The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Ellipsis on April 26, 2010, 10:31:53 PM

Title: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on April 26, 2010, 10:31:53 PM
Quote from: 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 (Diagram). 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.

This is wrong, and I'm going to show you why.


Let's say we have a magnet.  Most of you will be familiar with similar diagrams such as this:

(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6937/magnet.jpg)

What I'm showing here are the lines of magnetic flux decreasing in strength with greater distance, but this doesn't mean much if we don't know its polarity, so let's give it poles.

(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9130/magnetflux.jpg)

You'll notice now that the lines of magnetic flux move from the north pole to the south one while outside the object (and from south to north while inside it).  What does this have to do with the shape of the Earth?  Well, let's bring another magnet closer to this field and see how it acts.

(http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7257/magnetflux1.jpg)

The magnet I've put next to it is a compass, with its red side designating north and its blue side designating south.  We can move this compass anywhere around the magnet and watch it trace out exactly where the lines of magnetic flux are located.  Any dipole can do this.  Notice how it acts when we approach the poles; north opposes north but attracts south.  South opposes south, but attracts north.  Opposites attract and likes repel.  Now, let's see what happens when we change the shape of the magnet.  Let's have a spherical one (like a planet), as well as the disk-shaped one the FAQ says to use.

(http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9792/poles.jpg)

Let's check out the spherical one first.  Notice how (following the lines of magnetic flux) it is in most places horizontal (parallel to the ground), only acting strangely when we approach the poles.  This is completely consistent with what we observe in the real world.  The disk model, however, presents a problem.  Let's take a closer look.

(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/8605/compassu.jpg)

The compass isn't horizontal--it is vertical, perpendicular to the ground.  Not only that, but it doesn't move much no matter where on the disk you are, regardless of which side of the disk you're on!  Since we know compasses don't act in this way, the disk model has a major flaw.  Compasses act only in the manner we would predict on a spherical planet.  The only way to stick to the disk model is to fix the magnetism problem.  I'll play devil's advocate and see exactly what kind of lines of magnetic flux we would need on a disk to have compasses act in the manner we know they do...

(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/6682/3dmodel.jpg)

Now let's add the poles.

(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/7325/impossiblen.jpg)

Well this is strange.  A magnet that is north in the middle, but south around the edge.  Not only does this never occur naturally, it is actually an impossible configuration for a permanent magnet!  Okay, let's not make it permanent.  I'll play devil's advocate one step beyond too far and say there are two gigantic copper coils with some serious current flowing through them to induce this magnetic field manually.

(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7424/brokenfa.jpg)

Hrmm, notice how the northern poles in the middle oppose each other?  That's why this doesn't occur naturally--it would fly apart.


So there you have it.  A simple compass hints at the shape of our planet--not telling us exactly what it is, of course, but certainly telling us exactly what it isn't.  Not only have I shown how magnets act in relation to each other, I bent over backwards to fit the disk model.  Using the model the FAQ states does not properly explain the direction of compasses (in the disk model, compasses point vertically instead of horizontally).  Trying to keep with the disk shape, I was forced to break from the failed model and bent over backwards to create a magnetic form that would explain compass directions.  There are no natural magnets of such a configuration, and artificially made ones would force themselves apart.  The planet can not be a disk, and magnets do not act in the manner proposed by the FAQ; therefor, I move that this section of the FAQ be altered or removed, as it does not fit the data.  If you have a problem with any steps in this process, please tell me exactly where it is.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: justaquestion on April 26, 2010, 10:40:23 PM
This is the kind of proof I've been asking for so far on my posts!

Now, I would absolutely adore it if the Flat-Earthers had a model like this. One that makes sense, with logical explanations that everyone can understand. Remember my other post children, apparently the RE side has the whole scientific method down, your turn...

Bravo Ellipsis...

Convert Me

If I had to guess a reaction though... It'd be "Conspiracy!" or "Ha ha ha, that's not true! Because 1 + 1 = the oneness of one! hahaha."

I apologize for my growing harshness towards your community. Please, Again, Prove yourselves right.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: John Davis on April 27, 2010, 01:15:02 AM
The south pole is below the north pole and visa verse.  This produces the field lines we see in experimentation or with a compass.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: flyingmonkey on April 27, 2010, 01:35:28 AM
The south pole is below the north pole and visa verse.  This produces the field lines we see in experimentation or with a compass.


No it wouldn't
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Sliver on April 27, 2010, 07:29:11 AM
The south pole is below the north pole and visa verse.  This produces the field lines we see in experimentation or with a compass.
He just showed you how that would not work.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: John Davis on April 27, 2010, 07:59:56 AM
The south pole is below the north pole and visa verse.  This produces the field lines we see in experimentation or with a compass.
He just showed you how that would not work.
He showed how a model no one holds is true does not work. 
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Sliver on April 27, 2010, 08:08:22 AM
The south pole is below the north pole and visa verse.  This produces the field lines we see in experimentation or with a compass.
He just showed you how that would not work.
He showed how a model no one holds is true does not work. 
Um, no.  He provided a model, which any of us would be able to easily reproduce and test.  Give it a try and post your results.  If the FES model of the magnetic poles is correct, you should be able to easily prove it.  If not, then you'd have to admit the model is wrong.  Now, unless you're willing to actually show us your experiment that proves your model, you should probably stop denying the tests we provide you.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: John Davis on April 27, 2010, 08:24:50 AM
The south pole is below the north pole and visa verse.  This produces the field lines we see in experimentation or with a compass.
He just showed you how that would not work.
He showed how a model no one holds is true does not work. 
Um, no.  He provided a model, which any of us would be able to easily reproduce and test.  Give it a try and post your results.  If the FES model of the magnetic poles is correct, you should be able to easily prove it.  If not, then you'd have to admit the model is wrong.  Now, unless you're willing to actually show us your experiment that proves your model, you should probably stop denying the tests we provide you.

Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on April 27, 2010, 08:49:02 AM
Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I put a big red X where the problem was.  In the disk model, your compass would have one point facing the sky (strongly opposed to the pole you're standing on) and the other point directly facing the ground (strongly attracted to it).  What we see instead is that the compass stays flat; this is contradictory to the disk model.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: justaquestion on April 27, 2010, 08:54:24 AM
He just proved that those 'field lines' from FET would make a compass point directly up. Now, please be so kind as to explain your own theory with the same type of enthusiasm and undeniable proof please. And don't rely on "This will happen because I said so" because that doesn't fly anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Now, When you children here who believe in your FET can reproduce your own findings with the scientific method, perhaps a scientist in the world would take you seriously... Maybe. As I said previously, it doesn't take a multi-million dollar trip to prove your findings that you cling to as "true".

Now, Quit claiming that you all are right and show us your facts. This is not how a scientific debate should go, this will get you laughed at in the eyes of the scientific community. You need proof, you need evidence, not theory. You need something that can be implemented in the real world and be tested over and over again to be true. "It'll point along the lines FET provides" does not cut it. Yeah, its a pretty little belief, but when it comes down to it, that's all it is unless you can show me hard evidence that that's how your lines work.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: dude55 on April 27, 2010, 09:11:15 AM
He just proved that those 'field lines' from FET would make a compass point directly up. Now, please be so kind as to explain your own theory with the same type of enthusiasm and undeniable proof please. And don't rely on "This will happen because I said so" because that doesn't fly anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Now, When you children here who believe in your FET can reproduce your own findings with the scientific method, perhaps a scientist in the world would take you seriously... Maybe. As I said previously, it doesn't take a multi-million dollar trip to prove your findings that you cling to as "true".

Now, Quit claiming that you all are right and show us your facts. This is not how a scientific debate should go, this will get you laughed at in the eyes of the scientific community. You need proof, you need evidence, not theory. You need something that can be implemented in the real world and be tested over and over again to be true. "It'll point along the lines FET provides" does not cut it. Yeah, its a pretty little belief, but when it comes down to it, that's all it is unless you can show me hard evidence that that's how your lines work.
Wow, I just have to say that. Your the first person to ever state how they always say "That wont work because the earth is flat." would never hold up.

But yes, pretty much what he said. If you guys can get us some actual evidence using the scientific method. Which is what we have -always- been asking from you guys for ages. We will acknolwedge it.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: justaquestion on April 27, 2010, 09:18:06 AM
Thank you!

We don't want a mathematical equation. Because you can come up with any mathematical equation you want to try and disprove anything and everything. Your 1+1+more oneness theory simply states you can bend nearly any logical chain of events to your own will. No more math, We the Round Earthers demand you use a proven method to get factual, undeniable results for us to look at and say "Huh... Maybe they got' something here." Because guess what, until you pull away from your theory and run your own tests, You aren't going to change a single one of us... Become scientists, not Theorists. Then maybe we'll listen.

Please, For the love of God and your flat earth....

;D Convert Me  ;D
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: John Davis on April 27, 2010, 12:56:50 PM
You are making huge assumptions about the depth of the poles and the rim-distance of the Antarctic that do no reflect the model.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on April 27, 2010, 01:02:51 PM
You are making huge assumptions about the depth of the poles and the rim-distance of the Antarctic that do no reflect the model.

What do you mean by the "depth" of the poles?  What are you referring to with "rim-distance?"
What "huge assumptions" have I made?  Point to them.

Edit: Does he mean radius or circumference with this "rim distance" business?
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: flyingmonkey on April 27, 2010, 06:40:31 PM
The depth and rim-distance would not matter how large or small they are.

It just wouldn't work on a flat plane.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Sliver on April 27, 2010, 07:56:29 PM
You are making huge assumptions about the depth of the poles and the rim-distance of the Antarctic that do no reflect the model.
Show us an actual scientific experiment, preformed by you, that works they way you claim in your model, or admit your model is wrong.  If Ellipsis is wrong, prove him wrong.  Show the science that backs it up.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Xerox on April 27, 2010, 08:14:06 PM
"This wouldn't work because I said so."

 ::)   ::)
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: dude55 on April 28, 2010, 05:34:10 AM
You are making huge assumptions about the depth of the poles and the rim-distance of the Antarctic that do no reflect the model.
He's not making any HUGE assumptions, and as they said it would make no difference. And please were asking you as literal people here just start actually trying to prove to us your theory otherwise your not getting anywhere with anything.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on April 28, 2010, 11:22:40 PM
I forgot to mention this in the original post, but the disk model also ONLY accounts for one aurora.  It doesn't account for both, as the FAQ pretend.  The opposing aurora would take place at the opposing side of the disk.  Considering we're able to see both a northern and southern aurora, it is also plainly evident the Earth can not be shaped like a disk (unless we're travelling to its underside unknowingly when we cross the equator).

We also wouldn't see them with anywhere near the same intensity if the sun were only on one side of this disk.

Edit:  Wow, still no FE'ers besides the suspiciously silent JD?
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: General Disarray on April 29, 2010, 08:19:25 PM
The only way I could see the FET model of magnetism working is if the north pole were a magnetic monopole, which can't exist.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: lossforwords21 on April 29, 2010, 10:16:43 PM
Quote
Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 11:03:57 PM
Quote
Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.
Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on April 29, 2010, 11:06:27 PM
Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

Yeah, those damn gravitationalist, brain-using round-earthers!  We must break from their tyranny!
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Xerox on April 30, 2010, 06:16:15 AM
Quote
Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.
Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

Yes. Obviously, RE'ers just make stuff up.  Apparently you don't get out much.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: markjo on April 30, 2010, 06:25:29 AM
Quote
Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.
Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

???  Are you saying that RE scientists don't observe data before drawing conclusions?
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: John Davis on April 30, 2010, 07:06:38 AM
Quote
Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.
Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

???  Are you saying that RE scientists don't observe data before drawing conclusions?
I'm saying the scientific method is based on first drawing your conclusion, then gathering data to test it and then confirming or denying it.  A more appropriate method would be to gather data and then draw a conclusion.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: markjo on April 30, 2010, 07:19:11 AM
Quote
Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.
Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

???  Are you saying that RE scientists don't observe data before drawing conclusions?
I'm saying the scientific method is based on first drawing your conclusion, then gathering data to test it and then confirming or denying it.  A more appropriate method would be to gather data and then draw a conclusion.
I'm sorry but I think that you're confusing "conclusion" with "hypothesis".  They are not the same thing.  A hypothesis is your best guess for the cause of a phenomenon.  A conclusion is what you draw after designing and performing an experiment to gather data and then analyzing the data. 
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on April 30, 2010, 07:24:19 AM
No.  The scientific method involves forming a hypothesis about observed phenomena, then testing its accuracy.  It predicts happenings that we would observe if a potential conclusion were true.  It certainly doesn't begin by jumping to that conclusion and presupposing its actuality (and, as FE'ers do, avoiding all evidence to the contrary).  I suspect the fact that you'd pretend science acts that way is a projection of your own confirmation bias.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: John Davis on April 30, 2010, 07:59:04 AM
Quote
Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.
Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

???  Are you saying that RE scientists don't observe data before drawing conclusions?
I'm saying the scientific method is based on first drawing your conclusion, then gathering data to test it and then confirming or denying it.  A more appropriate method would be to gather data and then draw a conclusion.
I'm sorry but I think that you're confusing "conclusion" with "hypothesis".  They are not the same thing.  A hypothesis is your best guess for the cause of a phenomenon.  A conclusion is what you draw after designing and performing an experiment to gather data and then analyzing the data. 
I realize this, but a best guess should not be made uneducated.  This is the issue.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Xerox on April 30, 2010, 08:36:17 AM
I realize this, but a best guess should not be made uneducated.  This is the issue.

And they're not. I don't know why you're making this assumption.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: trig on April 30, 2010, 10:43:40 AM
I'm sorry but I think that you're confusing "conclusion" with "hypothesis".  They are not the same thing.  A hypothesis is your best guess for the cause of a phenomenon.  A conclusion is what you draw after designing and performing an experiment to gather data and then analyzing the data. 
I realize this, but a best guess should not be made uneducated.  This is the issue.
The nice thing about science is that whatever the initial guesses, the end result is a lot closer to the real solution than the first.

Science is full of (a posteriori) poor initial guesses. Just a small list:

Every bad initial guess, or hypothesis, is followed by predictions that perform poorly and by better hypothesis, and the cycle repeats itself until a good theory emerges.

What FE'rs do, hanging on to a 150 year old book and discarding any contradicting data, is the very opposite of good science.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: General Disarray on April 30, 2010, 12:24:04 PM
Quote
Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.
Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

As opposed to ACTUAL real science where you come up with a working hypothesis then go out and test it using repeatable experiments.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: John Davis on April 30, 2010, 02:10:47 PM
Quote
Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.
Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

As opposed to ACTUAL real science where you come up with a working hypothesis then go out and test it using repeatable experiments.
Are you suggesting that using the method I described would not give you repeatable experiments?
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on April 30, 2010, 02:25:09 PM
I believe he's saying that your interpretation of "faulty RE science" is, itself, faulty.
Also, let's try to keep on the subject and not instigate another runaway tangent, JD.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: General Disarray on April 30, 2010, 03:31:22 PM
I said earlier that a magnetic monopole would be the only thing that could explain the magnetic field within FET, but now that I think about it, even that wouldn't work. As you gained altitude, the compass needles would develop a slight vertical tilt which would be more noticeable towards the north pole. So yeah, this is pretty rock-solid.

Here's the part where the FE'ers make up something new which allows observations to fit with their theory.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Sliver on April 30, 2010, 04:56:20 PM
I realize this, but a best guess should not be made uneducated.  This is the issue.
Just FYI...
Scientific Method (http://web.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/scien_method/AppendixE.html)
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: markjo on April 30, 2010, 05:12:12 PM
Quote
Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.
Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

As opposed to ACTUAL real science where you come up with a working hypothesis then go out and test it using repeatable experiments.
Are you suggesting that using the method I described would not give you repeatable experiments?
How do you design an experiment if you don't know what you're testing for?
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Crustinator on April 30, 2010, 06:00:45 PM
You are making huge assumptions about the depth of the poles and the rim-distance of the Antarctic that do no reflect the model.

Enlighten us. It's pretty hard to get magnetic field lines to fit a flat earth, I should know I've watched you enough times try and do it. I'm prepared to give it another go.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Lorddave on April 30, 2010, 07:06:59 PM
The way I see it, the only way for magnetic field lines to function is if the magnetic south pole is under the flat disk.  Of course it would have to be under the disk at the same depth as the Round Earth's Diameter.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on April 30, 2010, 07:33:39 PM
If we're standing atop the disk, and are feeling the effects of one of its magnetic poles, our compasses would point quite vertically across the entire face of it.  The disk-shaped model has nowhere to hide from this.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: General Disarray on April 30, 2010, 08:34:47 PM
The way I see it, the only way for magnetic field lines to function is if the magnetic south pole is under the flat disk.  Of course it would have to be under the disk at the same depth as the Round Earth's Diameter.

That wouldn't even work. The field lines would still point mostly up and down just about everywhere. Field lines are naturally round so the only way to make them follow the surface of the earth  is to make the earth round too.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Lorddave on April 30, 2010, 10:38:16 PM
Point.

Nothing can fix this except "Non-Bendy Magnetic Field Lines".
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on May 01, 2010, 01:47:20 PM
I must've missed the bendy light thing.  It's giving the feel of an inside joke now.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Thermal Detonator on May 01, 2010, 01:54:04 PM
I'm saying the scientific method is based on first drawing your conclusion, then gathering data to test it and then confirming or denying it.  A more appropriate method would be to gather data and then draw a conclusion.

So you admit the FE style of research is not a scientific method, because it always involves taking the flatness of the earth as an invariable postulate and then inventing whatever laws of physics/celestial objects are necessary to enable you to keep the flatness.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Lorddave on May 01, 2010, 02:05:13 PM
Quote
Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.
Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

???  Are you saying that RE scientists don't observe data before drawing conclusions?
I'm saying the scientific method is based on first drawing your conclusion, then gathering data to test it and then confirming or denying it.  A more appropriate method would be to gather data and then draw a conclusion.

Which is something FET doesn't do. Since all FET ideas have no data to back them up (anti-moon or weather patterns on the moon for example) then FET doesn't follow any method except the fanatical method: Assume I'm right and put stuff in to make it work.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on May 01, 2010, 03:47:08 PM
If you see a person walking down the street and notice they aren't stepping on any cracks, it could just be a coincidence, but if you follow them for a while and find they never step on a single crack, you can be fairly certain of something: they know where the cracks are.

It's become rather obvious what kinds of threads FEers post in and which kinds they don't.  It's the threads they consistently don't post in that betray their agenda and give them away.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: John Davis on May 02, 2010, 02:03:59 PM
I'm saying the scientific method is based on first drawing your conclusion, then gathering data to test it and then confirming or denying it.  A more appropriate method would be to gather data and then draw a conclusion.

So you admit the FE style of research is not a scientific method, because it always involves taking the flatness of the earth as an invariable postulate and then inventing whatever laws of physics/celestial objects are necessary to enable you to keep the flatness.
I never said any such thing.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 02, 2010, 02:37:57 PM
The south pole is below the north pole and visa verse.  This produces the field lines we see in experimentation or with a compass.
He just showed you how that would not work.
He showed how a model no one holds is true does not work. 
Um, no.  He provided a model, which any of us would be able to easily reproduce and test.  Give it a try and post your results.  If the FES model of the magnetic poles is correct, you should be able to easily prove it.  If not, then you'd have to admit the model is wrong.  Now, unless you're willing to actually show us your experiment that proves your model, you should probably stop denying the tests we provide you.

Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

@ ellipsis
(http://thelaughingmarcus.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/so-much-win.jpg)

@poster
 sir, if the gradient does not exist at a certain point, just where would the magnet be pointing?
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on May 02, 2010, 02:44:30 PM
Edit: nevermind, it's back to normal
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Thermal Detonator on May 02, 2010, 05:08:10 PM
I'm saying the scientific method is based on first drawing your conclusion, then gathering data to test it and then confirming or denying it.  A more appropriate method would be to gather data and then draw a conclusion.

So you admit the FE style of research is not a scientific method, because it always involves taking the flatness of the earth as an invariable postulate and then inventing whatever laws of physics/celestial objects are necessary to enable you to keep the flatness.
I never said any such thing.
You described what you see the scientific method as being, this is not how the FE style of research and "science" operates, therefore the FE style of research and "science" is not what you define as the scientific method. It's like saying "hobgoblins have orange hair" and then if somebody says "that one can't be a hobgoblin because its hair is green" and you say  "I never said that".
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 03, 2010, 07:20:10 PM
Back on track guys,

@John davis on the XY plane the gradient doesn't exist, therefore the compass doesn't point in any specific direction.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on May 17, 2010, 02:40:18 AM
Still no word back on this?  :-\
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 09:59:41 AM
I must've missed the bendy light thing.  It's giving the feel of an inside joke now.

It's Parsifal hypothesis on why the earth looks curved, light under the clouds, solar neutrinos, and sunrise sunset. Its considered a joke by some people, because there is not physics, math, or experimental evidence to back it up, but he believes it and so do a few of the members of FES

You might have just started bendy magnetic fields: some unknown force takes the fields, and makes them bent to your flat earth diagram from the first page

I have a question tho, how do we know the shape of the field lines? most compasses I know only point in the x,y directions, not z. while this does determine gradient, it doesn't say how steep it is.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 10:14:55 AM
Still no word back on this?  :-\

question.
how would the magnetic field be created in the first place. On Real Earth, the two cores spinning creates the field. the size of the core is over 9000km, pun intended. how does this work on a flat surface to produce the effects for the field lines FET predicts?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0825_050825_earthcore.html
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v131/i1/p29_1
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on May 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
They can't agree on how thick or wide the disc is, so there's no telling.

I have a question tho, how do we know the shape of the field lines? most compasses I know only point in the x,y directions, not z. while this does determine gradient, it doesn't say how steep it is.

I'm just using compasses as an analogy for free dipoles, which (like compasses) orient themselves following lines of magnetic flux.  You could turn a compass on its side and measure its angle in different planes if you wanted; you could just imagine a magnet hanging from a string at its middle.  It will turn to match the major lines of magnetic flux it's feeling, which (barring nearby objects) will be the Earth's.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 12:13:06 PM
They can't agree on how thick or wide the disc is, so there's no telling.

I have a question tho, how do we know the shape of the field lines? most compasses I know only point in the x,y directions, not z. while this does determine gradient, it doesn't say how steep it is.

I'm just using compasses as an analogy for free dipoles, which (like compasses) orient themselves following lines of magnetic flux.  You could turn a compass on its side and measure its angle in different planes if you wanted; you could just imagine a magnet hanging from a string at its middle.  It will turn to match the major lines of magnetic flux it's feeling, which (barring nearby objects) will be the Earth's.

Is there a name for this? because I googled 3dimensional compass, and nothing good came up
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: General Disarray on May 17, 2010, 12:17:34 PM
Most compass needles aren't restricted to just move in a plane, they generally have some vertical "wobble" in them.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 12:33:02 PM
ok, but even more is my above question, without dynamo theory, how can the field be made
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: markjo on May 17, 2010, 12:44:54 PM
They can't agree on how thick or wide the disc is, so there's no telling.

I have a question tho, how do we know the shape of the field lines? most compasses I know only point in the x,y directions, not z. while this does determine gradient, it doesn't say how steep it is.

I'm just using compasses as an analogy for free dipoles, which (like compasses) orient themselves following lines of magnetic flux.  You could turn a compass on its side and measure its angle in different planes if you wanted; you could just imagine a magnet hanging from a string at its middle.  It will turn to match the major lines of magnetic flux it's feeling, which (barring nearby objects) will be the Earth's.

Is there a name for this? because I googled 3dimensional compass, and nothing good came up

Try searching for "3-axis compass".
Quote from: http://www.digitalhomedesignline.com/products/210603287
Phoenix, Ariz. — Honeywell has developed a 3-axis compass IC in a chip-scale package that is designed to improve accuracy and location readings in consumer electronics applications including mobile phones, personal navigation systems and portable automotive navigation systems.

The HMC5843 chip increases functionality in consumer electronics by providing expanded direction awareness when overlaid on GPS-enabled maps, making it easier to read digital maps on handheld devices. The integrated circuit includes three-axis magnetoresistive sensors, a 12-bit analog-to-digital converter, and an I2C serial bus interface in a 4 x 4 x 1.3 mm surface-mount package, which uses Honeywell's patented manufacturing IP for the Z-axis sensor.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on May 27, 2010, 01:35:23 PM
Not a single FEer is going to try and justify this field line problem?
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Crustinator on May 27, 2010, 02:00:23 PM
Not a single FEer is going to try and justify this field line problem?

No. Because it cannot be justified.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on June 30, 2010, 01:46:38 AM
Remember that FAQ is clear: the disc has its poles on the top at the NMP and the other on the bottom down (as in towards your feet, not south) from the NMP.

(http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9839/whatsmore.png)

We still have a problem here...
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: ClockTower on June 30, 2010, 05:41:28 AM
Remember that FAQ is clear: the disc has its poles on the top at the NMP and the other on the bottom down (as in towards your feet, not south) from the NMP.

(http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9839/whatsmore.png)

We still have a problem here...
Please explain the reason for how you drew the flux lines. Surely you're not suggesting that the flux lines don't follow the surface. Look at the metal filing experiments from grade school of even bar magnets.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on June 30, 2010, 06:11:22 AM
You seemed to be saying the major point of magnetism was at the center, meaning the entire surface isn't magnetic--just the one part of it.  How would you have drawn them?  All following the surface, and facing a point in the middle?  If so, I addressed why there are no magnets like that in the opening post.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: ClockTower on June 30, 2010, 06:34:49 AM
You seemed to be saying the major point of magnetism was at the center, meaning the entire surface isn't magnetic--just the one part of it.  How would you have drawn them?  All following the surface, and facing a point in the middle?  If so, I addressed why there are no magnets like that in the opening post.
I am not saying that the major point of magnetism is at the center. (http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8663/relof.jpg)
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on June 30, 2010, 06:59:14 AM
Why do they suddenly bunch up at the edge?  You seem to be arguing for two magnets: one in the middle, and a reversed ring-shaped one of equal strength around the border.  Isn't their strength supposed to decrease with distance?
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: 12345SA on June 30, 2010, 07:10:29 AM
http://www.compassdude.com/compass-declination.shtml

How about Magnetic Declination, as you travel long distances you need to adjust your Compass. With FET it seems that you propose a stationary center of the Disc as True N.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: ClockTower on June 30, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Why do they suddenly bunch up at the edge?  You seem to be arguing for two magnets: one in the middle, and a reversed ring-shaped one of equal strength around the border.  Isn't their strength supposed to decrease with distance?
I don't know that the density changes. It's just an illustration. I guessed the LOFs would "cut the corner" but not intersect. LOFs density, what you called strength, will decrease with distance--unless influenced by an edge or point where they may 'increase in strength'. Consider the lightning rod. Please don't expect me to champion the FET here. I'm just trying to better explain what FET says about this situation. I hope that you can open your mind a bit and reread and reengage the FEers responses.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Ellipsis on June 30, 2010, 10:57:24 AM
I don't know that the density changes.

It would have to, or else the FE magnetic south pole would be much weaker than the magnetic north one.  You'd need something in the middle causing the initial magnetic field and some very coincidental geologic formation around the edge to redirect some of it.  Even if that were somehow the case, it wouldn't be able to redirect everything, so the magnetic north pole/middle would always be measurably stronger than the "southern" edge.

You need to decide what's magnetic here.  Mostly uniformly across the mass (like the early examples), the middle (like my later one), or just key areas (center/edge, as yours appears)?  Only the third would even begin to work, but even that is rather coincidental and still doesn't match what we observe.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: ClockTower on June 30, 2010, 11:52:35 AM
I don't know that the density changes.

It would have to, or else the FE magnetic south pole would be much weaker than the magnetic north one.  You'd need something in the middle causing the initial magnetic field and some very coincidental geologic formation around the edge to redirect some of it.  Even if that were somehow the case, it wouldn't be able to redirect everything, so the magnetic north pole/middle would always be measurably stronger than the "southern" edge.

You need to decide what's magnetic here.  Mostly uniformly across the mass (like the early examples), the middle (like my later one), or just key areas (center/edge, as yours appears)?  Only the third would even begin to work, but even that is rather coincidental and still doesn't match what we observe.
AFAIK, FE has never resolved the numerous problems with the magnetic pole problem. I can only help based on what I see when searching or what they posted here. My observation is that you’ve confusing the Rim and the FE’s MSP. FET has to invoke the conspiracy to explain the existence of a MSP in Antarctica, for example. I really like the solution, but understand that it fails when it gets to matching the observations.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on July 07, 2010, 10:58:23 PM
ok, I'm replying to clock tower here, as to not derail the other thread.

I don't see what your point is. The magnetic field created by the twin cores looks like Ellipsis' profile pic. Now I assume that the field is being created inside the core, unless they want to claim that it is created by magic. If the flat plain of the earth was in the exact middle, the LoF would all be verticle.  If the plane was above, the lines would still be more or less verticle, but only flat near the center. no matter what the set up is, you will never get a situation, where the line is flat on the equator, but verticle on the poles, because the geometry of the field isn't semetric. Its follows that weird elliptic like curve
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: ClockTower on July 08, 2010, 07:17:31 AM
ok, I'm replying to clock tower here, as to not derail the other thread.

I don't see what your point is. The magnetic field created by the twin cores looks like Ellipsis' profile pic. Now I assume that the field is being created inside the core, unless they want to claim that it is created by magic. If the flat plain of the earth was in the exact middle, the LoF would all be verticle.  If the plane was above, the lines would still be more or less verticle, but only flat near the center. no matter what the set up is, you will never get a situation, where the line is flat on the equator, but verticle on the poles, because the geometry of the field isn't semetric. Its follows that weird elliptic like curve
I really can't defend FET against your points. I agree that Maxwell's Equations predict only the correct general direction of the field so that simple compasses would work; however, the more complex compasses with the ability to detect the 3-D vector of the LoF would not match predictions. Quite simply, FET is wrong, but we all knew that, right? It's just not as wrong as we might think in that it has a theory to explain simple compass readings.
Title: Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on July 08, 2010, 02:05:17 PM
ok, I'm replying to clock tower here, as to not derail the other thread.

I don't see what your point is. The magnetic field created by the twin cores looks like Ellipsis' profile pic. Now I assume that the field is being created inside the core, unless they want to claim that it is created by magic. If the flat plain of the earth was in the exact middle, the LoF would all be verticle.  If the plane was above, the lines would still be more or less verticle, but only flat near the center. no matter what the set up is, you will never get a situation, where the line is flat on the equator, but verticle on the poles, because the geometry of the field isn't semetric. Its follows that weird elliptic like curve
I really can't defend FET against your points. I agree that Maxwell's Equations predict only the correct general direction of the field so that simple compasses would work; however, the more complex compasses with the ability to detect the 3-D vector of the LoF would not match predictions. Quite simply, FET is wrong, but we all knew that, right? It's just not as wrong as we might think in that it has a theory to explain simple compass readings.
ok. And that's what ellipses original point was. remember we were talking about 3D vectors, and JD said that FET had the correct predictions