FE magnetic field

I propose a new model for the source of the flat Earth's magnetic field.  Instead of the Earth being a single magnet with the north pole in the center and the south pole as a non-single-point curve around the rim, can we have have the Earth  contain or be made of up many bar magnets, each with its north pole at the center?  It would look something like this:



I realize of course that there are certain problems with this model, but I think I can address them:

Q: Wouldn't be strong repulsive forces pushing the magnets apart, essentially tearing the Earth apart?

A: This force would definitely exist, but the picture is just to get an idea of the arrangements -- not the size or density -- of the magnets.  I don't mean to suggest that the entire Earth is comprised entirely of enormous magnets; merely that there is magnetic material mixed in with the nonmagnetic material, and that this magnetic material is arranged just like the magnetic material in bar magnets.

Q: What's with the hole in the middle?

A: Partly it was a way of decreasing the repulsive forces at the center of the world.  Partly it was, well, I figured it would be easier to accept the bar-magnet idea if the magnets were actually bar shaped.  Also, the figure isn't too scale; in reality the hole would be much smaller.  But don't forget, if you use a compass right on the north pole, it just spins around a lot, which is exactly what you'd expect from this model.  Lastly, this gives the model more freedom to place the magnetic north pole (see below).

Q: But the magnetic north pole isn't at the same place as the geographic north pole...

A: True, but I don't insist that all the bar magnets be equally strong.  Maybe bar magnet #7 is a bit stronger than the others, which would make compasses tend to point a bit more towards that one.  That's another reason to have the hole -- this way the magnetic north pole doesn't need to be right at the center.

As a final note, you should take this figure as a schematic; it's not meant to be to scale.  There would probably be many more than ten bar magnets, and each would be much narrower.  The hole is probably way too big, and there's no need for spaces in between the bar magnets.

So... comments?  Questions?

-Erasmus

Seems good to me, although you're going to want to adress the reson as to why the magnetic north pole moves around (unless you feel like just claiming that the magnetic north's movement is a government conspiracy...it seems to have a precedent).  So, how does one "magnet" grow stronger than the others periodically?

So, how does one "magnet" grow stronger than the others periodically?

Er, the strong one gets tired, and another one takes over?  Like bike racing, or bird migration?

Or, it could be the magnetic material is part of a more fluid portion of the Earth.  RE theory proposes that the mantle can flow, and also supports the notion of continental drift.  Magnetic drift could work in a similar fashion: there's a layer of magnetic material underground that shifts around very slowly.

Hm... I like the bird migration analogy better :)

-Erasmus

Hm... I like the bird migration analogy better

As do I, but somehow I get the feeling people would feel alienated by such a scientific sounding explanation.

This does seem like a good model for a flat earth's magnetic field. The only thing I would worry about is detacting changes in the field at the gaps between the magnets. Unless they were very small. Anyway, I think the Focault pendulum pretty much settles the issue for me, unless you don't believe in inertia and momentum.

No, no, you're clearly missing the challenge here; see, we all see holes in the flat earth theory, but now our job is to fix them.  What you want to do is make the flat earth theory practically unassailable, and just as viable a theory a round earth theory...except for you know...the world actually being round...

<Applauds 6strings>

Thats exactly what it's about! Well done!

Erasmus, addressing the movement of the north pole.

Possible hypothesis:
Vulcanism causes more deposition of magnetic material in one area, and less in another? So one of the magnets gets stronger compared to the others?

Possible hypothesis:
Vulcanism causes more deposition of magnetic material in one area, and less in another? So one of the magnets gets stronger compared to the others?

Okay... but doesn't being melted destroy the magnetic properties of materials?

Exactly, the hotspots slowly move from year to year, (The Hawaii chain of islands is proof of this) so they melt a bit in one place that was facing to the 'old' north, and deposit some more that is now facing towards the 'new' north.

Net result, the focus of the magnets wanders over the course of time (as is found in the real world).

That's what I basically suggested in another thread. The problem is that the magets at the North pole would push apart, so there needs to be counter magnets out in space to push them back on.

Quote from: "6strings"

So, how does one "magnet" grow stronger than the others periodically?

Er, the strong one gets tired, and another one takes over?  Like bike racing, or bird migration?

Or, it could be the magnetic material is part of a more fluid portion of the Earth.  RE theory proposes that the mantle can flow, and also supports the notion of continental drift.  Magnetic drift could work in a similar fashion: there's a layer of magnetic material underground that shifts around very slowly.

Hm... I like the bird migration analogy better

-Erasmus

and a magnet gets tired how exactly?

If you had a compass with a pointer that could move freely in three dimentions and some knowledge of magnetic field lines you could easily see that this model is incorrect.

http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~vonfrese/gs100/lect25/xfig25_14.jpg

Sorry if I haven't fully justified myself but I am not good explaining these things and frankly can't be bothered.

If you had a compass with a pointer that could move freely in three dimentions and some knowledge of magnetic field lines you could easily see that this model is incorrect.

http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~vonfrese/gs100/lect25/xfig25_14.jpg

Sorry if I haven't fully justified myself but I am not good explaining these things and frankly can't be bothered.

You're right: you've done an abysmal job of justifying yourself!

But some comments anyway:

1)  You're begging the question: the picture shows the Earth as a sphere.

2)  Implication that the compass would not behave similarly in the proposed FE magnetic field model: unsupported!

-Erasmus

But if these fields dont overlap then that should be easily testable (ie gasp my compass doesn't work @#$% I owe bullhorn 100$). If they do overlap is it falsafiable (it seems to me it should be...)
An puzzled
Cinlef

But if these fields dont overlap then that should be easily testable (ie gasp my compass doesn't work @#$% I owe bullhorn 100$). If they do overlap is it falsafiable ??? (it seems to me it should be...)
An puzzled
Cinlef

Overlap?  I'm not sure what you mean by that.  Typically, when two different objects are generating fields, you add the effects together.  Might be different for magnetism tho.  Anyway, there should be a straightforward method of combining the effects.

-Erasmus

Erasmus, i thought u were an RE...

OK, I'll try to explain further with some of my world famous diagrams.

This is what the magnetic field lines would look like from above:


And more importantly this is how the magnetic field lines would look at any cross-section taken along the diameter:


*Note: I've only included the lines that would be detectable by us on earth.

Now if your magnetic disk theory is true, on the surface of the earth our compasses would basically point horizontally towards the north pole. But experimentation with a compass shows that this is not the case (unless you happened to live on the magnetic equator as shown in the original diagram.)

I think if you held a compass on its side the needle would tilt (up if you're below the magnetic equator and down if your above it) by varying degrees depending on your distance from the magnetic equator, thus contradicting the model.

Now I understand the objection... absolutely valid!

Here's my save: I'm already assuming that the bar magnets are underground.  If they're sufficiently deep underground, then you get the same effect.  Here's a picture:



-Erasmus

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote from: "6strings"

So, how does one "magnet" grow stronger than the others periodically?

Er, the strong one gets tired, and another one takes over?  Like bike racing, or bird migration?

Or, it could be the magnetic material is part of a more fluid portion of the Earth.  RE theory proposes that the mantle can flow, and also supports the notion of continental drift.  Magnetic drift could work in a similar fashion: there's a layer of magnetic material underground that shifts around very slowly.

Hm... I like the bird migration analogy better

-Erasmus

and a magnet gets tired how exactly?

well that isnt very hard to figure out, is it?
you do a hard days work, you become tired.

Easy as that  

Quote from: "the grim squeaker"

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote from: "6strings"

So, how does one "magnet" grow stronger than the others periodically?

Er, the strong one gets tired, and another one takes over?  Like bike racing, or bird migration?

Or, it could be the magnetic material is part of a more fluid portion of the Earth.  RE theory proposes that the mantle can flow, and also supports the notion of continental drift.  Magnetic drift could work in a similar fashion: there's a layer of magnetic material underground that shifts around very slowly.

Hm... I like the bird migration analogy better

-Erasmus

and a magnet gets tired how exactly?

well that isnt very hard to figure out, is it?
you do a hard days work, you become tired.(sarcasum is the lowest form of wit-grim)

Easy as that  

yes thankyou for your masterful explination
-girm

Grim, he wasn't being sarcastic...

Grim, he wasn't being sarcastic...

so use this and i qoute 'well that isnt very hard to figure out, is it?
you do a hard days work, you become tired' to explain magents geting tired is not sarcasum. Ohh look its a squadron of pigs, there doing aerobatics. -grim

You seemed to think it was sarcastic because you said "sarcasum is the lowest form of wit-grim".

Just to clear things up sarcasm is used as a serious criticism or insult. He was merely offering the suggestion as a joke.

You seemed to think it was sarcastic because you said "sarcasum is the lowest form of wit-grim".

Just to clear things up sarcasm is used as a serious criticism or insult. He was merely offering the suggestion as a joke.

bugger....
... okay thanks for the heads up

Sarcasm is definitly not the lowest form of wit. I'd have to say punning is the lowest form of wit as it's worthless unless you can pronounce ". As in when is a door not a door? When it is ajar "a jar"
See thats way worse then sarcasm..
On FE Magnetism Erasmus the areas where the fields overlap in your many bar magnet theory....wouldn't they be findable with compasses and such. (I'm sure I have apoint but apologies if sleep deprivation stops my communicating of it)
An tired
Cinlef

Sarcasm is definitly not the lowest form of wit. I'd have to say punning is the lowest form of wit as it's worthless unless you can pronounce ". As in when is a door not a door? When it is ajar "a jar"

Hah... "He would pun would pick a pocket."  Then again, there are some *great* puns.  Moving on.

On FE Magnetism Erasmus the areas where the fields overlap in your many bar magnet theory....wouldn't they be findable with compasses and such.

You're thinking there will be some sort of irregularities or hiccups or something in the strength/direction of the field along the boundaries?  That's reasonable.  It would depend on lots of things, such as how big the boundaries are, and how deep the magnets are.  They may just be too small to be detected by a handheld compass; you'd need, oh, something oh government-controlled labs would have access to.

In general, when discussing fields scientists often think of them as being generated by many components, and adding up the effects of each component.  Usually you figure out what the result would be with N components, and then look at the limit as N --> infinity.  One of the nice effects of this approach is that it naturally smooths out discontinuities (like those that the gaps between the bar magnets would induce).  Maybe that's the right way to do it here as well.

-Erasmus

Now I understand the objection... absolutely valid!

Here's my save: I'm already assuming that the bar magnets are underground.  If they're sufficiently deep underground, then you get the same effect.  Here's a picture:

Well that makes it just about impossible to disprove without delving into complex explanations, and even then you could probably keep tweaking the theory so that it is consistent. The only good way to disprove the theory would be to prove that the Earth isn't flat. Which has probably already been done here several times. Sorry to ruin the fun, but this discussion has probably reached its limit (Unless I'm missing something obvious or a geophysical genius can enlighten us in simple terms).

Well that makes it just about impossible to disprove without delving into complex explanations, and even then you could probably keep tweaking the theory so that it is consistent.

You've just described in one sentence the entirety of the "alternative science" methodology.  FE was born out of this sort of thinking, and it's the only sort of reasoning you can do on the pro-FE side of this debate.

We've discussed this sort of thing before.  Basically, real science has rules that you have to follow if you want to convince others that your ideas should be taken seriously.  FE "science" has rules as well; they're just different (and inferior, but that's the subject of a different debate).  If you want to convince FEers, you have to beat them at their own game, since they're not sufficiently rational to play by the rest of the world's rules.

The only good way to disprove the theory would be to prove that the Earth isn't flat.

Not really.  You could show that the hypothesis leads to a prediction that can be shown false using experimental methods directly accessible to everybody.  They can't tweak the idea forever; eventually it bears no resemblance to the original.

-Erasmus

You seemed to think it was sarcastic because you said "sarcasum is the lowest form of wit-grim".

Just to clear things up sarcasm is used as a serious criticism or insult. He was merely offering the suggestion as a joke.

A joke? You never know...

Houston.....we have a new contender for STUPIDEST FLAT EARTH THEORY EVER!!!


Are you guys smoking crack???   :?