Compass Magnetic Dip

Well no but the density of the lines is wrong. Per unit area you need the same number of lines at the South as you do at the North. Also you do have problems because in the FE model Chile is closer to the magnetic north pole than it is to the magnetic south pole. Another thing walker would take exception with.

I believe it works better if the north magnetic 'pole' is spread around the entire circumference of the Ice Wall, with a single south magnetic 'pole' at the centre (the geographical North pole).  In both cases, the opposite pole projects downwards into the body of the FE disc.

I believe it works better if the north magnetic 'pole' is spread around the entire circumference of the Ice Wall, with a single south magnetic 'pole' at the centre (the geographical North pole).  In both cases, the opposite pole projects downwards into the body of the FE disc.

This poses the problem of how the circuit is completed. with an enormous pole circumferencing the ice wall and a relativly small (by comparison) pole in the centre the polarity difference would be too great to sustain a stable magnetic field. Also the north and south poles of a magnet are the two different ends of the same piece of material, they cannot be seperated.

Tom's drawing (taking it as a rough sketch rather than absolute) is a more accurate model than the circumferencing pole at the ice wall theory, but even in Tom's theory the magnetic flux would be much weaker in the RE'ers southern hemisphere or the FE'ers Earth outside the equator when we know this not to be true.

The RAF Nimrod uses a system called MAD. This stands for Magnetic Anomaly Detector and uses magnetic detectors to monitor the earths magnetic field. This system does not need to be re-calibrated depending on where in the world it is operating to compensate for a less dense magnetic field near the georgaphical south pole.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 10:56:10 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 10:40:18 PM

Quote from: bowler on March 13, 2009, 04:01:22 PM

That plot is not even close to consistent with data. By data I don't mean data taken by NASA I mean data taken in undergraduate classes the world over. The field in the far south is similar to that in the far north, not much weaker as your diagram would suggest. Also as I have said loads of times the field lines are vertical in the Southern ocean south of Australia not on continental Antarctica. As anyone using magnetic navigation in the souther hemisphere will testify to.

Oh shoot, he drew the lines in a different spot. This effects anything how?

Oh we keep forgetting that FE doesn't have to get anything right as long as it's in pencil. I get the feeling that FET is just too scared to present any stable theory.

You are criticizing the location of lines on a rough sketch. Does he have to add a label saying not to scale?

I criticizing that the best FEers offer is a rough sketch. If you were able to defend your argument, you could render a drawing that answered the challenge. Instead you hide behind a "rough" drawing. Do try harder.

I believe it works better if the north magnetic 'pole' is spread around the entire circumference of the Ice Wall, with a single south magnetic 'pole' at the centre (the geographical North pole).  In both cases, the opposite pole projects downwards into the body of the FE disc.

Sorry. While I appreciate the effort sincerely, your suggestion fails quickly. The edge pole would not have the seen dip as the MLOF would arrive parallel to the disc from the "outside".

I am suggesting that the 'rim' and the 'pole' are in fact two separate magnetic systems.  If you take a cutaway through the FE disc so that you're looking 'side on' with the North geographic pole at the middle, then there would be a bar magnet in the middle (creating the south magnetic pole, and an opposite polarity pointing down into the disc) and, from the side, two bar magnets at the Ice Wall with their north magnetic pole facing 'up'.

This should reproduce observed field strengths and polarities.

If the FE has a finite thickness then this would have the effect of creating a 'mirror' of this system on the 'underside', where the north magnetic pole is at the centre and the south at the rim.

I am suggesting that the 'rim' and the 'pole' are in fact two separate magnetic systems.  If you take a cutaway through the FE disc so that you're looking 'side on' with the North geographic pole at the middle, then there would be a bar magnet in the middle (creating the south magnetic pole, and an opposite polarity pointing down into the disc) and, from the side, two bar magnets at the Ice Wall with their north magnetic pole facing 'up'.

This should reproduce observed field strengths and polarities.

If the FE has a finite thickness then this would have the effect of creating a 'mirror' of this system on the 'underside', where the north magnetic pole is at the centre and the south at the rim.

Sorry again, but no. You solve the compass dip problem at the poles (while violating the one magnet principle) and create havoc for yourself to explain the reason a compass has no dip yet aligns N/S at the Equator.

Sorry again, but no. You solve the compass dip problem at the poles (while violating the one magnet principle) and create havoc for yourself to explain the reason a compass has no dip yet aligns N/S at the Equator.

This is what I mean - sorry for the blurred text. On 'top' of the FE disc, we observe correct alignment at the equator with no dip (as in RET), as well as field strengthening and increasing dip near the 'poles'.  It is also worth noting that even in RET there is no single 'magnet' generating the field - it is true that there is a dominant dipole field, but there are anomalies.  FET and RET can share a common explanation in terms of locally magnetised rocks, but when it comes to turbulent dynamo effects in the core FET requires a clear description of the generating mechanism.  I'm working on this at present.

Quote from: Matrix on March 14, 2009, 07:13:20 AM

If the FE has a finite thickness then this would have the effect of creating a 'mirror' of this system on the 'underside', where the north magnetic pole is at the centre and the south at the rim.

Sorry again, but no. You solve the compass dip problem at the poles (while violating the one magnet principle) and create havoc for yourself to explain the reason a compass has no dip yet aligns N/S at the Equator.

There is also a single point described as the "south magnetic pole". FE Theory seems to have no such point.

Oh dear.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 07:27:30 AM

Sorry again, but no. You solve the compass dip problem at the poles (while violating the one magnet principle) and create havoc for yourself to explain the reason a compass has no dip yet aligns N/S at the Equator.

This is what I mean - sorry for the blurred text. On 'top' of the FE disc, we observe correct alignment at the equator with no dip (as in RET), as well as field strengthening and increasing dip near the 'poles'.  It is also worth noting that even in RET there is no single 'magnet' generating the field - it is true that there is a dominant dipole field, but there are anomalies.  FET and RET can share a common explanation in terms of locally magnetised rocks, but when it comes to turbulent dynamo effects in the core FET requires a clear description of the generating mechanism.  I'm working on this at present.

Of course, we extend every courtesy to "work-in-progress". Let us know if and when we can help with further review.

There is also a single point described as the "south magnetic pole". FE Theory seems to have no such point.

Oh dear.

The fact that you are saying this after I have posted my explanatory figure says a great deal about you, obamabam.

Quote from: Obamabam on March 14, 2009, 08:40:14 AM

There is also a single point described as the "south magnetic pole". FE Theory seems to have no such point.

Oh dear.

The fact that you are saying this after I have posted my explanatory figure says a great deal about you, obamabam.

The fact that in your diagram, you've drawn a cross section and then inserted two arrows saying "South 'Pole'" says a great deal about you, Matrix.

The fact that in your diagram, you've drawn a cross section and then inserted two arrows saying "South 'Pole'" says a great deal about you, Matrix.

Indeed.  I think it says that I am labelling where the corresponding RE features are, so that people accustomed to a RET model can relate to it.  The diagram represents a cylindrically symmetric model.  Now that I've made it nice and clear for you, you can carry on trying to wrap your woefully under-powered brain around what is actually a very simple idea.

While I appreciate you are desperate to undermine my credibility, you might want to try harder not to look like a total retard next time.

Quote from: Obamabam on March 14, 2009, 09:28:47 AM

The fact that in your diagram, you've drawn a cross section and then inserted two arrows saying "South 'Pole'" says a great deal about you, Matrix.

Indeed.  I think it says that I am labelling where the corresponding RE features are, so that people accustomed to a RET model can relate to it.

Um but the RE model has a single point for the south magnetic pole. Not many. Oh deary.

The diagram represents a cylindrically symmetric model.  Now that I've made it nice and clear for you, you can carry on trying to wrap your woefully under-powered brain around what is actually a very simple idea.

Sure. To make it clearer just create another flat earth diagram with a single south magnetic pole and make it tally up to observation.

Touche Mr Matrix. That would agree more strongly with data though i'm still not sure it works when you move the magnetic poles far from the geographic ones, particularly as is the case in the Southern hemisphere. Slightly at a tangent to this is cosmic rays, I've been looking at second order effects for undergrads to study. Things that spring to mind are day/night effects on the muon flux. Also finding the cosmic shadow caused by the moon is a standard calibration tool used by particle detectors. You probably know more about Auger than I do (I'm sure you mentioned Leeds someplace) not sure if they've accurately studied a 'solar shadow' at very high energies. I seem to remember from the papers i've seen they get most of their events from a few very high energy sources in deep space so probably aren't looking for a solar shadow.

Quote from: Raist on March 14, 2009, 12:28:41 AM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 10:56:10 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 10:40:18 PM

Quote from: bowler on March 13, 2009, 04:01:22 PM

That plot is not even close to consistent with data. By data I don't mean data taken by NASA I mean data taken in undergraduate classes the world over. The field in the far south is similar to that in the far north, not much weaker as your diagram would suggest. Also as I have said loads of times the field lines are vertical in the Southern ocean south of Australia not on continental Antarctica. As anyone using magnetic navigation in the souther hemisphere will testify to.

Oh shoot, he drew the lines in a different spot. This effects anything how?

Oh we keep forgetting that FE doesn't have to get anything right as long as it's in pencil. I get the feeling that FET is just too scared to present any stable theory.

You are criticizing the location of lines on a rough sketch. Does he have to add a label saying not to scale?

I criticizing that the best FEers offer is a rough sketch. If you were able to defend your argument, you could render a drawing that answered the challenge. Instead you hide behind a "rough" drawing. Do try harder.

I'm sorry. You are not speaking English. If the best debates RE'ers have to offer are not in english, you will need to find a different board.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 06:57:56 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 14, 2009, 12:28:41 AM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 10:56:10 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 10:40:18 PM

Quote from: bowler on March 13, 2009, 04:01:22 PM

That plot is not even close to consistent with data. By data I don't mean data taken by NASA I mean data taken in undergraduate classes the world over. The field in the far south is similar to that in the far north, not much weaker as your diagram would suggest. Also as I have said loads of times the field lines are vertical in the Southern ocean south of Australia not on continental Antarctica. As anyone using magnetic navigation in the souther hemisphere will testify to.

Oh shoot, he drew the lines in a different spot. This effects anything how?

Oh we keep forgetting that FE doesn't have to get anything right as long as it's in pencil. I get the feeling that FET is just too scared to present any stable theory.

You are criticizing the location of lines on a rough sketch. Does he have to add a label saying not to scale?

I criticizing that the best FEers offer is a rough sketch. If you were able to defend your argument, you could render a drawing that answered the challenge. Instead you hide behind a "rough" drawing. Do try harder.

I'm sorry. You are not speaking English. If the best debates RE'ers have to offer are not in english, you will need to find a different board.

Do try harder. Even your sarcastic attacks are waning.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 06:57:56 AM

I criticizing that the best FEers offer is a rough sketch. If you were able to defend your argument, you could render a drawing that answered the challenge. Instead you hide behind a "rough" drawing. Do try harder.

I'm sorry. You are not speaking English. If the best debates RE'ers have to offer are not in english, you will need to find a different board.

Oh I see. It was the fact that he forgot to say "am". I can see how easily this would throw you.

Nice lame attack.

Quote from: Matrix on March 14, 2009, 04:52:25 AM

I believe it works better if the north magnetic 'pole' is spread around the entire circumference of the Ice Wall, with a single south magnetic 'pole' at the centre (the geographical North pole).  In both cases, the opposite pole projects downwards into the body of the FE disc.

This poses the problem of how the circuit is completed. with an enormous pole circumferencing the ice wall and a relativly small (by comparison) pole in the centre the polarity difference would be too great to sustain a stable magnetic field. Also the north and south poles of a magnet are the two different ends of the same piece of material, they cannot be seperated.

Tom's drawing (taking it as a rough sketch rather than absolute) is a more accurate model than the circumferencing pole at the ice wall theory, but even in Tom's theory the magnetic flux would be much weaker in the RE'ers southern hemisphere or the FE'ers Earth outside the equator when we know this not to be true.

The RAF Nimrod uses a system called MAD. This stands for Magnetic Anomaly Detector and uses magnetic detectors to monitor the earths magnetic field. This system does not need to be re-calibrated depending on where in the world it is operating to compensate for a less dense magnetic field near the georgaphical south pole.

Getting a bit off topic here arn't we?
No-one has posted a response to my previous post. With one magnetic pole spread around the "ice wall" and another being a spot in the centre, the ice wall polarity would be far too great for the spot pole in the centre for a magnetic field to be sustained no matter how many seperate magnets are involved.

Occam's razor
This principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Surely one magnet is a much more simple solution than a multiple pole theory. (Occam's razor also applies to other topics in this forum)

the ice wall polarity would be far too great for the spot pole in the centre for a magnetic field to be sustained no matter how many seperate magnets are involved.

Not all magnets are the same strength - all that needs to be conserved is total flux, and we have no way of knowing what convoluted magneto-hydro-dynamics is going on under the surface (even in RET - see below).

Occam's razor
This principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Surely one magnet is a much more simple solution than a multiple pole theory. (Occam's razor also applies to other topics in this forum)

One magnet is a very elegant solution, but sadly it doesn't explain the observed effects (even in RET).  The magnetic field of the Earth is incredibly complex and the current best guess is that it results from turbulent flow of electric current through the core (this is RET I'm referring to right now) in what is commonly known as the 'dynamo effect'.  The best models of this suggest that as the field periodically flips polarity, it goes through transition phases where there could be one north and 3 south poles at the surface, for instance, since the rest of the field lines are tangled up inside.

FET can also accommodate such changes, although the details are still a work in progress (as I mentioned previously) and are nowhere near as polished as the RET versions, primarily for manpower reasons.  It's important to remember that Occam's razor is not to be applied blindly - quantum mechanics is not an obvious solution, and the razor would have us still chasing classical explanations for things like tunnelling, entanglement and superposition. Use with caution!

Quote from: Raist on March 15, 2009, 12:25:19 AM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 06:57:56 AM

I criticizing that the best FEers offer is a rough sketch. If you were able to defend your argument, you could render a drawing that answered the challenge. Instead you hide behind a "rough" drawing. Do try harder.

I'm sorry. You are not speaking English. If the best debates RE'ers have to offer are not in english, you will need to find a different board.

Oh I see. It was the fact that he forgot to say "am". I can see how easily this would throw you.

Nice lame attack.

It was on par with the attack of the sketch being "rough" when it answered all questions asked. If I asked for a graph of child deaths in the US, and called you wrong because it did not contain a specific data spike because I did not specify accuracy were you incorrect?

Touche Mr Matrix. That would agree more strongly with data though i'm still not sure it works when you move the magnetic poles far from the geographic ones, particularly as is the case in the Southern hemisphere. Slightly at a tangent to this is cosmic rays, I've been looking at second order effects for undergrads to study. Things that spring to mind are day/night effects on the muon flux. Also finding the cosmic shadow caused by the moon is a standard calibration tool used by particle detectors. You probably know more about Auger than I do (I'm sure you mentioned Leeds someplace) not sure if they've accurately studied a 'solar shadow' at very high energies. I seem to remember from the papers i've seen they get most of their events from a few very high energy sources in deep space so probably aren't looking for a solar shadow.

Remember that in FET there is no single point that is the south pole, geographically - in a polar projection of the RE the south geographic pole is defined as a ring around the edge.  It could be that there is a corresponding place on the FE which is a locally strong magnetic north pole, so if you were standing there then every direction would seem to be geographic north on a compass, but this would not explain observed magnetic fields elsewhere in the world if it were the sole magnetic north pole.

To my knowledge, FET has no coherent explanation of cosmic rays or solar neutrinos - this is still a work in progress and some new thought is required.

My point was that in reality there is one observed magnetic south pole. Or at least only one is known and that i nowhere near the geographic south pole. I have done a fair bit of (admittedly overland) magnetic navigation in a number of countries and have never come across another South Pole. More pertinently the sailing community do not know of one either, or at least my conspirator of an ex-house mate claims this is the case, though if anyone were in on a conspiracy theory he would get my vote.

It does not require a pole. Just a northern pole, and the southern "pole" in a circle where the magnetic lines are vertical.

It would always point at the north pole therefore the "south pole" is irrelevant.

No it doesn't work like that. In the Northern Hemisphere what you say is approximately true. In, for example, Australia which is very close to the magnetic south pole your scenario would give very different results.

Quote from: Obamabam on March 15, 2009, 06:24:49 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 15, 2009, 12:25:19 AM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 06:57:56 AM

I criticizing that the best FEers offer is a rough sketch. If you were able to defend your argument, you could render a drawing that answered the challenge. Instead you hide behind a "rough" drawing. Do try harder.

I'm sorry. You are not speaking English. If the best debates RE'ers have to offer are not in english, you will need to find a different board.

Oh I see. It was the fact that he forgot to say "am". I can see how easily this would throw you.

Nice lame attack.

It was on par with the attack of the sketch being "rough" when it answered all questions asked. If I asked for a graph of child deaths in the US, and called you wrong because it did not contain a specific data spike because I did not specify accuracy were you incorrect?

"Rough" is surely a correct categorization. No, the drawing fails miserably to answer the posed questions about compass dip. For example what dip should there be at 89^oN? S? Why are the lines symmetric at the pole/edge as the experimental data shows?

My point was that in reality there is one observed magnetic south pole. Or at least only one is known and that i nowhere near the geographic south pole. I have done a fair bit of (admittedly overland) magnetic navigation in a number of countries and have never come across another South Pole. More pertinently the sailing community do not know of one either, or at least my conspirator of an ex-house mate claims this is the case, though if anyone were in on a conspiracy theory he would get my vote.

Ah I think I see where you['re heading with this - while a circular south pole 'ring' around the edge of the FE disc fixes the vertical component of the FE field to match the RE case, you're saying that if you travel along the coast of Australia with a compass you see the apparent direction of the south pole with respect to the coastline shift, thus indicating that there is only one...?

This is true if you take the RE map and project it directly - it has been a long-running criticism of FET that there are no high-quality maps detailing differences with RET which is still to be resolved.  One explanation would be that there is a local anomaly of slightly increased strength compared to the background.  Another could be that the magnetic ring representing the north magnetic pole is not perfectly circular (a reasonable expectation) and that it bulges towards the south coast of Australia in such a way as to make the field stronger in one direction.

This works locally, but for a more general explanations (such as for sailors) it could be necessary to invoke the conspiracy with respect to alternative means of navigation (for cross-checking magnetic measurements) such as GPS.  This will be most noticeable in the southern oceans, where few ships sailed (and even fewer returned from) prior to GPS.

Well the Andes for example is an area very well traveled by good old fashioned magnetic navigation. More to the point this is why I brought muons back into it. The good ol' muon telescope is a standard undergrad experiment. Many will look at how their measured flux compares to what is predicted by the standard magnetic field map. Significant statistics are not hard to come by even in simple experiments. Combined with the extensive use of magnetic navigation in the southern hemisphere, it seems highly implausible that such a deviation would go unnoticed.

It does not require a pole. Just a northern pole, and the southern "pole" in a circle where the magnetic lines are vertical.

It would always point at the north pole therefore the "south pole" is irrelevant.

Christ are you saying the southern poles doesn't exist?!

It does not require a pole. Just a northern pole, and the southern "pole" in a circle where the magnetic lines are vertical.

It would always point at the north pole therefore the "south pole" is irrelevant.

False. Every magnet ever observed has two poles. You should review magnetism and place a second pole somewhere. (More "Whack-A-Mole" here.)