Okay...

I am new here, as you can see, and I have been reading the various FAQ's, looking for the answer to my one question (for now, lol).

The north pole is a hub, as far as I've read. What about the south pole, though? Either the south pole is directly underneath the north pole, which wouldn't fit with RE or FE theories, AFAIK, or there is no south pole. Monopoles cannot exist in nature, though.

I am new here, as you can see, and I have been reading the various FAQ's, looking for the answer to my one question (for now, lol).

The north pole is a hub, as far as I've read. What about the south pole, though? Either the south pole is directly underneath the north pole, which wouldn't fit with RE or FE theories, AFAIK, or there is no south pole. Monopoles cannot exist in nature, though.

From the maps I've seen, there's 1 north pole and an infinite number of south poles.

The "south pole" is a big lie from the conspiracy.

Either the south pole is directly underneath the north pole, which wouldn't fit with RE or FE theories, AFAIK

Flip your labels, and that's exactly how it works on either the RE or FE.

Quote from: chih on April 04, 2007, 06:29:41 AM

Either the south pole is directly underneath the north pole, which wouldn't fit with RE or FE theories, AFAIK

Flip your labels, and that's exactly how it works on either the RE or FE.

Okay, I'm a little tired, so I didn't understand your reply. Also, the magnetic north pole is verified to be in northern Canada (no conspiracy here... unless all the compasses ever built are in on it, lol), and not at the geographic north pole. A wandering magnetic pole shouldn't exist in FE theory, it would mean the magnetic pole isn't connected to the geographic pole, and would require a major rewrite of theory.

My original question was:
Is there only a north pole....  or one north pole and an infinite number of south poles... or is the the south pole DIRECTLY underneath the north (as in not separated by ~7000 km, in RE theory), I guess that would be in Hell (??!?), as far as I've read.

I'm tired, but not confused.

Quote from: chih on April 04, 2007, 06:29:41 AM

I am new here, as you can see, and I have been reading the various FAQ's, looking for the answer to my one question (for now, lol).

The north pole is a hub, as far as I've read. What about the south pole, though? Either the south pole is directly underneath the north pole, which wouldn't fit with RE or FE theories, AFAIK, or there is no south pole. Monopoles cannot exist in nature, though.

From the maps I've seen, there's 1 north pole and an infinite number of south poles.

Magnets don't work like that map says. 

Quote from: TheEngineer on April 04, 2007, 02:31:21 PM

Quote from: chih on April 04, 2007, 06:29:41 AM

Either the south pole is directly underneath the north pole, which wouldn't fit with RE or FE theories, AFAIK

Flip your labels, and that's exactly how it works on either the RE or FE.

Okay, I'm a little tired, so I didn't understand your reply. Also, the magnetic north pole is verified to be in northern Canada (no conspiracy here... unless all the compasses ever built are in on it, lol), and not at the geographic north pole.

The magnetic north is on the underside of the FE, while magnetic south is what is actually located at the geographic north pole.  This is the same way as the RE. 

or is the the south pole DIRECTLY underneath the north (as in not separated by ~7000 km, in RE theory)

Directly above the north actually, just like in the RE.

I see what you are alluding to now.

In RE theory, the magnetic field is generated by the dynamo effect of the mantle and core of the earth, and is by definition equidistant from all points on the surface of the earth (approximately). That gives the earth a relatively smooth magnetic field density. In FE theory, the north pole is in one place, relatively close to the "surface" (is there an official FE term for the top side of the world?)

Since that is the case, the magnetic field of the earth should vary with the distance to the north pole, since it is not equidistant from all points on earth. It would be slight, granted, but it would be much stronger at the north pole (which it isn't), as that is as close to the magnetic north pole as you can get in FE theory.

Also, since you said the north and south pole are in the same place, relatively, how would one know if they were at the north or south pole? Wouldn't the compass give false readings?

If I were to fly a plane DUE SOUTH (or directly away from the 'hub'), I would eventually fly off the disk, right? None of this circumnavigation either, I would go to the heart of antarctica.

how does FE theory explain seasons? Season exist due to the earth's axis of inclination relative to the sun. If it were zero degrees, we would have little differentiation of seasons. It is 23.5 degrees, and varies from 22.5 to 24.5 in a long period (something like 25000 years). The intensity of the sun does not change during the different seasons.

I'll stop for now

How does one even go due south on a flat earth, if "due south" is actually all around us?

"Due South" would be relative to your current location.  It would be the direction away from the north pole.

Got it.

I see what you are alluding to now.

In RE theory, the magnetic field is generated by the dynamo effect of the mantle and core of the earth, and is by definition equidistant from all points on the surface of the earth (approximately). That gives the earth a relatively smooth magnetic field density. In FE theory, the north pole is in one place, relatively close to the "surface" (is there an official FE term for the top side of the world?)

The magnetic south pole is defined as the place on the surface of the earth where the magnetic field lines enter the earth at the geographic north pole.

Since that is the case, the magnetic field of the earth should vary with the distance to the north pole, since it is not equidistant from all points on earth. It would be slight, granted, but it would be much stronger at the north pole (which it isn't), as that is as close to the magnetic north pole as you can get in FE theory.

The magnetic field varies over the surface of the earth and is the strongest at the poles.

Also, since you said the north and south pole are in the same place, relatively, how would one know if they were at the north or south pole? Wouldn't the compass give false readings?

The compass lines up with the magnetic field lines, not the poles.

If I were to fly a plane DUE SOUTH (or directly away from the 'hub'), I would eventually fly off the disk, right? None of this circumnavigation either, I would go to the heart of antarctica.

If you went directly south, yes.  Fortunately, you can't circumnavigate the earth by going south.

This is utterly fucking pathetic, you guys. I mean come the fuck on. 

This is utterly fucking pathetic, you guys. I mean come the fuck on. 

I agree.  RE'ers, you need to do much better than this.

Better than this? I think that has been done and also 90% of it were avoided.

I was referring to both sides of this "debate". It used to be funny. Now, It's depressing.

Maybe you just got bored with it?

I was referring to both sides of this "debate". It used to be funny. Now, It's depressing.

What was incorrect about my side of the "debate"?

Quote from: midnight on April 09, 2007, 06:18:58 PM

I was referring to both sides of this "debate". It used to be funny. Now, It's depressing.

What was incorrect about my side of the "debate"?

It's all based on theory and no practical proof whatsoever.

I can speak for myself, thank you kindly.

That is part of it.

The other part of it is, none of you, on either side, will give ground, even in a micron, to gain some understanding.

Parrot #1: It is!
Parrot #2: Why?
Parrot #1: Because this collection of links shows that it is! Read the FAQ!
Parrot #2: That's it?
Parrot #1: MORON!
Parrot #3: FGDSDSSDSSD

Quote from: chih on April 09, 2007, 11:18:29 AM

I see what you are alluding to now.

In RE theory, the magnetic field is generated by the dynamo effect of the mantle and core of the earth, and is by definition equidistant from all points on the surface of the earth (approximately). That gives the earth a relatively smooth magnetic field density. In FE theory, the north pole is in one place, relatively close to the "surface" (is there an official FE term for the top side of the world?)

The magnetic south pole is defined as the place on the surface of the earth where the magnetic field lines enter the earth at the geographic north pole.

Agreed. Explain to me how a small object could generate a magnetic field of earth's intensity. The burden of proof is on you. Also, what is the thickness of earth in FE theory? It would help to know, if I need to break out formulae, the diameter, curcumference, depth, and velocity (I already know about that part).

Quote

Since that is the case, the magnetic field of the earth should vary with the distance to the north pole, since it is not equidistant from all points on earth. It would be slight, granted, but it would be much stronger at the north pole (which it isn't), as that is as close to the magnetic north pole as you can get in FE theory.

The magnetic field varies over the surface of the earth and is the strongest at the poles.

Agreed. But over the majority of ROUND EARTH, it is even. With such a small magnetic object in FE, so close to the surface, the magnetic field would be an even distribution from weakest to strongest. And in FE theory, it would be at it's weakest at the 'south pole', where it is, in the real world, is at it's strongest.

Quote

Also, since you said the north and south pole are in the same place, relatively, how would one know if they were at the north or south pole? Wouldn't the compass give false readings?

The compass lines up with the magnetic field lines, not the poles.

Agreed. But I'm not talking about magnetic direction. I'm talking about magnetic DENSITY.

Quote

If I were to fly a plane DUE SOUTH (or directly away from the 'hub'), I would eventually fly off the disk, right? None of this circumnavigation either, I would go to the heart of antarctica.

If you went directly south, yes.  Fortunately, you can't circumnavigate the earth by going south.

So what happens? If you have enough momentum, you'd fly right off the edge of the disk! Explain to me why I'm wrong.

And, barring a reply, I am done with this particular subject. I am now going to study FE explanations for atmospheric conditions.

Good luck 

Quote from: TheEngineer on April 09, 2007, 07:03:49 PM

Quote from: midnight on April 09, 2007, 06:18:58 PM

I was referring to both sides of this "debate". It used to be funny. Now, It's depressing.

What was incorrect about my side of the "debate"?

It's all based on theory and no practical proof whatsoever.

Research the subject and find one thing I said that was incorrect.

The other part of it is, none of you, on either side, will give ground, even in a micron, to gain some understanding.

Why do I need to give ground?  I'm right.

Quote from: akira on April 09, 2007, 10:16:55 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on April 09, 2007, 07:03:49 PM

Quote from: midnight on April 09, 2007, 06:18:58 PM

I was referring to both sides of this "debate". It used to be funny. Now, It's depressing.

What was incorrect about my side of the "debate"?

It's all based on theory and no practical proof whatsoever.

Research the subject and find one thing I said that was incorrect.

You said the Earth is flat. This seems pretty incorrect to me.

Agreed. Explain to me how a small object could generate a magnetic field of earth's intensity. The burden of proof is on you. Also, what is the thickness of earth in FE theory? It would help to know, if I need to break out formulae, the diameter, curcumference, depth, and velocity (I already know about that part).

How small do you think the earth's core is?

Agreed. But over the majority of ROUND EARTH, it is even. With such a small magnetic object in FE, so close to the surface, the magnetic field would be an even distribution from weakest to strongest. And in FE theory, it would be at it's weakest at the 'south pole', where it is, in the real world, is at it's strongest.

The magnetic field is not uniform over the majority of the earth.  Why is the core small and close to the surface?

Agreed. But I'm not talking about magnetic direction. I'm talking about magnetic DENSITY.

So what are you trying to say about it?

So what happens? If you have enough momentum, you'd fly right off the edge of the disk! Explain to me why I'm wrong.

Did I say you were wrong?  'Cause I distinctly remember saying you would fly off the edge.  I said you can't circumnavigate the earth by going south in either model.

You said the Earth is flat. This seems pretty incorrect to me.

Where?

Quote from: akira on April 09, 2007, 11:08:43 PM

You said the Earth is flat. This seems pretty incorrect to me.

Where?

Everywhere.

Predictable, you can't back up your statements.

if I'm wrong, then you disbelieve that the Earth is flat. so I will take back what I just said and shake your hand.