Magnetic poles?

  • 77 Replies
  • 9253 Views
*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #30 on: May 05, 2011, 04:12:28 PM »
Ali, I'll be honest with you. None of us will take you seriously until you stop arguing pointlessly. The fact of the matter is, if you have a question, we've answered it before, and if you have a problem, we've most likely dealt with it before. If you want proof, go to the FAQ or FED.

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2011, 04:23:34 PM »
I don't have questions, I have a requirement for evidence for your theory. You have none. There is nothing on this site that remotely resembles it.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2011, 04:30:20 PM »
I don't have questions, I have a requirement for evidence for your theory. You have none. There is nothing on this site that remotely resembles it.

And I'm telling you that it's here, but you'll have to search for it. We can't repeat out entire argument to everyone who comes here asking.

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #33 on: May 05, 2011, 04:41:10 PM »
Your argument is that this is a conspiracy:





I accept it as fact because I'm not paranoid.

Your argument is based around literature over 120+ years old, mine is based on actual imagery from within the last 10.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 04:43:39 PM by Ali »

Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #34 on: May 05, 2011, 08:26:09 PM »
Time lapse photography from space?  This is your evidence?   You've got to be kidding.  Or maybe you've just watched too many sci-fi movies to know what's real.
Pretty pictures, tho, I'll give you that.

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2011, 03:30:25 AM »
Observation provides empirical evidence. The Earth can very obviously be observed to be a glove. Where is the observation, from sufficient distance (looking out a window doesn't count) that FE is correct?

Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2011, 04:36:14 AM »
A glove?   I thought it was a banana.  ;D

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2011, 04:41:33 AM »
A glove?   I thought it was a banana.  ;D

Deflection (and it's clearly a pomegranate).

Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2011, 07:10:58 PM »
Agreed (on the deflection).  But the image was just too good to pass up.  ;D Would the glove be flat, like an empty one, or round like an inflated rubber glove?

Anywhooo, for my flat earth research I made a nice spinning "melon earth" to demonstrate the concept.  But I don't think I can attach images here or I'd share.

Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #39 on: May 06, 2011, 07:18:00 PM »
I thought I'd chime in by the way Ali, that since you're not going to look it up, A.R. Wallace was a round earther who demonstrated the curvature of the earth in an experiment in which two large items were placed six miles apart on a canal at the same height above the water. A telescope of equal height, when aimed at them, showed one to appear higher than the other (demonstrating that the earth is curved).

Ever since then FEers have come up with all sorts of reasons for why the experiment was wrong, flawed, mislead, dishonest, etc. Though I have a suspicion that had the experiment demonstrated a flat earth, they wouldn't be contesting any of the variables in the experiment!

Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #40 on: May 07, 2011, 03:49:58 PM »
Sure!  If you're proven right, why quibble?  ;D

The Bedford Level experiments fascinate me, so I'll be there next week trying to reproduce them as best I can.  Stay tuned.

?

crackpipe larry

  • 178
  • I poopded.. <%!
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #41 on: May 07, 2011, 09:21:51 PM »
Deflection, yet again. If you can't provide evidence, you merely insult. Your knowledge of me obviously knows no bounds, so as I seem to have no understanding, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide ANY evidence at all to support your theory? Keep it in small words though, wouldn't want to lose us simple folks in the explanations...

INSERT EVIDENCE BELOW

theyre stick ons...
Why are Pandas so rare??   cuz, Panda tastes good.. <is>

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #42 on: May 08, 2011, 11:28:19 PM »
ali, a flat earth can probably still make a flattened magnetic field pattern with the same effects as a spherical one.  there are certain arangement of magnets that can cause south to be outwards and north to be inwards. 

i dont see your point in your argument, sorry
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #43 on: May 08, 2011, 11:59:55 PM »
so the flat earth as a specific arrangement of magnets to replicate the effects of a magnetic pole? instead of, say, the magnetic pole being the result of a molten & spinning iron core?

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2011, 03:53:21 AM »
ali, a flat earth can probably still make a flattened magnetic field pattern with the same effects as a spherical one.  there are certain arangement of magnets that can cause south to be outwards and north to be inwards. 

i dont see your point in your argument, sorry

Simple, the Southern Magnetic pole is already proven to be a point and not a circumference. As it currently is located off the coast of Antarctica, any ship in that region can prove it exists. I'm also intrigued as to how the FE'ers explain the fact that the magnetic poles are not set, but actually moving:





Why would a set disc with a set centre have wandering poles...or even have a single point southern pole?

Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #45 on: May 09, 2011, 04:02:37 AM »
magnetism has a north and a south pole, one can't exist without the other, disc world has to have a south pole if it has a magnetic north pole

inb4 magnets are a conspiracy

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #46 on: May 09, 2011, 03:10:15 PM »
magnetism has a north and a south pole, one can't exist without the other, disc world has to have a south pole if it has a magnetic north pole

inb4 magnets are a conspiracy

In most theories, the south pole is located at the North Pole and the south pole is directly below the north pole.

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #47 on: May 09, 2011, 03:15:11 PM »
Ineteresting. So how do you explain the point near Antarctica then?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #48 on: May 09, 2011, 03:17:00 PM »
Ineteresting. So how do you explain the point near Antarctica then?
The poles can still shift, and for very similar reasons as in RE theory.  Its just a horizontal shift, not a rotational shift.

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #49 on: May 09, 2011, 03:18:54 PM »
Ineteresting. So how do you explain the point near Antarctica then?
The poles can still shift, and for very similar reasons as in RE theory.  Its just a horizontal shift, not a rotational shift.

You haven't answered the question. How can there be a south pole out to one side of the disc AND a pole under the disc below the north pole. I think you need to think about this and make more shit up before you answer.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #50 on: May 09, 2011, 03:23:15 PM »
Ineteresting. So how do you explain the point near Antarctica then?
The poles can still shift, and for very similar reasons as in RE theory.  Its just a horizontal shift, not a rotational shift.

You haven't answered the question. How can there be a south pole out to one side of the disc AND a pole under the disc below the north pole. I think you need to think about this and make more shit up before you answer.
Sorry, I misunderstood your question;  The north pole is below the North pole;  this would create a magnetic field that acts like we would expect it to.

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #51 on: May 09, 2011, 03:31:39 PM »
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #52 on: May 09, 2011, 04:16:33 PM »
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
Where have I stated there was only one pole?  Where have I said the sun was inside the atmoplane?  Where does a FE say the poles are "Off towards the rim"?

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #53 on: May 09, 2011, 11:22:29 PM »
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array

i think this solves the magnetic field problem


i dont think magnetism is one of the problems in their theories, or else someone would have tackled it a long time ago
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #54 on: May 10, 2011, 12:25:11 AM »
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array

i think this solves the magnetic field problem


i dont think magnetism is one of the problems in their theories, or else someone would have tackled it a long time ago

if you don't think magnetism is a problem in this theory then you don't understand it in context. Nature cannot make and arrange magnets such as you would seem to be suggesting, you're inventing possible scenarios to explain away a problem with the theory, one that is given good explanation elsewhere. don't you think a properly qualified scientist in this field would have fallen upon this idea? you really think an internet forum is going to produce answers from Wikipedia that physicists have somehow missed?

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #55 on: May 10, 2011, 02:29:24 AM »
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
Where have I stated there was only one pole?  Where have I said the sun was inside the atmoplane?  Where does a FE say the poles are "Off towards the rim"?

More semantics? Answer the question as to how the poles could be arranged as you're suggesting. I don't care if an FE says where the poles are, we KNOW where they are. Currently the south pole, and it is a single point, not the entire rim, is off the coast of Antarctica. The FE model puts that point just inside the rim no matter whether you consider Antarctica as a continent or a wall. The north pole is somewhere near the centre of the disc. So, how can that be explained, a completely skewed magnetic field?

And the FAQ states the sun is 9000 feet above the disc. The atmosphere ends at 3.2million feet (1000km). The Magnetosphere has a minimum shield of 70,000km. I think you'll find that the FE theory places the sun well within either. Which means that it should have destroyed the Earth's surface long ago.

Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #56 on: May 10, 2011, 03:01:56 AM »
And the FAQ states the sun is 9000 feet above the disc. The atmosphere ends at 3.2million feet (1000km). The Magnetosphere has a minimum shield of 70,000km. I think you'll find that the FE theory places the sun well within either. Which means that it should have destroyed the Earth's surface long ago.

9000 feet is less than 2 miles. The FAQ puts it at 3000 miles above the surface, 15.84million feet or a little under 5000km. Outside the atmosphere but still well within the magnetosphere. The magnetosphere must be different in FE or maybe there is no solar wind.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #57 on: May 10, 2011, 03:16:46 AM »
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
Where have I stated there was only one pole?  Where have I said the sun was inside the atmoplane?  Where does a FE say the poles are "Off towards the rim"?

More semantics? Answer the question as to how the poles could be arranged as you're suggesting. I don't care if an FE says where the poles are, we KNOW where they are. Currently the south pole, and it is a single point, not the entire rim, is off the coast of Antarctica. The FE model puts that point just inside the rim no matter whether you consider Antarctica as a continent or a wall. The north pole is somewhere near the centre of the disc. So, how can that be explained, a completely skewed magnetic field?

And the FAQ states the sun is 9000 feet above the disc. The atmosphere ends at 3.2million feet (1000km). The Magnetosphere has a minimum shield of 70,000km. I think you'll find that the FE theory places the sun well within either. Which means that it should have destroyed the Earth's surface long ago.
Of course its a single point.  Clearly its not a rim.  A rudimentary knowledge of magnets should be the first hint to that...

As I've said countless times, the south pole is at the North Pole, and the north pole is directly below the south pole.  Exactly like a re.  When this shifts, the apparent north pole moves, as does the apparent south pole.

Of course, if you want to get into fractal geographic theorem, its even simpler than that.  In infinite frames, the south pole is below the North Pole;  below the south pole is the north pole;  in infinite parallel frames, the opposite is true;  the South Pole, in these frames at the center of the disk, is above the north pole which is above the south pole.  The collapse of this is identical to the magnetic field seen in the observable world.

I'm not arguing semantics at all.  You simple don't seem to be understanding the theory.  If you could be more useful in helping me pinpoint your confusion, I'd be happy to try to help you understand.  Or if you could voice your objections to the theory more pointedly concerning configurations I've mentioned that would also be of help.

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #58 on: May 10, 2011, 03:17:49 AM »
That partially clears that up. Except it would look far smaller if it were only 32 miles diameter and 3000 miles away (for the proportions to work, it would only be 300 miles)! As would the moon. They'd be tiny little specs of light.

As for solar wind:

Quote
The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 10 and 100 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time.

You can't not have a solar wind if you have a star. And that's before you consideration all the forms of radiation that would decimate life on Earth. Oh, and the gravitational pull of a sun that's only 32 miles across yet has contained enough fuel to prevent it's implosion  over 4.5 billion years. It's only slightly larger than the average neutron star so would have very similar gravitational pull, enough to literally tear the surface of the planet apart and suck it in.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2011, 03:36:18 AM by Ali »

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Magnetic poles?
« Reply #59 on: May 10, 2011, 03:24:05 AM »
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
Where have I stated there was only one pole?  Where have I said the sun was inside the atmoplane?  Where does a FE say the poles are "Off towards the rim"?

More semantics? Answer the question as to how the poles could be arranged as you're suggesting. I don't care if an FE says where the poles are, we KNOW where they are. Currently the south pole, and it is a single point, not the entire rim, is off the coast of Antarctica. The FE model puts that point just inside the rim no matter whether you consider Antarctica as a continent or a wall. The north pole is somewhere near the centre of the disc. So, how can that be explained, a completely skewed magnetic field?

And the FAQ states the sun is 9000 feet above the disc. The atmosphere ends at 3.2million feet (1000km). The Magnetosphere has a minimum shield of 70,000km. I think you'll find that the FE theory places the sun well within either. Which means that it should have destroyed the Earth's surface long ago.
Of course its a single point.  Clearly its not a rim.  A rudimentary knowledge of magnets should be the first hint to that...

As I've said countless times, the south pole is at the North Pole, and the north pole is directly below the south pole.  Exactly like a re.  When this shifts, the apparent north pole moves, as does the apparent south pole.

Of course, if you want to get into fractal geographic theorem, its even simpler than that.  In infinite frames, the south pole is below the North Pole;  below the south pole is the north pole;  in infinite parallel frames, the opposite is true;  the South Pole, in these frames at the center of the disk, is above the north pole which is above the south pole.  The collapse of this is identical to the magnetic field seen in the observable world.

I'm not arguing semantics at all.  You simple don't seem to be understanding the theory.  If you could be more useful in helping me pinpoint your confusion, I'd be happy to try to help you understand.  Or if you could voice your objections to the theory more pointedly concerning configurations I've mentioned that would also be of help.

I don't have to because what you've stated isn't possible. Firstly, you can't explain the pole found off the coast of Antarctica, secondly, your model fails to fit with the magnetic field lines we know to connect the north pole with the point off Anatarctica, the true south pole, and lastly, feel free to run your pole distances through these equations:

http://instruct.tri-c.edu/fgram/web/mdipole.htm

And you'll find they fail to correlate with the Earth's measurable magnetic field strength and extension into the magnetosphere. Your theory also fails to explain the severe warping of the magnetosphere due to solar wind from a sun OUTWITH the magnetosphere, not with in it as the distances provided would have us think.