting that angle between the Earth and Sun giving us seasons. Also within the Spherical Earth Theory, there is a spinning mantle of iron producing a dynamo effect generating a global magnetic field extending from the Magnetic North Pole to the Magnetic South Pole. The Flat Earth theory precludes a spinning Earth making each of this negligible; and with the models presented on this board, the Magnetic North and True North positions would be the same.
-
Because the Ice Wall Guardians messed with the ice wall.
(http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5807/icewallji4.jpg)
-
LOL I thought it was a thread asking *me* a question. North? Northrider5.... see?
-
The Flat Earth theory precludes a spinning Earth making each of this negligible; and with the models presented on this board, the Magnetic North and True North positions would be the same.
Um, true north is the centre of the disc. Done and done.
-
The Flat Earth theory precludes a spinning Earth making each of this negligible; and with the models presented on this board, the Magnetic North and True North positions would be the same.
Um, true north is the centre of the disc. Done and done.
Not quite. What makes the magnetic field in the FE, then? Since the earth doesn't rotate... any 'rotation' in it's core would slow down and stop.
If the 'core' is simply magnetic (No rotation required), there would be no deviation in the magnetic field caused by core position, if the field was a result of fluctuations in the "Universal accelerator" then I would think there would be fluctuations in the acceleration , hence the illusion of gravity would modulate with the greater deviations in the magnetic field.
-
If the 'core' is simply magnetic (No rotation required), there would be no deviation in the magnetic field caused by core position,
Sure there would. If you move a magment around, the north pole of that magnet moves. Pretty straightforward, no?
-
The Flat Earth theory precludes a spinning Earth making each of this negligible; and with the models presented on this board, the Magnetic North and True North positions would be the same.
Um, true north is the centre of the disc. Done and done.
Not quite. What makes the magnetic field in the FE, then? Since the earth doesn't rotate... any 'rotation' in it's core would slow down and stop.
If the 'core' is simply magnetic (No rotation required), there would be no deviation in the magnetic field caused by core position, if the field was a result of fluctuations in the "Universal accelerator" then I would think there would be fluctuations in the acceleration , hence the illusion of gravity would modulate with the greater deviations in the magnetic field.
That's all fine and dandy if it weren't for the fact that there is no definitive theory for the way FE's core works or if it even is a core.
-
If the 'core' is simply magnetic (No rotation required), there would be no deviation in the magnetic field caused by core position,
Sure there would. If you move a magment around, the north pole of that magnet moves. Pretty straightforward, no?
So this giant magnet underneath the Earth (with one normal pole, and one circular one, however that may work), just spontaneously shifts a few degrees now and again? Oh, and how would pole reversal work with a solid state magnetic core?
-
So this giant magnet underneath the Earth (with one normal pole, and one circular one, however that may work),
Did you click on the link? There's a whole thread about how it might work. I provided the link just for you, and this is the thanks I get?
... just spontaneously shifts a few degrees now and again? Oh, and how would pole reversal work with a solid state magnetic core?
You're right. The notion of large portions of the Earth's bulk moving and shifting around over long time periods is just perposterous....
-
If the 'core' is simply magnetic (No rotation required), there would be no deviation in the magnetic field caused by core position,
Sure there would. If you move a magment around, the north pole of that magnet moves. Pretty straightforward, no?
In the real world, it IS straghtforward. The earth rotates.. particles from the sun... lots of motion and stuff happening.
The geo-centric FE, however, is not spinning or orbiting or anything. What would be moving this 'magnet' around?
-
LOL, I didn't see the link. You need to label things better... like "Here's a link!"
We're not all mathematical geniuses like you, you know. Have some pity on our primitive minds now and then.
-
Most of the movement of the surface portions of the Earth move at a very slow rate, few inches per year, while the magnetic North moves at a significantly faster rate.
http://deeptow.whoi.edu/northpole.html
http://www.tgo.uit.no/articl/roadto.html
-
What would be moving this 'magnet' around?
Maybe plate tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics)? or possibly convection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_mantle#Movement)? (Don't you wish you had thought of that before asking?)
-
We're not all mathematical geniuses like you, you know.
Yeah, sorry about that. I keep forgetting how few people have studied the Theory of Links Being A Different Colour Than Other Text..... Calculus.
-
Wouldn't the convection/mantel theory provide stronger support for the Spherical Earth Theory than the Flat Earth Theory?
-
Wouldn't the convection/mantel theory provide stronger support for the Spherical Earth Theory than the Flat Earth Theory?
Why? Just because some of the things geologists say about the planet are wrong, doesn't mean everything is.
-
Ok, I read that referenced thread.
Here's the problem with your theory:
First, it's a hypothesis, for it to start being testable, the earth has to be flat.
The Flat Earth is also a hypothesis, which can be proven wrong.
See the circularity? It's like saying Harry Potter is real because his friend Hermione acts like he is in the book. If you can prove the book to be fiction, the hypothesis fails.
As such, any hypothesis which bases itself on the failed hypothesis also fails.
Zetetecism don't fly, slick. You have to have an established base for your hypothesis to rest.
-
First, it's a hypothesis, for it to start being testable, the earth has to be flat.
What? Where do you get that idea? And what do you think of, "For the RE explanation of magnetism to be testable, the Earth has to be round, therefore both RE magnetism and RE itself are false." That's ridiculous. You just make a prediction and check to see if it's true.
Zetetecism don't fly, slick.
Thank you for that witty and original moniker.
-
What would be moving this 'magnet' around?
Maybe plate tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics)? or possibly convection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_mantle#Movement)? (Don't you wish you had thought of that before asking?)
Both of those theories are firmly grounded on a spherical earth. If you could prove the earth is not a shere... those would also be invalidated.
-
Both of those theories are firmly grounded on a spherical earth.
How so? It seems to me that they are firmly grounded in stuff moving around on top of other stuff, and that it is only incidental that the Earth is spherical in those theories.
-
First, it's a hypothesis, for it to start being testable, the earth has to be flat.
What? Where do you get that idea? And what do you think of, "For the RE explanation of magnetism to be testable, the Earth has to be round, therefore both RE magnetism and RE itself are false." That's ridiculous. You just make a prediction and check to see if it's true.
Zetetecism don't fly, slick.
Thank you for that witty and original moniker.
LOL As Wolfgang Pauli would say... That's not even wrong.
Meaning that if you have a hypothesis that is so defective you can't even test it... it's not only not right, but it doesn't even make it to wrong.
Your hypothesis starts out assuming the earth is flat and then constructs a series of magnets to emulate the magnetic field. You can't have a hypothesis start from something that can be proven wrong.
RE magnetics theory also starts from the assumption that the underlying theory (The earth is round) is true... countless predictions and tests, peer reviewed results and even direct observation backs up the validity of that argument.
It's like this: Say I wanted to prove that 1 + 1 + 1 = 2.
Given that two raindrops add together to form a single raindrop we see that 1 + 1 = 1. Therefore, adding a third raindrop that does not get added to the first two gives 2 raidrops. Hence: (1 + 1 = 1) + 1 gives 1 + 1 + 1 = 2.
-
Given that two raindrops add together to form a single raindrop we see that 1 + 1 = 1.
Really, don't go there.
You're confusing logical proof with scientific proof. In the former case, you would be right that all that raindrop garbage does not constitute a proof.
However in the latter case, induction is all you have to go by. So if you can conclude P from your hypothesis (that the Earth is flat and that its magnetic field is generated as described) and can test P, and you find that P is true, then you have a reason to believe that the hypothesis is true.
-
What would be moving this 'magnet' around?
Maybe plate tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics)? or possibly convection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_mantle#Movement)? (Don't you wish you had thought of that before asking?)
Then there would be a relation to the way the plates move, and the way poles move. But there isn't.
You're right. The notion of large portions of the Earth's bulk moving and shifting around over long time periods is just perposterous....
The Earth is spinning, which provides momentum for the rotating liquid core. The Earth has no such motion in the FE theory.
-
The Earth is spinning, which provides momentum for the rotating liquid core. The Earth has no such motion in the FE theory.
Actually, I think it does.
-
Given that two raindrops add together to form a single raindrop we see that 1 + 1 = 1.
Really, don't go there.
You're confusing logical proof with scientific proof. In the former case, you would be right that all that raindrop garbage does not constitute a proof.
However in the latter case, induction is all you have to go by. So if you can conclude P from your hypothesis (that the Earth is flat and that its magnetic field is generated as described) and can test P, and you find that P is true, then you have a reason to believe that the hypothesis is true.
...that the earth is flat. and 1+1=1. are BOTH logical proofs.
And the earth is proven flat (so that your hyporthesis can be tested...) how?
Oh! A logical proof! It looks flat, therefore it is, if the sun can circle over the flat earth... then it can be flat.... etc.
Or, should we use a SCIENTIFIC proof, hmm? Something that can be measured? Through calculation of the FE hypothesis, Adelaide and Sydney are 1750 miles apart. Measuring them gives 700 miles. That's just one nail... See? If a hypothesis is true, then ALL predictions from that hypothesis will be verifiable. Only at the point where noone can think of any more predictions can you be satisfied and call it theory.
I don't HAVE to even try to prove the big magnet hypothesis wrong, because the underlying hypothesis can't satisfy predictions.
Don't go there? Indeed!
Now... don't get me wrong. I have no problem with people believing the earth is flat. I also have no problem with people trying to dope out how a ficticious flat earth would work... But there ARE people that believe the earth is flat! Leading them on like this by claiming the FE hypothesis is somehow 'science' is just cruel.
-
Actually, I think it does.
Do you have any details or a reference for this?
Also, if the Earth is spinning how would that effect the Sun/Moon model as presented for the Flat Earth Theory?
-
The Earth is spinning, which provides momentum for the rotating liquid core. The Earth has no such motion in the FE theory.
Actually, I think it does.
If it does, then one could not see constellations in the same spot for half a year. They would just be aimlessly spinning.
That's another thing, why is it you see different constellations in the southern hemisphere than you do in the winter hemisphere?
-
If it does, then one could not see constellations in the same spot for half a year. They would just be aimlessly spinning.
What if Earth only made one full rotation ever 365 days?
That's another thing, why is it you see different constellations in the southern hemisphere than you do in the winter hemisphere?
I think there may be something in the FAQ on this, not sure though.
-
Nothing about a spinning Earth or the Constellations in the FAQ.
-
...that the earth is flat. and 1+1=1. are BOTH logical proofs.
Nope.
And the earth is proven flat (so that your hyporthesis can be tested...) how?
Doesn't need to be. I refuse to run around in circles with you.
-
...that the earth is flat. and 1+1=1. are BOTH logical proofs.
Nope.
And the earth is proven flat (so that your hyporthesis can be tested...) how?
Doesn't need to be. I refuse to run around in circles with you.
That's because you cannot refute my argument.
More importantly, why can you not examine presented findings? Clearly, you don't believe the earth to be flat... But to totally ignore the scientific method... Tsk.
I expect that a lot of people aren't following my argument... I make minor linguistic errors but I assure you, my stance is sound. Just like you can't build a house on a swamp without fixing the swamp you can't base a hypothesis on a failed hypothesis.
-
I don't think it's the language barrier that stands between us. It's you're mistaken belief that I am applying purely deductive principles. I never claimed that I am!
-
'YOUR' mistaken beliefs... 'YOU'RE' is a contraction of 'You are' If you're going to use linguistics as a weapon be sure to do it right. I'm not nitpicking..... I make mistakes like that all the time... but I don't use linguistics as a weapon.
And... oh no! I'm under no delusion that your arguments are based on deduction at all... I'm still trying to figure out what your angle is.
I've ruled out religious nut and Flat Earth believer, and you're PROBABLY not being blackmailed into this...
Currently? I'm going with an over adherence to Descartes' philosophy.
-
'YOUR' mistaken beliefs... 'YOU'RE' is a contraction of 'You are' If you're going to use linguistics as a weapon be sure to do it right. I'm not nitpicking..... I make mistakes like that all the time... but I don't use linguistics as a weapon.
Thanks for correcting me.