New'er Question

  • 28 Replies
  • 6416 Views
New'er Question
« on: June 09, 2006, 09:10:43 AM »
Can you guys explain the Aurora Borealis

In a round world it goes something like this


Quote
The aurora is a glow observed in the night sky, usually in the polar zone. For this reason some scientists call it a "polar aurora" (or "aurora polaris"). In northern latitudes, it is known as "aurora borealis" which is named after the Roman goddess of the dawn, Aurora and the greek name for north wind, Boreas since in Europe especially, it often appears as a reddish glow on the northern horizon as if the sun were rising from an unusual direction. The aurora borealis is also called the "northern lights". The aurora borealis most often occurs from September to October and March to April. Its southern counterpart, "aurora australis", has similar properties.




Can the FE explain this?
 am the center of the universe

New'er Question
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2006, 10:28:38 AM »
The obvious answer is that it's an optical illusion.

The correct answer is something completely different.
y the power of truth, I, a living man, have conquered the universe.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
New'er Question
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2006, 11:22:41 AM »
Why doesn't the usual explanation work in the FE model?
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
New'er Question
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2006, 12:58:01 PM »
The Aurora Borealis is not caused by the rising or setting of the sun.  The sun emits high energy charged particles that are deflected by the earth's magnetic field.  The field funnels in at the north and south poles.  This channels the particles to the poles, which interact with the atoms in the atmosphere, emitting elecromagnetic radiation (light).  
I believe Erasmus make a relatively ( :D ) good  model of the magnetic field of a FE.  Techincally, it would still work.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: New'er Question
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2006, 03:08:24 PM »
Quote from: "Luke_smith64"
Can you guys explain the Aurora Borealis

In a round world it goes something like this


Quote
The aurora is a glow observed in the night sky, usually in the polar zone. For this reason some scientists call it a "polar aurora" (or "aurora polaris"). In northern latitudes, it is known as "aurora borealis" which is named after the Roman goddess of the dawn, Aurora and the greek name for north wind, Boreas since in Europe especially, it often appears as a reddish glow on the northern horizon as if the sun were rising from an unusual direction. The aurora borealis is also called the "northern lights". The aurora borealis most often occurs from September to October and March to April. Its southern counterpart, "aurora australis", has similar properties.



It's the Bifrost Bridge.  Odin likes to vist Midgard for Octoberfest.  Frigga likes to see the flowers in the spring.

Don't they teach you people anything about religion these days?

New'er Question
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2006, 04:14:47 PM »
this made no sense
 am the center of the universe

New'er Question
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2006, 08:52:30 AM »
Quote from: "Luke_smith64"
this made no sense


Classical Norse Mythology.

Bifrost bridge, also known as the "Rainbow Bridge"  Connected Asgard (The Norse home od the Gods) to Midgard (THe earth of Mankind).  That was their explaination of the Aurora Borealis.

<in other words...It was just an attempt at a joke, obvious targeted at the wrong audience.

New'er Question
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2006, 04:38:19 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Why doesn't the usual explanation work in the FE model?


because according to you guys, magnetic north  doesn't exist
 am the center of the universe

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
New'er Question
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2006, 10:23:55 PM »
Sure it does, it's right along the edges (people always get the magnetic north and south poles backwards).


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

New'er Question
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2006, 03:56:10 AM »
it isn't possible to have the magnetic field in the FE model at both the North and South pole, because the "magnet" has to be perpindicular to the surface of the earth (if you consider it flat) or normal to the surface of the earth (if you consider it round)


in FE this would mean that the further south you go (even past the equator) the weaker the magnetic field would get, however, for the southern lights to occur, the magnetic field needs to be as strong at the "ice wall" as it is at the north pole.


even if you had a radial "magnet" such that you had a north pole at the centre and a south pole all around the outside, the nature of the magnet would make the centre much stronger magnetically than the outside, and you still wouldn't get the southern lights

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
New'er Question
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2006, 05:52:34 AM »
Quote from: "DrQuak"

even if you had a radial "magnet" such that you had a north pole at the centre and a south pole all around the outside, the nature of the magnet would make the centre much stronger magnetically than the outside, and you still wouldn't get the southern lights

One again, you have the poles backwards.  If I have a magnetic field, why would a charged particle not interact with it, such that there would be no 'southern lights'?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

New'er Question
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2006, 06:56:10 AM »
Quote
in FE this would mean that the further south you go (even past the equator) the weaker the magnetic field would get, however, for the southern lights to occur, the magnetic field needs to be as strong at the "ice wall" as it is at the north pole.


I thought the magnetic field had to be weak in order for the aurora australis to work, not strong.  If you looked at a diagram of the round earth and its magnetic field, the particles from the sun would be running parallel to the field lines at the poles, where the field is weaker, so more particles can get through.  At the equator, the particles are moving perpendicular to the field lines, where it is stronger, so the particles can't get through as easily.
But, yes, the field would be weaker around the ice wall for a flat earth, so instead the aurora australis should be much more visible.

New'er Question
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2006, 08:40:31 AM »
Pythagoras:
the cosmic particles congregate where the magnetic field is its strongest, at the poles (if you ever consider a bar magnet and iron filings, you have the most iron filings at each end of the magnet). I was meaning relative strangth compared to the force exhibited at the equator (infact a mobile phone has a greater magnetic effect  than that of the earth) . the problem with the radial magnet is that you would only have northern lights, because they would all congregate at the north pole (in FE that would be the centre of the world)


Engineer:
I'm not sure what you mean by saying i have the poles backwards, the north and the south pole are really just arbitrary associations, they could equally be called the sasquatch and the poodle poles, as long as you understand that sasquatches attract poodles and that sasquatches repel other sasquatches.

New'er Question
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2006, 08:46:15 AM »
sasquatches are always after those poodles, they also like stealing sack lunches.  Sasquatches are like an uncivilized Yogi Bear, at least Yogi takes the whole picnic basket

New'er Question
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2006, 09:44:21 AM »
Quote from: "DrQuak"
it isn't possible to have the magnetic field in the FE model at both the North and South pole, ...even if you had a radial "magnet" such that you had a north pole at the centre and a south pole all around the outside, the nature of the magnet would make the centre much stronger magnetically than the outside, and you still wouldn't get the southern lights


Do the magnets have to be joined?

If the Northern magnetic feild was generated by a "Magnet" who's opposet pole was on the underside of the world disk, and the southern wall had  the opposet charge on the"Upper" side of the disk wouldn't the fields play out the same?

New'er Question
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2006, 11:26:27 AM »
That would probably work for the northern and southern lights.....

New'er Question
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2006, 12:20:44 PM »
Quote
the cosmic particles congregate where the magnetic field is its strongest, at the poles (if you ever consider a bar magnet and iron filings, you have the most iron filings at each end of the magnet).


Thank you for that.  Now it makes much more sense.  Those diagrams people show me are so misleading.  Electromagnetism has never really attracted me.

New'er Question
« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2006, 12:32:13 PM »
it is hard for anyone to imagine, being an invisible force and all, but the iron filings has always been the best image for me, it shows rather nicely the shapes of magnetic fields.

New'er Question
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2006, 10:48:24 AM »
Quote from: "DrQuak"
That would probably work for the northern and southern lights.....


southern lights, never heard of those before...
 am the center of the universe

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
New'er Question
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2006, 10:04:49 PM »
Quote from: "DrQuak"
Engineer:
I'm not sure what you mean by saying i have the poles backwards, the north and the south pole are really just arbitrary associations, they could equally be called the sasquatch and the poodle poles, as long as you understand that sasquatches attract poodles and that sasquatches repel other sasquatches.

Magnetic field lines are directional.  They will always go from the north pole to the south pole.  Magnetic north is actually in the southern hemisphere and the magnetic south is in the northern hemiphere.  This means the magnetic field lines go from the southern hemisphere to the northern.  By interchanging the 'lables', you are reversing the field, therefore discribing something that is not observed in nature.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
New'er Question
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2006, 08:23:29 AM »
Quote from: "Luke_smith64"
southern lights, never heard of those before...


They do exist but they are not seen as often as the Northern lights, because southern continents are further away from the South pole than northern continents are away from the North pole (correct me if I'm wrong)

New'er Question
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2006, 08:41:26 AM »
ah your meaning that the north pole of the magnet points north, so the magnetic north is in the south, i get ya.


it is still doesn't matter though, thats like correcting someone when they say they weigh 80 kilo's

New'er Question
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2006, 04:00:52 PM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Quote from: "Luke_smith64"
southern lights, never heard of those before...


They do exist but they are not seen as often as the Northern lights, because southern continents are further away from the South pole than northern continents are away from the North pole (correct me if I'm wrong)


ah yes, but you my friend, are a moderator, and I presume you believe in the FE theory. So, by saying that there are Southern lights, you yourself are admitting there is a southern pole, meaning the earth is round.

The trap was set, and the bait was taken.
 am the center of the universe

New'er Question
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2006, 04:40:10 PM »
Quote from: "Luke_smith64"
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Quote from: "Luke_smith64"
southern lights, never heard of those before...


They do exist but they are not seen as often as the Northern lights, because southern continents are further away from the South pole than northern continents are away from the North pole (correct me if I'm wrong)


ah yes, but you my friend, are a moderator, and I presume you believe in the FE theory. So, by saying that there are Southern lights, you yourself are admitting there is a southern pole, meaning the earth is round.

The trap was set, and the bait was taken.

Every single claim you just made - besides the fact that Cheesejoff is a moderator - is incorrect.

Every. Single. One.

New'er Question
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2006, 04:59:20 PM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "Luke_smith64"
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Quote from: "Luke_smith64"
southern lights, never heard of those before...


They do exist but they are not seen as often as the Northern lights, because southern continents are further away from the South pole than northern continents are away from the North pole (correct me if I'm wrong)


ah yes, but you my friend, are a moderator, and I presume you believe in the FE theory. So, by saying that there are Southern lights, you yourself are admitting there is a southern pole, meaning the earth is round.

The trap was set, and the bait was taken.

Every single claim you just made - besides the fact that Cheesejoff is a moderator - is incorrect.

Every. Single. One.


i only started tlaking at, "ah yes,.." I say this in case you think my words were cheesjoffs. please explain to me, now, how my claims are incorrect please. you can make a statement towards me, but i expect resons
 am the center of the universe

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
New'er Question
« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2006, 03:46:41 PM »
Quote from: "DrQuak"
ah your meaning that the north pole of the magnet points north, so the magnetic north is in the south, i get ya.


it is still doesn't matter though, thats like correcting someone when they say they weigh 80 kilo's

No it's like correcting someone when they say gravity pulls me up.  Up and down are just lables, but saying 'gravity pulls me up' describes something not observed in nature.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

New'er Question
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2006, 04:19:49 PM »
not if i define up as the direction towards the earth.

New'er Question
« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2006, 06:12:57 PM »
Quote from: "Luke_smith64"
i only started tlaking at, "ah yes,.." I say this in case you think my words were cheesjoffs. please explain to me, now, how my claims are incorrect please. you can make a statement towards me, but i expect resons

Ok.

Quote
you my friend, are a moderator,

This is true. He is, in fact, a moderator.
Quote
and I presume you believe in the FE theory.

He does not believe in the FE theory. Wrong.
Quote
So, by saying that there are Southern lights, you yourself are admitting there is a southern pole,

This is fallacious logic. South is a real direction on the flat earth, defined as "rimward". The direction rimward exists regardless of the existence of any pole, and so the nomer "southern lights" has no bearing on the existence of said pole. Again, wrong.

Quote
meaning the earth is round.

The above statements cannot mean the earth is round, since they are entirely incorrect.

Quote
The trap was set, and the bait was taken.

"Taking the bait" implies that he who takes the bait is in some manner being tricked or outwitted. This did not occur.
Also wrong.

New'er Question
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2006, 08:04:22 AM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "Luke_smith64"
i only started tlaking at, "ah yes,.." I say this in case you think my words were cheesjoffs. please explain to me, now, how my claims are incorrect please. you can make a statement towards me, but i expect resons

Ok.

Quote
you my friend, are a moderator,

This is true. He is, in fact, a moderator.
Quote
and I presume you believe in the FE theory.

He does not believe in the FE theory. Wrong.
Quote
So, by saying that there are Southern lights, you yourself are admitting there is a southern pole,

This is fallacious logic. South is a real direction on the flat earth, defined as "rimward". The direction rimward exists regardless of the existence of any pole, and so the nomer "southern lights" has no bearing on the existence of said pole. Again, wrong.

Quote
meaning the earth is round.

The above statements cannot mean the earth is round, since they are entirely incorrect.

Quote
The trap was set, and the bait was taken.

"Taking the bait" implies that he who takes the bait is in some manner being tricked or outwitted. This did not occur.
Also wrong.


fuck you, my trap was set for him if he was a FE believer, all the following assumptions were based on that, if he was a FE believer i would have one, so fuck off, most mods are FE believers and you know. all you had to say was he was a RE believer and i would have been proven wrong, congradulations.
 am the center of the universe