The Compass Doesn't Lie

Quote from: markjo on April 30, 2010, 07:19:11 AM

I'm sorry but I think that you're confusing "conclusion" with "hypothesis".  They are not the same thing.  A hypothesis is your best guess for the cause of a phenomenon.  A conclusion is what you draw after designing and performing an experiment to gather data and then analyzing the data. 

I realize this, but a best guess should not be made uneducated.  This is the issue.

The nice thing about science is that whatever the initial guesses, the end result is a lot closer to the real solution than the first.

Science is full of (a posteriori) poor initial guesses. Just a small list:

• Air had not been discovered. Wind was just a weird property of empty space.
• Objects were believed to either have the property of movement or not. Arrows were believed to travel in a straight line and then suddenly drop vertically.
• Atoms were believed to be indivisible.
• Bad smells were believed to transmit diseases.
• Humans were believed to not survive much more speed than a galloping horse's.

Every bad initial guess, or hypothesis, is followed by predictions that perform poorly and by better hypothesis, and the cycle repeats itself until a good theory emerges.

What FE'rs do, hanging on to a 150 year old book and discarding any contradicting data, is the very opposite of good science.

Quote from: lossforwords21 on April 29, 2010, 10:16:43 PM

Quote

Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.

Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

As opposed to ACTUAL real science where you come up with a working hypothesis then go out and test it using repeatable experiments.

Quote from: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 11:03:57 PM

Quote from: lossforwords21 on April 29, 2010, 10:16:43 PM

Quote

Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.

Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

As opposed to ACTUAL real science where you come up with a working hypothesis then go out and test it using repeatable experiments.

Are you suggesting that using the method I described would not give you repeatable experiments?

I believe he's saying that your interpretation of "faulty RE science" is, itself, faulty.
Also, let's try to keep on the subject and not instigate another runaway tangent, JD.

I said earlier that a magnetic monopole would be the only thing that could explain the magnetic field within FET, but now that I think about it, even that wouldn't work. As you gained altitude, the compass needles would develop a slight vertical tilt which would be more noticeable towards the north pole. So yeah, this is pretty rock-solid.

Here's the part where the FE'ers make up something new which allows observations to fit with their theory.

I realize this, but a best guess should not be made uneducated.  This is the issue.

Just FYI...
Scientific Method

Quote from: General Disarray on April 30, 2010, 12:24:04 PM

Quote from: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 11:03:57 PM

Quote from: lossforwords21 on April 29, 2010, 10:16:43 PM

Quote

Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.

Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

As opposed to ACTUAL real science where you come up with a working hypothesis then go out and test it using repeatable experiments.

Are you suggesting that using the method I described would not give you repeatable experiments?

How do you design an experiment if you don't know what you're testing for?

You are making huge assumptions about the depth of the poles and the rim-distance of the Antarctic that do no reflect the model.

Enlighten us. It's pretty hard to get magnetic field lines to fit a flat earth, I should know I've watched you enough times try and do it. I'm prepared to give it another go.

The way I see it, the only way for magnetic field lines to function is if the magnetic south pole is under the flat disk.  Of course it would have to be under the disk at the same depth as the Round Earth's Diameter.

If we're standing atop the disk, and are feeling the effects of one of its magnetic poles, our compasses would point quite vertically across the entire face of it.  The disk-shaped model has nowhere to hide from this.

The way I see it, the only way for magnetic field lines to function is if the magnetic south pole is under the flat disk.  Of course it would have to be under the disk at the same depth as the Round Earth's Diameter.

That wouldn't even work. The field lines would still point mostly up and down just about everywhere. Field lines are naturally round so the only way to make them follow the surface of the earth  is to make the earth round too.

Point.

Nothing can fix this except "Non-Bendy Magnetic Field Lines".

I must've missed the bendy light thing.  It's giving the feel of an inside joke now.

I'm saying the scientific method is based on first drawing your conclusion, then gathering data to test it and then confirming or denying it.  A more appropriate method would be to gather data and then draw a conclusion.

So you admit the FE style of research is not a scientific method, because it always involves taking the flatness of the earth as an invariable postulate and then inventing whatever laws of physics/celestial objects are necessary to enable you to keep the flatness.

Quote from: markjo on April 30, 2010, 06:25:29 AM

Quote from: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 11:03:57 PM

Quote from: lossforwords21 on April 29, 2010, 10:16:43 PM

Quote

Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

I'd say FET didn't 'predict' the field lines that a compass will point along. You most likely created field based off where a compass DOES point, and switched it around to make it seem like you predicted it, instead of the truth. That you gathered information based on where the compass pointed and twisted and input that information into your own theories. Good one. Pfft.

Obviously we observe data first then draw our conclusions, unlike the faulty RE science where one simply goes with ones gut instead of performing true science.

Once that is done we can indeed predict without prejudice to a round earthers whims or fantasies.

  Are you saying that RE scientists don't observe data before drawing conclusions?

I'm saying the scientific method is based on first drawing your conclusion, then gathering data to test it and then confirming or denying it.  A more appropriate method would be to gather data and then draw a conclusion.

Which is something FET doesn't do. Since all FET ideas have no data to back them up (anti-moon or weather patterns on the moon for example) then FET doesn't follow any method except the fanatical method: Assume I'm right and put stuff in to make it work.

If you see a person walking down the street and notice they aren't stepping on any cracks, it could just be a coincidence, but if you follow them for a while and find they never step on a single crack, you can be fairly certain of something: they know where the cracks are.

It's become rather obvious what kinds of threads FEers post in and which kinds they don't.  It's the threads they consistently don't post in that betray their agenda and give them away.

Quote from: John Davis on April 30, 2010, 07:06:38 AM

I'm saying the scientific method is based on first drawing your conclusion, then gathering data to test it and then confirming or denying it.  A more appropriate method would be to gather data and then draw a conclusion.

So you admit the FE style of research is not a scientific method, because it always involves taking the flatness of the earth as an invariable postulate and then inventing whatever laws of physics/celestial objects are necessary to enable you to keep the flatness.

I never said any such thing.

Quote from: Sliver on April 27, 2010, 08:08:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on April 27, 2010, 07:59:56 AM

Quote from: Sliver on April 27, 2010, 07:29:11 AM

Quote from: John Davis on April 27, 2010, 01:15:02 AM

The south pole is below the north pole and visa verse.  This produces the field lines we see in experimentation or with a compass.

He just showed you how that would not work.

He showed how a model no one holds is true does not work. 

Um, no.  He provided a model, which any of us would be able to easily reproduce and test.  Give it a try and post your results.  If the FES model of the magnetic poles is correct, you should be able to easily prove it.  If not, then you'd have to admit the model is wrong.  Now, unless you're willing to actually show us your experiment that proves your model, you should probably stop denying the tests we provide you.

Take out a compass and it will point along the field lines predicted by FET.

@ ellipsis


@poster
 sir, if the gradient does not exist at a certain point, just where would the magnet be pointing?

Edit: nevermind, it's back to normal

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 01, 2010, 01:54:04 PM

Quote from: John Davis on April 30, 2010, 07:06:38 AM

I'm saying the scientific method is based on first drawing your conclusion, then gathering data to test it and then confirming or denying it.  A more appropriate method would be to gather data and then draw a conclusion.

So you admit the FE style of research is not a scientific method, because it always involves taking the flatness of the earth as an invariable postulate and then inventing whatever laws of physics/celestial objects are necessary to enable you to keep the flatness.

I never said any such thing.

You described what you see the scientific method as being, this is not how the FE style of research and "science" operates, therefore the FE style of research and "science" is not what you define as the scientific method. It's like saying "hobgoblins have orange hair" and then if somebody says "that one can't be a hobgoblin because its hair is green" and you say  "I never said that".

Back on track guys,

@John davis on the XY plane the gradient doesn't exist, therefore the compass doesn't point in any specific direction.

Still no word back on this? 

I must've missed the bendy light thing.  It's giving the feel of an inside joke now.

It's Parsifal hypothesis on why the earth looks curved, light under the clouds, solar neutrinos, and sunrise sunset. Its considered a joke by some people, because there is not physics, math, or experimental evidence to back it up, but he believes it and so do a few of the members of FES

You might have just started bendy magnetic fields: some unknown force takes the fields, and makes them bent to your flat earth diagram from the first page

I have a question tho, how do we know the shape of the field lines? most compasses I know only point in the x,y directions, not z. while this does determine gradient, it doesn't say how steep it is.

Still no word back on this? 

question.
how would the magnetic field be created in the first place. On Real Earth, the two cores spinning creates the field. the size of the core is over 9000km, pun intended. how does this work on a flat surface to produce the effects for the field lines FET predicts?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0825_050825_earthcore.html
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v131/i1/p29_1

They can't agree on how thick or wide the disc is, so there's no telling.

I have a question tho, how do we know the shape of the field lines? most compasses I know only point in the x,y directions, not z. while this does determine gradient, it doesn't say how steep it is.

I'm just using compasses as an analogy for free dipoles, which (like compasses) orient themselves following lines of magnetic flux.  You could turn a compass on its side and measure its angle in different planes if you wanted; you could just imagine a magnet hanging from a string at its middle.  It will turn to match the major lines of magnetic flux it's feeling, which (barring nearby objects) will be the Earth's.

They can't agree on how thick or wide the disc is, so there's no telling.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 09:59:41 AM

I have a question tho, how do we know the shape of the field lines? most compasses I know only point in the x,y directions, not z. while this does determine gradient, it doesn't say how steep it is.

I'm just using compasses as an analogy for free dipoles, which (like compasses) orient themselves following lines of magnetic flux.  You could turn a compass on its side and measure its angle in different planes if you wanted; you could just imagine a magnet hanging from a string at its middle.  It will turn to match the major lines of magnetic flux it's feeling, which (barring nearby objects) will be the Earth's.

Is there a name for this? because I googled 3dimensional compass, and nothing good came up

Most compass needles aren't restricted to just move in a plane, they generally have some vertical "wobble" in them.

ok, but even more is my above question, without dynamo theory, how can the field be made

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM

They can't agree on how thick or wide the disc is, so there's no telling.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 09:59:41 AM

I have a question tho, how do we know the shape of the field lines? most compasses I know only point in the x,y directions, not z. while this does determine gradient, it doesn't say how steep it is.

I'm just using compasses as an analogy for free dipoles, which (like compasses) orient themselves following lines of magnetic flux.  You could turn a compass on its side and measure its angle in different planes if you wanted; you could just imagine a magnet hanging from a string at its middle.  It will turn to match the major lines of magnetic flux it's feeling, which (barring nearby objects) will be the Earth's.

Is there a name for this? because I googled 3dimensional compass, and nothing good came up

Try searching for "3-axis compass".

Phoenix, Ariz. — Honeywell has developed a 3-axis compass IC in a chip-scale package that is designed to improve accuracy and location readings in consumer electronics applications including mobile phones, personal navigation systems and portable automotive navigation systems.

The HMC5843 chip increases functionality in consumer electronics by providing expanded direction awareness when overlaid on GPS-enabled maps, making it easier to read digital maps on handheld devices. The integrated circuit includes three-axis magnetoresistive sensors, a 12-bit analog-to-digital converter, and an I2C serial bus interface in a 4 x 4 x 1.3 mm surface-mount package, which uses Honeywell's patented manufacturing IP for the Z-axis sensor.

Not a single FEer is going to try and justify this field line problem?