Compass Magnetic Dip

As a current RE'er I consider myself open to new (or even old) ideas/interpretations and am curious to the explanation of magnetic dip in the FE theory.

Compasses align themselves with the Earth's magnetic field, this field is comprised of two components: the horizontal component (H-feild) and the vertical component (Z-field).
The H-field is strongest at the equator and the Z-field is strongest at the poles. Theoretically at the exact mid-point between the south and north poles the Z-field will equal zero and likewise for the H-field at either pole.

Magnetic dip is the tendancy of a freely suspended magnet to align itself with the increasing Z-field as a magnetic pole is neared.
This is true and can be seen for the north pole in England (you don't need to be that close to the pole to see the effect) and most definatly can be seen in the Falklands for the south pole.

As a current RE'er I consider myself open to new (or even old) ideas/interpretations and am curious to the explanation of magnetic dip in the FE theory.

Compasses align themselves with the Earth's magnetic field, this field is comprised of two components: the horizontal component (H-feild) and the vertical component (Z-field).
The H-field is strongest at the equator and the Z-field is strongest at the poles. Theoretically at the exact mid-point between the south and north poles the Z-field will equal zero and likewise for the H-field at either pole.

Magnetic dip is the tendancy of a freely suspended magnet to align itself with the increasing Z-field as a magnetic pole is neared.
This is true and can be seen for the north pole in England (you don't need to be that close to the pole to see the effect) and most definatly can be seen in the Falklands for the south pole.

While the finite model of FE can have a magnetic field that has dip, FE does not predict accurately the amount of dip. RE, of course, does so accurately is therefore the better model.

NASA has invisible fairies that move the magnet to make it appear like the Earth is round when in fact, it is flat.

NASA has invisible fairies that move the magnet to make it appear like the Earth is round when in fact, it is flat.

Curse you, damn invisible fairies!

In the FE theory the manetic flux just stops at the ice wall as this is the edge of the world but magnetic flux is like an electric circuit and must be complete for any flow to occur.
Without a complete circuit electricity doesn't flow, the same is true for magnetic flux. Without flow there is no energy and with no energy a compass will not move and a lamp will not light

In the FE theory the manetic flux just stops at the ice wall as this is the edge of the world but magnetic flux is like an electric circuit and must be complete for any flow to occur.
Without a complete circuit electricity doesn't flow, the same is true for magnetic flux. Without flow there is no energy and with no energy a compass will not move and a lamp will not light

While there are other problems with your post, let me again say that the disc-model with a magnetic pole on the "top" near the NP and another pole "under" the other pole would pass muster.

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 12, 2009, 01:28:32 PM

In the FE theory the manetic flux just stops at the ice wall as this is the edge of the world but magnetic flux is like an electric circuit and must be complete for any flow to occur.
Without a complete circuit electricity doesn't flow, the same is true for magnetic flux. Without flow there is no energy and with no energy a compass will not move and a lamp will not light

While there are other problems with your post, let me again say that the disc-model with a magnetic pole on the "top" near the NP and another pole "under" the other pole would pass muster.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Magnetic flux flows from north to south outside the magnet and flows south to north inside the magnet forming a complete circuit. The Earths magnetic field can be represented as a bar magnet at the earths core with the north and south poles vaguely in line with the Earths rotational axis. At these extremities the magnetic flux 'dips' down towards the pole of the magnet to complete its circuit.

Your references to "top" and "under" need direction, position, polarity and continuity. ie where are they relative to the earths surface? Are they under the earth or above it? Which pole are you refering to and where's its opposing pole? and how are the two poles connected to complete the circuit?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 12, 2009, 03:30:29 PM

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 12, 2009, 01:28:32 PM

In the FE theory the manetic flux just stops at the ice wall as this is the edge of the world but magnetic flux is like an electric circuit and must be complete for any flow to occur.
Without a complete circuit electricity doesn't flow, the same is true for magnetic flux. Without flow there is no energy and with no energy a compass will not move and a lamp will not light

While there are other problems with your post, let me again say that the disc-model with a magnetic pole on the "top" near the NP and another pole "under" the other pole would pass muster.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Magnetic flux flows from north to south outside the magnet and flows south to north inside the magnet forming a complete circuit. The Earths magnetic field can be represented as a bar magnet at the earths core with the north and south poles vaguely in line with the Earths rotational axis. At these extremities the magnetic flux 'dips' down towards the pole of the magnet to complete its circuit.

Your references to "top" and "under" need direction, position, polarity and continuity. ie where are they relative to the earths surface? Are they under the earth or above it? Which pole are you refering to and where's its opposing pole? and how are the two poles connected to complete the circuit?

Again, it's not my theory, so you should probably ask someone else. FE defines "up" and thereby the top side of the FE disc (in the finite model) as the direction of the UA's acceleration. "Down" and "under" are appropriated and oppositely defined. The NP is the same in both models. FE's SP is directly below the NP of the under side of the disc. I should not need to explain how the MLOF follow the contour of the magnet or how the circuit completes through the most direct route through the magnet beyond referring you to your college textbook--as FE doesn't (yet) deny these principles.

By that theory the magnetic dip would be prevalent and severe over the entire Earths surface. How does the FE theory explain the horizontality of a compass at the equator?

I also assume your reference to a college textbook is based on an assumption that I am a student. I am sorry to disappoint you but I am not a student and I actually do know what I'm talking about. I explain my position clearly and in detail so as to get an appropriate response as soon as possible, rather than put minimal information and have someone reply who doesn't understand the subject.

By that theory the magnetic dip would be prevalent and severe over the entire Earths surface. How does the FE theory explain the horizontality of a compass at the equator?

I also assume your reference to a college textbook is based on an assumption that I am a student. I am sorry to disappoint you but I am not a student and I actually do know what I'm talking about. I explain my position clearly and in detail so as to get an appropriate response as soon as possible, rather than put minimal information and have someone reply who doesn't understand the subject.

Well, you need to draw the MLOF diagram to answer your own questions. The dips on the FE would only occur at the NP and the Ice Well, otherwise flat. I hoped that you had taken a college-level course on physics by the reference. You'll need that type of education to understand fully these points.

How's a degree in aeronautical engineering? also HND HNC B-Tech as well as "college" physics?

As for the drawing I'll try if you don't understand but I'm not too good with MS paint (lol) and I could only show the RE model because I don't know how magnetic dip fits into the FE theory.

How's this? It's not brilliant (huge picture of North America) but it's quite accurate.

Don't be confused by the north and south poles being labelled backwards. Remember the north pole on your compass, when pointing north, must be attracted to a magnetic south near the geographical north pole.

First of all I must applaude the drawing. (no joke, I'm impressed)
Does this also indicate the "bottom" of the Earth at the point where the lines of flux start to curve back towards the lower pole (avoiding north and south terminology there) as the path of least resistance for magnetic flux is almost always a solid rather than empty space.

And that highly professional and accurate picture is based on...what, exactly?

It must be a theoretical drawing like mine is. The only difference is mine has had a lot more funding

It must be a theoretical drawing like mine is. The only difference is mine has had a lot more funding

From all those conspiracies, huh?

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 12, 2009, 07:37:01 PM

It must be a theoretical drawing like mine is. The only difference is mine has had a lot more funding

From all those conspiracies, huh?

No, from the government funding given to researchers who did that drawing.

Tom, I thought that you supported an infinite plane model.

Tom, I thought that you supported an infinite plane model.

Have you considered that it might be a cut-away?

You've made a spelling error when writing in pencil.  "Teh core".  But of course you want to be taken seriously, who could ever doubt you...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 12, 2009, 07:26:49 PM

large image

You've made a spelling error when writing in pencil.  "Teh core".  But of course you want to be taken seriously, who could ever doubt you...

Sometimes it is hard to retain a serious tone when you are asked a question for the hundredth time and you are drawing a diagram below your level to explain it.

Quote from: markjo on March 13, 2009, 06:23:20 AM

Tom, I thought that you supported an infinite plane model.

Have you considered that it might be a cut-away?

Have you considered that a cut-away should be labeled as such? Have you considered that finite edge is required for the MLOF to flow over and that your infinite FE model wouldn't have that? Have you considered answering questions explicitly? By the way, you can now choose: 1) finite FE with a reasonable, but grossly inaccurate, explanation for the compass dip or 2) infinite FE as your hero demands, without any hope of explaining the compass dip.

Don't worry about choosing as far as everyone here is concerned since RE is the better model in either case.

Quote from: niceguybut on March 13, 2009, 02:08:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 12, 2009, 07:26:49 PM

large image

You've made a spelling error when writing in pencil.  "Teh core".  But of course you want to be taken seriously, who could ever doubt you...

Sometimes it is hard to retain a serious tone when you are asked a question for the hundredth time and you are drawing a diagram below your level to explain it.

If you were going to give it that little effort, given you don't want to debate with REers any way, why bother in the first place?  If you are going to bother you might as well make a decent fist of it to try and dispell doubts.

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 02:11:03 PM

Quote from: niceguybut on March 13, 2009, 02:08:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 12, 2009, 07:26:49 PM

large image

You've made a spelling error when writing in pencil.  "Teh core".  But of course you want to be taken seriously, who could ever doubt you...

Sometimes it is hard to retain a serious tone when you are asked a question for the hundredth time and you are drawing a diagram below your level to explain it.

If you were going to give it that little effort, given you don't want to debate with REers any way, why bother in the first place?  If you are going to bother you might as well make a decent fist of it to try and dispell doubts.

He is a professional geologist, a napkin  doodle to explain an elementary concept is hardly to be taken serious by someone of his level. His drawing explained everything you needed to know.

If you are going to nitpick about grammar and spelling you should look into the word "dispel." Please form a decent argument and dispell doubts.

Quote from: niceguybut on March 13, 2009, 02:37:09 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 02:11:03 PM

Quote from: niceguybut on March 13, 2009, 02:08:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 12, 2009, 07:26:49 PM

large image

You've made a spelling error when writing in pencil.  "Teh core".  But of course you want to be taken seriously, who could ever doubt you...

Sometimes it is hard to retain a serious tone when you are asked a question for the hundredth time and you are drawing a diagram below your level to explain it.

If you were going to give it that little effort, given you don't want to debate with REers any way, why bother in the first place?  If you are going to bother you might as well make a decent fist of it to try and dispell doubts.

He is a professional geologist, a napkin  doodle to explain an elementary concept is hardly to be taken serious by someone of his level. His drawing explained everything you needed to know.

If you are going to nitpick about grammar and spelling you should look into the word "dispel." Please form a decent argument and dispell doubts.

Okay, I'll chalk that one up to it being a not particularly common word, unlike "the", and admit that I spelled it incorrectly - alcohol will do that to a person, as well as the ability to be coherent.  Sorry, I've had a shitty couple of weeks and will get back to you when I'm more sober and less spoiling for a fight.

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.

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?

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.

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?