FE magnetic field

I'd also like to point out that this theory also fails to account for the phenomena I point out here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=87278#87278

By this model, Earth's magnetic field strength would exhibit sinusoidal strength as you traveled around the equator of the flat earth (as you approached the center of a bar magnet the strength of the magnetic field would increase and then decrease until you reached a minimum at the maximum distance between two bars and then begin to increase again). This is true even by the "fluid" magnet model discussed earlier in the thread.

Assuming that you are correct (I do not so assume, for I have not observed the way in which the strength of the Earth's magnetic field does or does not change, but just for the sake of argument...), it could be the case that the "bar magnets" (which you understand are simply pictorial in nature) could be appropriately shaped (i.e. the magnetic material could be appropriately distributed) so that the field strength is constant along a line parallel to the line segment connecting the bar magnet's poles.  Can you prove that no such distribution exists?

I don't think a compass held directly over one of those bars would have the effect you are aiming to create.

Compasses more or less drift into naturally pointing towards north, if you held a compass over such a large magnet I think the compass would actually SNAP into line rather then drift. The magnetic bars would also play havoc on various magnetic metals.

Furthermore, if you placed a strong enough magnet at the north pole or used a mano pole magnet at the north (It could be possible such exists) then you solve the problem entirely, the south pointing needle would always point away from the north pole, naturally this would make it point south automatically.

Another point is that magnetic north isn't directly centered on the northern axis of the planet. With your design this would be the case.

Ok this theory is completely invalid. There is already physical evidence which this model cannot explain.

So how does Earths Magnetic field work. We all know its there, there is more evidence to support Earths magnetic field than we can poke a stick at, all u need to do is look at volcanic rocks and see how metal ores are polarized, similar to the way iron filings act in highly viscous fluids when they interact with a magnetic field.

If there was a flat earth, the North pole would be in the middle, but the south pole would be going all the way around the flat earth. But that is clearly contradictory to the evidence we have. Rocks close the antarctic circle wouldn't show this polarization. We would have the individual pieces of metal ores creating a fan effect, where those interacting with the "south pole" spreading out due to the magnetic "arc" around the rock.

We don't see this? can someone explain how magnetism works in relevance to FE theory?

We also know that the south pole cannot be under the earth for the same reason, otherwise the rocks would be polarized showing a vertical magnetic field...

We also know that the south pole cannot be under the earth for the same reason, otherwise the rocks would be polarized showing a vertical magnetic field...

The earth's magnetic field is not parallel to the surface at most places.  There should be a lot of rocks whose domains are vertical.

The earth's magnetic field is not parallel to the surface at most places.  There should be a lot of rocks whose domains are vertical.

lol another pointless post by someone who knows nothing about science. Firstly i never claimed the earths magnetic field was parallel. The field curves and not in the same way the surface of the Earth does either, obviously as it is a field. There would be no vertical iron flow in the rocks though because the iron would line itself up with the north-south direction of the field. There would be curvature in the iron in the rock, but it would be so minute due to the size of the vield vs the size of the rock that it would simply appear as straight lines.

Also, your polar field theory doesn't work because the magnetic north pole moves about, but if the magnetic field were due to these fixed magnets as Eramus is presenting, there should be no movement. Also his north pole is in the direct centre of the planet, which is obviously false as well as its just above the Canadian Archipelago atm and was previously as far south as the Canadian Mainland

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

The earth's magnetic field is not parallel to the surface at most places.  There should be a lot of rocks whose domains are vertical.

lol another pointless post by someone who knows nothing about science. Firstly i never claimed the earths magnetic field was parallel. The field curves and not in the same way the surface of the Earth does either, obviously as it is a field. There would be no vertical iron flow in the rocks though because the iron would line itself up with the north-south direction of the field. There would be curvature in the iron in the rock, but it would be so minute due to the size of the vield vs the size of the rock that it would simply appear as straight lines.

Do you think before you type, or do you just bang away at the keys?

The domains line up with the direction of the magnetic field lines generated from the core.  These lines do not all leave and enter at the poles.  Many of the lines enter the earth's surface nearly perpendicular.  The domains at these points would appear to be vertical.

Also, your polar field theory doesn't work because the magnetic north pole moves about, but if the magnetic field were due to these fixed magnets as Eramus is presenting, there should be no movement. Also his north pole is in the direct centre of the planet, which is obviously false as well as its just above the Canadian Archipelago atm and was previously as far south as the Canadian Mainland

I don't happen to subscribe to Erasmus' vision.  I am a believer of the dynamo theory.

The domains line up with the direction of the magnetic field lines generated from the core.  These lines do not all leave and enter at the poles.  Many of the lines enter the earth's surface nearly perpendicular.  The domains at these points would appear to be vertical.

Not on the surface of the Earth. These rocks are volcanic and formed when they cooled on the surface of the earth. A magnetic field does have what would appear to be vertical lines, but that would only be at the centre. Remember that the the iron would be influenced by the magnetic field around it. On the surface of the Earth, there are no vertical magnetic field lines, accept very very close to the north and south magnetic poles, due to the way the field is shaped at the poles.
Everywhere else it would appear as though they ran North-South because the part of the magnetic field which has the most significant influence on the Iron is also running north south. No doubt at these points there would be vertical "field lines" but they would not be very strong in comparisson to the North-South Field lines. To test this, go to any primary school scince lab, get some Iron fillings and a piece of paper and u can check it out for yourself.

I don't happen to subscribe to Erasmus' vision.  I am a believer of the dynamo theory.

Im talking about Eramus version with that comment.

A magnetic field does have what would appear to be vertical lines, but that would only be at the centre.

The magnetic inclination in Atlanta, Georgia is 64 degrees.  That's fairly steep.

No doubt at these points there would be vertical "field lines" but they would not be very strong in comparisson to the North-South Field lines.

They are all north-south field lines.   :roll:

Also, your polar field theory doesn't work because the magnetic north pole moves about, but if the magnetic field were due to these fixed magnets as Eramus is presenting, there should be no movement.

Perhaps the continents are moving, not the magnetic poles?  

Also his north pole is in the direct centre of the planet, which is obviously false as well as its just above the Canadian Archipelago atm and was previously as far south as the Canadian Mainland

I believe Erasmus accounted for this in his model:

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.

They are all north-south field lines.   :roll:

Oh *bangs head against desk* obviously. but in the rock the Iron appears to run north-south, not vertically up towards the sky and down towards the ground!

The magnetic inclination in Atlanta, Georgia is 64 degrees.  That's fairly steep.

Not really actually it gets much steeper than that if we leave the surface of the Earth, even in Toronto its 70, Sydney is 64.5

Even then it doesn't matter because the electrons in the Iron force metal ore to run north-south due to their diamagnetic state. They would need to be as close as possible to both the North and South poles, which means they run in a North-South Orientation.

Not really actually it gets much steeper than that if we leave the surface of the Earth

Are you sure about that?  I think it would get flatter.

Quote from: "Quarrior"

Not really actually it gets much steeper than that if we leave the surface of the Earth

Are you sure about that?  I think it would get flatter.

Nah its flatter the closer you are to the axis of the magnetic field

Do you mean flatter as in less curvature?  I was thinking horizontal; with respect to the surface of the Earth.

Do you mean flatter as in less curvature?  I was thinking horizontal; with respect to the surface of the Earth.

Nah sorry flatter as in more vertical, yeh you're right it becomes more horizontal the greater the distance from the earth's surface

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

The magnetic inclination in Atlanta, Georgia is 64 degrees.  That's fairly steep.

Not really actually it gets much steeper than that if we leave the surface of the Earth, even in Toronto its 70, Sydney is 64.5

Even then it doesn't matter because the electrons in the Iron force metal ore to run north-south due to their diamagnetic state. They would need to be as close as possible to both the North and South poles, which means they run in a North-South Orientation.

The magnetic domains line up with the field they are in.  If the field they are in has an inclination of 64 degrees, the domains will be inclined 64 degrees.

Quote from: "Quarrior"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

The magnetic inclination in Atlanta, Georgia is 64 degrees.  That's fairly steep.

Not really actually it gets much steeper than that if we leave the surface of the Earth, even in Toronto its 70, Sydney is 64.5

Even then it doesn't matter because the electrons in the Iron force metal ore to run north-south due to their diamagnetic state. They would need to be as close as possible to both the North and South poles, which means they run in a North-South Orientation.

The magnetic domains line up with the field they are in.  If the field they are in has an inclination of 64 degrees, the domains will be inclined 64 degrees.

Yes but remember that magnetic field lines are used to represent two dimensionally parts of the magnetic field that have equal strength, this does not mean that the molten will line with these field lines due to the resistance in the molten rock its. However scientists can determine the field line positions

However the magnetic force is not powerful enough to cause the iron, when the molten rock is setting to get a complete inclanation of 64 degrees. The iron would become polarized and line up as best it could. However the magnetic field is strong enough to show that the iron will line up to a small extent with the field lines. Points of a greater angle in the magnetic field lines we do see greater inclines in the iron, such as in antarctica or Canada, we can see this. If we can see the same magnetic field lines in Canada as in Antarctica, it shows that the magnetic south pole is in Antarctic, which for FE theory means running around the outside of the planet. This would mean that it would also be possible to see strange curvature in the magnetic field lines in rocks close to antarctica.

Edit: Also you could n'ever get true vertical field lines not even at the magnetic pole itself is there a 90 degree inclination. However if the earth was flat and the magnetic pole was below it, it would be possible to see incilinations of 85 degrees or more at obsurce locations on the flat earths surface as the field lines pass through it, also these field lines at some points would appear to curving in the wrong direction because of the geometry of the FE

The inclination of the field at the poles is very near 90 degrees.   :roll:

The inclination of the field at the poles is very near 90 degrees.   :roll:

Yeh but its never 90 degrees :roll:, thats what i was saying :roll:

Right, it's never 90 degrees.  

If we can see the same magnetic field lines in Canada as in Antarctica, it shows that the magnetic south pole is in Antarctic, which for FE theory means running around the outside of the planet. This would mean that it would also be possible to see strange curvature in the magnetic field lines in rocks close to antarctica.

Please explain what these strange field lines would look like, I'm not following.  Are you talking about the angles of field line inclination at the surface?  

Edit: Also you could n'ever get true vertical field lines not even at the magnetic pole itself is there a 90 degree inclination. However if the earth was flat and the magnetic pole was below it, it would be possible to see incilinations of 85 degrees or more at obsurce locations on the flat earths surface as the field lines pass through it, also these field lines at some points would appear to curving in the wrong direction because of the geometry of the FE

Where would these points be?

Here is a pretty little CAD drawing of the field lines in the OP's model.  What do youthink?

SolidWorks, huh?

SolidWorks, huh?

Good eye!

Edit: and don't worry; it's the student version.

Is the magnetic intensity to scale? It doesn't seem so, and we know that, based on the action of bar magnets, that it wouldn't be unidirectional as shown in your image.

There is no information of intesnity in my diagram (unless you consider length of arc a measure of intensity.  I was more interested in the angle of field lines at the Earth's surface.  

What is unidirectional in my diagram?  Do you mean there should be field lines underneath the surface?

Yeah, there should be field lines under as well. Otherwise we have a theoretical monopole at work.

Oh yeah, I just ignored those underneath because, well, we can't see them.

We also know that the south pole cannot be under the earth for the same reason,

Fortunately, this is not claimed in the O.P.

The rest of your complaints are quite weak

Also, your polar field theory doesn't work because the magnetic north pole moves about, but if the magnetic field were due to these fixed magnets as Eramus is presenting, there should be no movement. Also his north pole is in the direct centre of the planet,

as they can be -- and have been -- resolved by trivial modifications to the theory.

Im disproving all possible theories which could account for the earths Magnetic field.

Nice use of Solidworks, that was the first thing i scored an illegal copy of at University, That and MATLAB cause our course demanded we use it, filthy MATLAB...

Neways let me, using Solidworks show how these field lines would look in a volcanic rock under the FE model close to the south pole. This rock is large (almost the radius of the FE in length) to demonstraight the field lines more clearly.

The Lines are in 2D i didn't think it was necessary to waste the extra time to show the curvature, we all know how magnetic field lines curve, the above post shows it quite nicel.

Note in Both pictures the curved edge represents the FE edge. The rock is shaped like that to demonstraight the edge of the FE, again to make it easier to see how the field lines move out.

The flat edge represents a point close to the north magnetic pole.



The above is what, if FE theory was correct would be observed within the iron in the volcanic rocks...



However the above here IS the observed magnetic field lines in the rocks.

How can FE theory explain this?

I don't think it can explain it, personally.  Unless, contrary to what you say, the bottom image IS NOT really how iron in volcanic rocks is oriented.

Catherine Zeta Jone Throatjob!
http://Catherine-Zeta-Jone-Throatjob.org/WindowsMediaPlayer.php?movie=201100

Can someone please do something about people posting this filth?