*Molten Objects Always Take Spherical Form*

Eons ago, the Earth was purely molten. The only possible shape this liquid floating in space could have taken was a sphere, as it is the most efficient shape. Then the ball of melt cooled and hardened, and formed the Earth in a solid form, which is also round.

They'll probably say something like "then that isn't how the earth formed".

Before the earth turned hard, it was smudged out by counterweights. The counterweights also explain why the earth doesn't collapse on itself and makes a sphere.

The topics have been unlocked.

If the earth was molten at first, then the sun's gravity would have pulled it into an ice-cream cone shape as it cooled.

If the earth was molten at first, then the sun's gravity would have pulled it into an ice-cream cone shape as it cooled.

Er, no, that's totally wrong.

Go away URL spammer.

Why in Christ's good name are people calling me a malware poster and a URL spammer all of a sudden?

As far as I can recall, I have posted one (1) link, to a page on string theory, which supported my assertion that huge amounts of tiny-atom nickel particles in the ice wall were responsible for the magnetic field that makes compasses work.

...tiny-atom nickel particles in the ice wall were responsible for the magnetic field that makes compasses work.

Go take a sample of the ice. There is no nickle content.

I'm from Canada too, and as I'm sure you know, Sudbury is in Canada.

Sudbury has the world's largest nickel, but it does not affect magnetism.

Why not?

I'm from Canada too, and as I'm sure you know, Sudbury is in Canada.

Sudbury has the world's largest nickel, but it does not affect magnetism.

Why not?

If it does not affect magnestism, then your theory about nickle content in the ice wall is implausible.

The correct answer is because the nickel is not big enough.

So we'd need way more ferrous material than that for the ice wall to be ferromagnetic.

The Engineer and I came up with a nifty little theory to explain this.

According to modern physics, apparently, the universe can be described in two ways... with everything larger than the planck constant, and measured with 'big' strings wrapped around calabizoodle spaces, or with everything smaller than the planck constand and measured with 'small' strings stuck inside clabizoodle spaces.  

Obviously, then, the nickel is the 'small' kind.  So there could be tons and tons of it in a single atom of ice.

The correct answer is because the nickel is not big enough.

So we'd need way more ferrous material than that for the ice wall to be ferromagnetic.

The Engineer and I came up with a nifty little theory to explain this.

According to modern physics, apparently, the universe can be described in two ways... with everything larger than the planck constant, and measured with 'big' strings wrapped around calabizoodle spaces, or with everything smaller than the planck constand and measured with 'small' strings stuck inside clabizoodle spaces.  

Obviously, then, the nickel is the 'small' kind.  So there could be tons and tons of it in a single atom of ice.

Go and do a test. Until you do, your chatter is meritless.

The correct answer is because the nickel is not big enough.

So we'd need way more ferrous material than that for the ice wall to be ferromagnetic.

The Engineer and I came up with a nifty little theory to explain this.

According to modern physics, apparently, the universe can be described in two ways... with everything larger than the planck constant, and measured with 'big' strings wrapped around calabizoodle spaces, or with everything smaller than the planck constand and measured with 'small' strings stuck inside clabizoodle spaces.  

Obviously, then, the nickel is the 'small' kind.  So there could be tons and tons of it in a single atom of ice.

But you still didn't answer my question....
Even if there was nickel in the ice, in which direction are the individual dipoles pointing, and in which direction is the net dipole moment?

In response to your question, there isn't really a 'dipole' because there are no poles.

There are only poles in round earth theory.

In reality there is a perimeter and a centre of the disc.

Not poles.



I thought this would have been obvious.

In response to your question, there isn't really a 'dipole' because there are no poles.

There are only poles in round earth theory.

In reality there is a perimeter and a centre of the disc.

Not poles.



I thought this would have been obvious.

I meant the dipoles of the nickel/iron atoms. Did you even read that article on ferromagnetism that I suggested? Ferromagnetism

The spin of an electron, combined with its orbital angular momentum, results in a magnetic dipole moment and creates a magnetic field. (The classical analogue of quantum-mechanical spin is a spinning ball of charge, but the quantum version has distinct differences, such as the fact that it has discrete up/down states that are not described by a vector; similarly for "orbital" motion, whose classical analogue is a current loop.) In many materials (specifically, those with a filled electron shell), however, the total dipole moment of all the electrons is zero (e.g., the spins are in up/down pairs). Only atoms with partially filled shells (e.g., unpaired spins) can experience a net magnetic moment in the absence of an external field. A ferromagnetic material has many such electrons, and if they are aligned they create a measurable macroscopic field.

These permanent dipoles (often called simply "spins" even though they also generally include orbital angular momentum) tend to align in parallel to an external magnetic field, an effect called paramagnetism. (A related but much smaller effect is diamagnetism, due to the orbital motion induced by an external field, resulting in a dipole moment opposite to the applied field.) Ferromagnetism involves an additional phenomenon, however: the dipoles tend to align spontaneously, without any applied field. This is a purely quantum-mechanical effect.

The correct answer is because the nickel is not big enough.

So we'd need way more ferrous material than that for the ice wall to be ferromagnetic.

The Engineer and I came up with a nifty little theory to explain this.

Don't put me in with that theory.  I disputed everything you said.  It's not my theory.

Quote from: "Captain.Sassy"

The correct answer is because the nickel is not big enough.

So we'd need way more ferrous material than that for the ice wall to be ferromagnetic.

The Engineer and I came up with a nifty little theory to explain this.

Don't put me in with that theory.  I disputed everything you said.  It's not my theory.

“Truth springs from argument amongst friends.” -David Hume

Quote from: "Captain.Sassy"

The correct answer is because the nickel is not big enough.

So we'd need way more ferrous material than that for the ice wall to be ferromagnetic.

The Engineer and I came up with a nifty little theory to explain this.

Don't put me in with that theory.  I disputed everything you said.  It's not my theory.

Well, I couldn't have come up with it without you.  Your rigorous critiques forced me to re-evaluate my hypothesis and patch all the holes in my theory and now I think it's pretty much air tight.

It's like Hegel said:
"The dialectic is frigging awesome."

I think it's pretty much air tight.

Pffft, you wish.