Compass Magnetic Dip

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.

Magnets will align with the direction of the local magnetic field lines, not a straight line to the nearest magnetic pole.

I guess there could in principle be very strange shaped field lines in the Southern hemisphere that just give the impression that there is just the one pole. Though the Earths magnetic field is fairly trivial to measure, and nothing has been observed so far. Also the distribution of observed cosmic rays would be very different to what we expect.

I guess there could in principle be very strange shaped field lines in the Southern hemisphere that just give the impression that there is just the one pole. Though the Earths magnetic field is fairly trivial to measure, and nothing has been observed so far. Also the distribution of observed cosmic rays would be very different to what we expect.

The lines of magnetic flux are like electricity. They take the path of least resistance. This is normally astraight line when the transmission medium is constant.

Im not supporting the hypothesis it would require some fairly insane thing to be happening underneath the ground to cause the flux lines being hypothesized here.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 19, 2009, 05:25:17 AM

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?

Nope.

Nope.

Then you agree that there is at least one South Magnetic Pole on the surface of the Earth. Glad we agree on something.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 19, 2009, 01:03:24 PM

Nope.

Then you agree that there is at least one South Magnetic Pole on the surface of the Earth. Glad we agree on something.

Again, you attack a strawman. I never said that there is at least one SMP on the surface of the Earth.

Again, you attack a strawman. I never said that there is at least one SMP on the surface of the Earth.

Then you have contradicted yourself. You are not suggesting that there is no point on the surface of the Earth where the magnetic field lines point vertically upward (which is the definition of a South Magnetic Pole), but you say you have not agreed that there is at least one SMP on the surface of the Earth. Please clarify your position or GTFO.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 19, 2009, 11:11:53 PM

Again, you attack a strawman. I never said that there is at least one SMP on the surface of the Earth.

Then you have contradicted yourself. You are not suggesting that there is no point on the surface of the Earth where the magnetic field lines point vertically upward (which is the definition of a South Magnetic Pole), but you say you have not agreed that there is at least one SMP on the surface of the Earth. Please clarify your position or GTFO.

I see no contradiction. My position is clear: you attack a strawman. You don't seem to understand that you regularly say that others say things they do not. Here you claim that I said that there is at least one SMP on the surface of the Earth. Your claim is incorrect.

I see no contradiction. My position is clear: you attack a strawman. You don't seem to understand that you regularly say that others say things they do not. Here you claim that I said that there is at least one SMP on the surface of the Earth. Your claim is incorrect.

Please clarify your position or GTFO.

Restating one's previous post does not constitute a clarification of position. Do you agree that there is at least one SMP on the surface of the Earth or not?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 19, 2009, 11:33:07 PM

I see no contradiction. My position is clear: you attack a strawman. You don't seem to understand that you regularly say that others say things they do not. Here you claim that I said that there is at least one SMP on the surface of the Earth. Your claim is incorrect.

Quote from: Robosteve on March 19, 2009, 11:24:56 PM

Please clarify your position or GTFO.

Restating one's previous post does not constitute a clarification of position. Do you agree that there is at least one SMP on the surface of the Earth or not?

I feel no obligation to answer your question. You can deal with my posts as stated and stop saying that I've said something that I have not. When you understand your dishonesty and work to correct it, then we can move on.

I feel no obligation to answer your question. You can deal with my posts as stated and stop saying that I've said something that I have not. When you understand your dishonesty and work to correct it, then we can move on.

If you are unwilling to clarify your position on this subject, I think our debate has come to an end.

Have a pleasant afternoon.

Weird stuff happens when the magnetic flux is changing infinitely.

Weird stuff happens when the magnetic flux is changing infinitely.

Sounds like someone has finished their colouring in book!

I seem to remember it opens up a portal to a place a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

This seems to contradict the explanation given for the aurora in another post by an FEer.  He/she claimed it was caused by the dark energy particles passing through a thinner part of the Earth (ie, under the 'poles') and reacting with the magnetic field at high altitudes above these points.  Yet with the core directly beneath the North Pole, dark energy particles would be even more impeded in their progress? Am I to understand that this is another area where FEers disagree?

Actually that would explain why the Earth is accelerated by these dark energy particles and we are not. Hence the difference in acceleration between us and the Earth.

Actually that would explain why the Earth is accelerated by these dark energy particles and we are not. Hence the difference in acceleration between us and the Earth.

I see where that is a relevant point from my post, but it doesn't resolve the main question i put forward.

Quote from: Raist on May 04, 2009, 03:30:11 AM

Actually that would explain why the Earth is accelerated by these dark energy particles and we are not. Hence the difference in acceleration between us and the Earth.

I see where that is a relevant point from my post, but it doesn't resolve the main question i put forward.

Then she was wrong?

Quote from: Delthan on May 04, 2009, 12:21:11 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 04, 2009, 03:30:11 AM

Actually that would explain why the Earth is accelerated by these dark energy particles and we are not. Hence the difference in acceleration between us and the Earth.

I see where that is a relevant point from my post, but it doesn't resolve the main question i put forward.

Then she was wrong?

That's all I wanted to know.  Do you have a theory for the aurora in FE?

Quote from: Raist on May 04, 2009, 02:19:48 PM

Quote from: Delthan on May 04, 2009, 12:21:11 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 04, 2009, 03:30:11 AM

Actually that would explain why the Earth is accelerated by these dark energy particles and we are not. Hence the difference in acceleration between us and the Earth.

I see where that is a relevant point from my post, but it doesn't resolve the main question i put forward.

Then she was wrong?

That's all I wanted to know.  Do you have a theory for the aurora in FE?

Particles from the solar wind hitting the magnetic field where the lines are vertical?

Particles from the solar wind hitting the magnetic field where the lines are vertical?

But here's where it gets interesting, as the sun in a FE model is well inside the Earth's magnetic field. The solar wind starts off inside the planet's magnetic field, rather than striking it from outside.

Quote

Particles from the solar wind hitting the magnetic field where the lines are vertical?

But here's where it gets interesting, as the sun in a FE model is well inside the Earth's magnetic field. The solar wind starts off inside the planet's magnetic field, rather than striking it from outside.

No it isn't.

No it isn't.

So where is the FE Sun, if not a few thousand miles above the surface of the Earth?

Quote from: Delthan on May 04, 2009, 04:52:31 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 04, 2009, 02:19:48 PM

Quote from: Delthan on May 04, 2009, 12:21:11 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 04, 2009, 03:30:11 AM

Actually that would explain why the Earth is accelerated by these dark energy particles and we are not. Hence the difference in acceleration between us and the Earth.

I see where that is a relevant point from my post, but it doesn't resolve the main question i put forward.

Then she was wrong?

That's all I wanted to know.  Do you have a theory for the aurora in FE?

Particles from the solar wind hitting the magnetic field where the lines are vertical?

Am I to understand you don't follow the 'spotlight sun' theory then?

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 05:26:42 AM

Quote from: Delthan on May 04, 2009, 04:52:31 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 04, 2009, 02:19:48 PM

Quote from: Delthan on May 04, 2009, 12:21:11 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 04, 2009, 03:30:11 AM

Actually that would explain why the Earth is accelerated by these dark energy particles and we are not. Hence the difference in acceleration between us and the Earth.

I see where that is a relevant point from my post, but it doesn't resolve the main question i put forward.

Then she was wrong?

That's all I wanted to know.  Do you have a theory for the aurora in FE?

Particles from the solar wind hitting the magnetic field where the lines are vertical?

Am I to understand you don't follow the 'spotlight sun' theory then?

No. I believe in a sun, not a spotlight. That would be silly, and I am fairly sure no one has an extension chord that long.