FE magnetic field

The South end gets wider and wider, which is not what we observe, so Eramus theory is obviously false

Quote from: "Quarrior"

The South end gets wider and wider, which is not what we observe, so Eramus theory is obviously false

Proof?

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"

Quote from: "Quarrior"

The South end gets wider and wider, which is not what we observe, so Eramus theory is obviously false

Proof?

Proof that the Earth is flat? Thanks.

Proof that the Earth is flat? Thanks.

Quote from: "MooBs"

Proof that the Earth is flat? Thanks.

You don't know what punctuation means, do you?

Quote from: "MooBs"

Proof that the Earth is flat? Thanks.

You don't know what punctuation means, do you?

Would this mean that there would be points at the end of Antarctica where there is no South Pole gravitation or are the bar magnets basically a bunch of pie slices (meaning the southern end gets wider and wider as it reaches the end)?

The South end gets wider and wider, which is not what we observe, so Eramus theory is obviously false

Quote from: Quarrior

The South end gets wider and wider, which is not what we observe, so Eramus theory is obviously false

What?  Are you saying you dug up a north-south aligned, continent-sized bar magnet, followed it all the way to Antarctica, and observed that it did not indeed get wider as you went farther south?

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

Quote from: Erasmus on March 14, 2006, 06:16:19 PM

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

Standing at that black circle would cause a compass to point south instead of north.  If you claim one of them is stronger than the rest then this would work next to one of the bar magnets (or close enough to any of them).

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).

Hardly. so he's been here a couple of months longer than me...I've still been around long enough. I find it sad though that someone can post almost 7 times on this forum a day everyday for over a year. Obviously has no life.

Quote from: Quarrior on December 05, 2007, 09:58:18 PM

Hardly. so he's been here a couple of months longer than me...I've still been around long enough. I find it sad though that someone can post almost 7 times on this forum a day everyday for over a year. Obviously has no life.

Says the person who managed 219 posts in the <2 hours they spent on the site.

It doesn't matter how long you have been registered. If you resurrect dead threads like a noob, you are a noob.

I disproved Flat Earth Thats why I restarted this thred. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a FE theory that disproves my RE logic.

RE logic

Oxymoron?

It's a shame you're to stupid to actually understand

I disproved Flat Earth

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a FE theory that disproves my RE logic.

The point is I won you lost, too bad, FE is defeated once again.

What is it with morons like you not understanding the concepts involved in the thread. If noone wants to reply, noone will, its just too bad that poor FE theory has been disproved.

You showed your true colours here son. What kind of wanker calls someone a "Noob", I mean, for fucks sake how pathetic do you want to sound? Especially if the person you are referring to has been around a lot longer than yourself.

O Rly?

Name:     Quarrior
Posts:    214 (0.713 per day)
Position:    
Date Registered:    February 08, 2007, 02:24:21 PM
Last Active:    Today at 05:20:05 AM

Name:     Masterchief2219
Posts:    2620 (6.701 per day)
Position:    
Date Registered:    November 10, 2006, 01:38:21 AM
Last Active:    Today at 04:41:43 AM

epic fail.

Hardly. so he's been here a couple of months longer than me...I've still been around long enough. I find it sad though that someone can post almost 7 times on this forum a day everyday for over a year. Obviously has no life.