Let me ask again

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 09, 2008, 12:13:39 PM

So how do you explain electrically charged particles having a force applied to them which is parallel to a magnetic field, in a situation where the only significant force is electromagnetism?

Well, here is a description from someone that knows more about the subject that I could ever hope to...

Quote

Auroras are produced by the collision of charged particles from Earth's magnetosphere, mostly electrons but also protons and heavier particles, with atoms and molecules of Earth's upper atmosphere (at altitudes above 80 km (50 miles). The particles have energies of 1 to 100 keV. They originate from the Sun and arrive at the vicinity of Earth in the relatively low-energy solar wind. When the trapped magnetic field of the solar wind is favourably oriented (principally southwards) it reconnects with Earth's magnetic field, and solar particles enter the magnetosphere and are swept to the magnetotail. Further magnetic reconnection accelerates the particles towards Earth.

Oh, that makes sense. I stand corrected.

No, it is a valid question.  Why isn't the pole opposite of the Northern Magnetic Pole, aka Southern Magnetic Pole, at the opposite end of this cylinder, and somehow either curves through the structure of this cylinder?

Did you look up the definition of the South Magnetic Pole?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 09, 2008, 11:58:42 AM

Well, it's not really gravitation.  My theory is that the rotation of the core is causing the rotation of the heavens and the Coriolis Effect, among other things.  It's just having a very subtle effect on the earth and the celestial bodies (which themselves may be ferrous, or composed of something completely alien to us that happens to be subject to electromagnetism).  Whatever the case, it's clearly one of the fundamental "forces" of the universe, whether the cause comes from the heavens as Tom postulates or from the core as I postulate.

This alien material must be radioactive.  We are at 110 elements, and we haven't discovered one that fits this description.  There is also the problem that matter with these atomic masses are highly unstable with half lives measured in nanoseconds.

So now we need a new class of material that has never been observed, and can not be created in a laboratory, but is so easy to create that it is natural.

Exactly, although I have to ask, if things that are natural should be so easy to create, why can we not duplicate our brain functions in a laboratory yet, or create life?

Oh, that makes sense. I stand corrected.

Glad to be of help.

Did you look up the definition of the South Magnetic Pole?

Yes.  Here is what I found...

The Earth's South Magnetic Pole is the wandering point on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field lines are directed vertically upwards. It should not be confused with the lesser known South Geomagnetic Pole described later.

For historical reasons, the "end" of a magnet that points (roughly) north is itself called the "north pole" of the magnet, and the other end, pointing south, is called magnet's "south pole". Because unlike poles attract, the Earth's South Magnetic Pole is physically actually a magnetic north pole

There is nothing in there that explains why your cylinder would have those characteristics..

Yes.  Here is what I found...

Quote

The Earth's South Magnetic Pole is the wandering point on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field lines are directed vertically upwards. It should not be confused with the lesser known South Geomagnetic Pole described later.

For historical reasons, the "end" of a magnet that points (roughly) north is itself called the "north pole" of the magnet, and the other end, pointing south, is called magnet's "south pole". Because unlike poles attract, the Earth's South Magnetic Pole is physically actually a magnetic north pole

There is nothing in there that explains why your cylinder would have those characteristics..

So that definition is consistent with the South Magnetic Pole not being on the surface of the Earth, is it?

So that definition is consistent with the South Magnetic Pole not being on the surface of the Earth, is it?

But the Pole is a geographic location on the surface of the Earth.

But the Pole is a geographic location on the surface of the Earth.

Glad we agree.

Glad we agree.

Somehow, I doubt that.

Somehow, I doubt that.

Well, we both know this to be true:

But the Pole is a geographic location on the surface of the Earth.

Therefore, we agree.

On the Flat Earth the Aurora, also commonly referred to as the southern and northern lights, are a luminous atmospheric phenomenon that generally appear as bright colorful bands of light. Auroras are often visible in the night sky in both the northern and southern hemidisks of the Earth.

Auroras are believed to be caused by charged high energy particles from the solar winds that are trapped within the magnetic field of the Earth. As these charged particles spiral back and forth along the lines of the magnetic field, they become visible nearest to the north and south magnetic poles where these magnetic lines become vertical and disappear into the body of the Earth.

The bright visually pleasing colors commonly associated with auroras are the result of electrons colliding with oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the Earth's atmosphere. As these molecules become energized, then cool from their energized state, they emit actual light that can be seen by the naked human eye.

Auroras, both the northern and southern lights, can most frequently and easily be seen during the winter months within a 2500 km radius of the vertical magnetic field lines. This area is also known as the auroral zone.

Tha's all very nice, Tom, but it doesn't really explain how it all works. Could we see a dagram of how the sun's solar wind interacts with the Earth's magnetic field to produce the auroras? Or just a detailed explanation of how this works in FET, rather than just a copy-paste of the RET explanation.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on September 09, 2008, 01:52:16 PM

But the Pole is a geographic location on the surface of the Earth.

Therefore, we agree.

Ahh, but I believe that those two points are on opposite sides of a sphere, so the analogy of a bar magnet actually makes sense, not two points on the end of an infinite sphere.  So, I have to conclude that we most definitely are not in agreement.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2008, 03:33:48 PM

On the Flat Earth the Aurora, also commonly referred to as the southern and northern lights, are a luminous atmospheric phenomenon that generally appear as bright colorful bands of light. Auroras are often visible in the night sky in both the northern and southern hemidisks of the Earth.

Auroras are believed to be caused by charged high energy particles from the solar winds that are trapped within the magnetic field of the Earth. As these charged particles spiral back and forth along the lines of the magnetic field, they become visible nearest to the north and south magnetic poles where these magnetic lines become vertical and disappear into the body of the Earth.

The bright visually pleasing colors commonly associated with auroras are the result of electrons colliding with oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the Earth's atmosphere. As these molecules become energized, then cool from their energized state, they emit actual light that can be seen by the naked human eye.

Auroras, both the northern and southern lights, can most frequently and easily be seen during the winter months within a 2500 km radius of the vertical magnetic field lines. This area is also known as the auroral zone.

Tha's all very nice, Tom, but it doesn't really explain how it all works. Could we see a dagram of how the sun's solar wind interacts with the Earth's magnetic field to produce the auroras? Or just a detailed explanation of how this works in FET, rather than just a copy-paste of the RET explanation.

Why would the FET explanation be different from the RET explanation? 

Why would the FET explanation be different from the RET explanation? 

Well, there is the mechanics of how the 32 mile Sun would have energetic enough particles to create the phenomenon. 

There are also the differences in the field lines between RE and FE models.

The 3000 mile height of the Sun makes it much more likely that the particles would be impacting on the surface of the Earth rather than 12000 miles away at the pole.

Those are just starters.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 09, 2008, 07:02:08 PM

Why would the FET explanation be different from the RET explanation? 

Well, there is the mechanics of how the 32 mile Sun would have energetic enough particles to create the phenomenon.

In what way? 

There are also the differences in the field lines between RE and FE models.

Can you draw a diagram explaining this?  That's not how I understand it.

The 3000 mile height of the Sun makes it much more likely that the particles would be impacting on the surface of the Earth rather than 12000 miles away at the pole.

On what statistics specifically do you base this?

Those are just starters.

Let me know when you come up with something good!

The RE Sun has sufficient mass for fusion. It also has sufficient mass to generate the particles that are solar wind without shrinking noticably.

FE's have consistently maintained a yet to be understood mechanism of light/heat generation. It was my understanding that the FE Sun did not emit solar particles. Are you now saying the FE Sun operates by nuclear fusion and that these particles are emitted?

How has your 32mile star not evaporated? What holds it together?

The RE Sun has sufficient mass for fusion. It also has sufficient mass to generate the particles that are solar wind without shrinking noticably.

FE's have consistently maintained a yet to be understood mechanism of light/heat generation. It was my understanding that the FE Sun did not emit solar particles. Are you now saying the FE Sun operates by nuclear fusion and that these particles are emitted?

How has your 32mile star not evaporated? What holds it together?

How can you possibly know whether the FE sun has sufficient mass for fusion?

I also fail to see how you can postulate that the FE sun doesn't emit solar particles.  Haven't we observed them?

32miles across? How dense is it? Are you saying it is a neutron star? We would have died from the radiation.

Gravitational interactions with the moon.

Conventional physics says something like 10% of the Sun's mass is required as the minimum for fusion.

Are we going with conventional physics(aurora mechanism) or more FE magic?

32miles across? How dense is it? Are you saying it is a neutron star? We would have died from the radiation.

Do you have the physics knowledge and mathematics skills to show that we'd be dead from radiation?

Quote from: dyno on September 09, 2008, 08:51:09 PM

32miles across? How dense is it? Are you saying it is a neutron star? We would have died from the radiation.

Do you have the physics knowledge and mathematics skills to show that we'd be dead from radiation?

No. Can you show we wouldn't?

Ahh, but I believe that those two points are on opposite sides of a sphere, so the analogy of a bar magnet actually makes sense, not two points on the end of an infinite sphere.  So, I have to conclude that we most definitely are not in agreement.

The analogy of a bar magnet makes perfect sense on a Flat Earth, too.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 09, 2008, 09:18:52 PM

Do you have the physics knowledge and mathematics skills to show that we'd be dead from radiation?

No. Can you show we wouldn't?

The fact that we aren't is a good start.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on September 09, 2008, 06:58:57 PM

Ahh, but I believe that those two points are on opposite sides of a sphere, so the analogy of a bar magnet actually makes sense, not two points on the end of an infinite sphere.  So, I have to conclude that we most definitely are not in agreement.

The analogy of a bar magnet makes perfect sense on a Flat Earth, too.

Quote from: dyno on September 09, 2008, 09:39:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 09, 2008, 09:18:52 PM

Do you have the physics knowledge and mathematics skills to show that we'd be dead from radiation?

No. Can you show we wouldn't?

The fact that we aren't is a good start.

It's a good indication the Earth is round and the massive Sun is millions of miles away.

Besides, my point about the aurora and particle emission wasn't answered.

Besides, my point about the aurora and particle emission wasn't answered.

It is my belief that the particles that cause the aurora do not originate from the sun, but from beyond the celestial plane. Perhaps (although this is by no means an opinion, merely a conjecture) they are particles too small to be affected by Dark Energy that we collide with as we accelerate upwards.

Why would the FET explanation be different from the RET explanation? 

In RET, the solar wind consists of parrallel rays, in FET it radiates from a small object.
In RET the solar wind comes from fusion, in FET the sun has insufficient mass to produce the pressures and temperature needed for fusion (we know this because we can't detect a significant change in gravity as the sun moves overhead).
In RET the Earth's magnetic field resembles that of a bar magnet with the with the magnetic poles roughly under the geographic poles. In FET this is not the case (there is no south geographic pole).

Can we have a diagram of how FE solar wind interacts with the FE magnetic field to produce aurora in the observed places?

I also fail to see how you can postulate that the FE sun doesn't emit solar particles.  Haven't we observed them?

We have, which is good evidence against FET because it can't explain the origin of these particles.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 09, 2008, 08:44:26 PM

I also fail to see how you can postulate that the FE sun doesn't emit solar particles.  Haven't we observed them?

We have, which is good evidence against FET because it can't explain the origin of these particles.

But isn't the origin of these particles the sun? 

Quote from: ghazwozza on September 10, 2008, 04:34:44 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 09, 2008, 08:44:26 PM

I also fail to see how you can postulate that the FE sun doesn't emit solar particles.  Haven't we observed them?

We have, which is good evidence against FET because it can't explain the origin of these particles.

But isn't the origin of these particles the sun? 

I meant FET can explain where they originate, but not how the originate.

I meant FET can explain where they originate, but not how the originate.

Yet another thing that they don't have the money for.  Add it to cartography and physics.