Compass Magnetic Dip

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

You are ignoring my diagram and explanation in this retort.  I can only assume you are trolling.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 16, 2009, 08:58:27 AM

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

You are ignoring my diagram and explanation in this retort.  I can only assume you are trolling.

I was not referring to your diagram with its two poles. I was assailing the edge-as-pole theory as necessarily absurd, I would like to like believe that you're open-minded enough to join in refuting that concept with us.

We are seeing way too much "Whack-A-Mole". If we point out the asymmetry of your two-pole model, we hear that the edge is a pole. If we point out that all magnets have two well-defined poles, we're told that we're ignoring the two-pole model. I think I may have to go get more quarters.

What if the underside of the Earth was analagous to a giant horseshoe magnet, with a pole in the centre and one spread uniformly around the outside?  Magnets such as that are easy to construct for yourself, with you getting closer to the proposed model the more horseshoes you use.  I personally don't like that suggestion, since even though it uses only one magnetic body it would require ferromagnetism at very high temperatures in molten material.

Its also very asymmetric in that you have a disc with a North pole slightly off centre. Then a south pole quite some way from the edge of the disc. While I take your point about ferromagnetism at high temperatures I find the field very hard to sketch even roughly. On can I guess force it to fit data but you would seem to end up with some very dense field lines in the far southern hemisphere.

What if the underside of the Earth was analagous to a giant horseshoe magnet, with a pole in the centre and one spread uniformly around the outside?  Magnets such as that are easy to construct for yourself, with you getting closer to the proposed model the more horseshoes you use.  I personally don't like that suggestion, since even though it uses only one magnetic body it would require ferromagnetism at very high temperatures in molten material.

Remember, Matrix, you've earned our support in your quest. Don't feel that our challenges are attacks. When you apply reason and respond with respect, you'll find support. I suggest that you should consider "guides" at the edge that keep the MLOF dipping as observationally required.

What if the underside of the Earth was analagous to a giant horseshoe magnet, with a pole in the centre and one spread uniformly around the outside?  Magnets such as that are easy to construct for yourself, with you getting closer to the proposed model the more horseshoes you use.  I personally don't like that suggestion, since even though it uses only one magnetic body it would require ferromagnetism at very high temperatures in molten material.

This idea is totally unfeisable as the magentic poles are constantly moving, the path of the magnetic north pole has been documented by the canadians for a long time.

http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/a/northpole_2.htm

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/northpole_e.php

What if the underside of the Earth was analagous to a giant horseshoe magnet, with a pole in the centre and one spread uniformly around the outside?

In which case we're "whacking the mole" whereby you don't have a single magnetic south pole.

you don't have a single magnetic south pole.

Correct - a single point south pole is incompatible with conventional FET.

Quote from: Obamabam on March 17, 2009, 04:27:26 AM

you don't have a single magnetic south pole.

Correct - a single point south pole is incompatible with conventional FET.

I disagree. A single magnetic south pole (with north polarity) is compatible with conventional FET. It would lie under the NP below the disc.

I disagree. A single magnetic south pole (with north polarity) is compatible with conventional FET. It would lie under the NP below the disc.

This is not consistent with the definition of the Earth's magnetic north pole.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 17, 2009, 04:25:22 PM

I disagree. A single magnetic south pole (with north polarity) is compatible with conventional FET. It would lie under the NP below the disc.

This is not consistent with the definition of the Earth's magnetic north pole.

Again, RS offers another unsupported claim. Wouldn't it be great if he'd actually take the time to apply reason before posting (maybe we'd have fewer ridiculous claims) and then present the reasoning with his post?

Again, RS offers another unsupported claim. Wouldn't it be great if he'd actually take the time to apply reason before posting (maybe we'd have fewer ridiculous claims) and then present the reasoning with his post?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Magnetic_Pole

The Earth's South Magnetic Pole is the wandering point on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field lines are directed vertically upwards.

Hopefully this will make it bleedingly obvious why your previous statement holds no water.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 17, 2009, 07:49:14 PM

Again, RS offers another unsupported claim. Wouldn't it be great if he'd actually take the time to apply reason before posting (maybe we'd have fewer ridiculous claims) and then present the reasoning with his post?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Magnetic_Pole

Quote from: Wikipedia

The Earth's South Magnetic Pole is the wandering point on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field lines are directed vertically upwards.

Hopefully this will make it bleedingly obvious why your previous statement holds no water.

Your post does nothing to impeach my position. However, if you wish to accept the RET's position that the Earth's SMP is a point on the Earth's (upper) surface, then we have a clear agreement that RET is superior. Let's pick a point say due south of Perth as the SMP, just this side of the Ice Wall. Imagine then following the magnetic line of force to the SMP from say Santiago. You'd travel south, right to the Ice Wall, right? That's the way the compass points from Chile, right? Now how does the MLOF get to south of Perth, most the way across the FE's disc? That's right! It can't. FET is falsified. We thank you kindly. Please be sure to tip your waitstaff. We'll be here all week.

FET is falsified.

I fail to see the logical connection between the rest of your post and this statement. You have chosen an arbitrary point to be your South Magnetic Pole with no justification for it; obviously it is not going to work.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 18, 2009, 02:48:29 AM

FET is falsified.

I fail to see the logical connection between the rest of your post and this statement. You have chosen an arbitrary point to be your South Magnetic Pole with no justification for it; obviously it is not going to work.

Choose any two points with a significant difference in longitudes, and FET still fails. The concept of choosing an arbitrary point is sound reasoning in scientific debate. The justification is that any two points will do. I don't have to wait on FEers to get around to deciding where the SMP is. Wherever it is, there must be a distant location that has its MLOF going the wrong way.

Choose any two points with a significant difference in longitudes, and FET still fails. The concept of choosing an arbitrary point is sound reasoning in scientific debate. The justification is that any two points will do. I don't have to wait on FEers to get around to deciding where the SMP is. Wherever it is, there must be a distant location that has its MLOF going the wrong way.

Please stop making assumptions regarding FET and claiming that because your assumptions don't work, the theory itself is rubbish.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 18, 2009, 03:15:25 AM

Choose any two points with a significant difference in longitudes, and FET still fails. The concept of choosing an arbitrary point is sound reasoning in scientific debate. The justification is that any two points will do. I don't have to wait on FEers to get around to deciding where the SMP is. Wherever it is, there must be a distant location that has its MLOF going the wrong way.

Please stop making assumptions regarding FET and claiming that because your assumptions don't work, the theory itself is rubbish.

No. The technique is valid. Deal with it. I make no unreasonable assumption. You say the SMP is on the Earth's surface, not me. That causes FET to fail, not my assumption that it's at a specific location. If you don't like the one I chose, choose one on your own. FET will still fail by the same analysis.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Magnetic_Pole

Quote from: Wikipedia

The Earth's South Magnetic Pole is the wandering point on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field lines are directed vertically upwards.

Wow. You're quoting things which contradict FE theory and the FE'ers posts in this thread.

No offense steve but you're not the kind of guy I'd want to be stuck in a foxhole with.

*KABOOOM*

Quote from: Robosteve on March 18, 2009, 02:38:51 AM

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Magnetic_Pole

Quote from: Wikipedia

The Earth's South Magnetic Pole is the wandering point on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field lines are directed vertically upwards.

Wow. You're quoting things which contradict FE theory and the FE'ers posts in this thread.

No offense steve but you're not the kind of guy I'd want to be stuck in a foxhole with.

*KABOOOM*

Maybe we should ask RS to join our team. It would make the fight fairer.

No. The technique is valid. Deal with it. I make no unreasonable assumption. You say the SMP is on the Earth's surface, not me. That causes FET to fail, not my assumption that it's at a specific location. If you don't like the one I chose, choose one on your own. FET will still fail by the same analysis.

You are making an unreasonable assumption by applying your RE propaganda to the FE model.

Quote from: Robosteve on March 18, 2009, 02:38:51 AM

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Magnetic_Pole

Quote from: Wikipedia

The Earth's South Magnetic Pole is the wandering point on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field lines are directed vertically upwards.

Wow. You're quoting things which contradict FE theory and the FE'ers posts in this thread.

No offense steve but you're not the kind of guy I'd want to be stuck in a foxhole with.

*KABOOOM*

I am quoting the definition of a South Magnetic Pole. I am not attempting to change what it is, I am drawing attention to the fact that it must be a point on the surface of the Earth, because that is what it is defined to be. I don't see how clarifying the definition of something contradicts or supports anything at all.

...and so here we see my earlier point about the disagreements between flavours of FET - I personally prefer the condition of vertical field lines to be described by a ring around the perimeter of the FE rather than a single point (both are valid - my earlier diagram shows how). The single point doesn't fit well with FET due to the point raised in the OP - that the field lines do not decline correctly in the South.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 18, 2009, 03:34:54 AM

No. The technique is valid. Deal with it. I make no unreasonable assumption. You say the SMP is on the Earth's surface, not me. That causes FET to fail, not my assumption that it's at a specific location. If you don't like the one I chose, choose one on your own. FET will still fail by the same analysis.

You are making an unreasonable assumption by applying your RE propaganda to the FE model.

Do you have any evidence that the assumption is unreasonable? Do you have a better suggestion? We can exhaustively choose every possibility and see FET fail each and every time. Arguing from a arbitrary and unbiased sample is perfectly acceptable to even the most skeptic scientist.

The single point doesn't fit well with FET

Obviously. I did not claim that there was a single South Magnetic Pole; that was an unreasonable assumption on MayTheBetterModelWin's part.

Where are the other ones? Magnetic navigation happens all the time in the Southern hemisphere yet I have heard nothing of people getting lost because there are multiple magnetic poles.

Where are the other ones? Magnetic navigation happens all the time in the Southern hemisphere yet I have heard nothing of people getting lost because there are multiple magnetic poles.

It is possible that there are infinitely many, arranged in a ring as Matrix has suggested.

Well only if everyone every to use a compass in the Southern hemisphere is in on the conspiracy.

Well only if everyone every to use a compass in the Southern hemisphere is in on the conspiracy.

Incorrect.

Quote from: bowler on March 19, 2009, 03:53:57 AM

Where are the other ones? Magnetic navigation happens all the time in the Southern hemisphere yet I have heard nothing of people getting lost because there are multiple magnetic poles.

It is possible that there are infinitely many, arranged in a ring as Matrix has suggested.

Unless of course, one supports Maxwell's Equations, more fundamental than SR or GR to FET. Do realize how ridiculous you're being.

Unless of course, one supports Maxwell's Equations, more fundamental than SR or GR to FET. Do realize how ridiculous you're being.

Are you suggesting that the magnetic field lines never intersect the surface of the Earth while pointing vertically up?

Quote from: bowler on March 19, 2009, 04:26:33 AM

Well only if everyone every to use a compass in the Southern hemisphere is in on the conspiracy.

Incorrect.

Absolutely correct. Magnetic navigation relies on the assumption that there is a single magnetic south pole located in the Southern Ocean, south of Australia. This means that someone in New Zealand using a compass would have a fair few degrees between what their map told them was magnetic south and what their compass told them.