Earth's magnetic flux concentration

  • 17 Replies
  • 7164 Views
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« on: April 13, 2012, 10:22:33 PM »
Conventional science tells us that the magnetic flux of the Earth extends from north to south (or vise verse) in the approximate shape of a magnetic dipole.  The flux concentration is greatest at the magnetic poles and gradually decrease as you move towards the equator.  The flux concentration is basically equal at both magnetic poles.

FET, on the other hand, tells us that north is in the center of the flat Earth and south is in the direction of the closest edge, although there has never been offered any proof of magnetic flux acting in this manner as far as I can tell.  Using what science tells us about magnetism, the flux concentration would continually decrease as you move south, even past the equator.  So, below the equator, we would expect to see much lower data than is being reported.

Paraphrased from Wikepedia, measured in Gauss and linked below:
The strength of Earth's magnetic field at 0 latitude (on the equator) is 310 mG
The strength of Earth's magnetic field at 50 latitude is 580 mG.

Quote from unc.edu, linked below.
"Intensity: The magnetic field also varies in strength over the earth's surface. It is strongest at the poles and weakest at the equator."

How does FET explain this?  I have not been all over the Earth to test this; however, it seems to be highly regarded as being true and, therefore, surely would have been proved not be true as soon as someone realized that the magnetic flux concentration is not what it is expected to be at a particular point below the equator.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field)

http://www.unc.edu/depts/oceanweb/turtles/geomag.html

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2012, 04:30:11 AM »
As I suspected, they're unable to answer this. Add it to the list of things that crush FET straight away, along with rotation of stars round two celestial poles, Romer's measurements of the speed of light, INS, trans-antarctic expeditions and the variability of g.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2012, 08:23:00 AM »
Hadn't even noticed this, to be honest. I know I've seen threads like this before, back when I was an RE'er, and that Tom answered them satisfactorily, but I don't remember what the explanation was.

As I suspected, they're unable to answer this. Add it to the list of things that crush FET straight away, along with rotation of stars round two celestial poles, Romer's measurements of the speed of light, INS, trans-antarctic expeditions and the variability of g.

All of which are either easily explained or non-existent. Nice touch.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2012, 12:02:32 PM »
Here, in 43 North, I measure 42-42 uTeslas facing North (352) with my smartphone. Hope this helps
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2012, 01:44:36 PM »
Hadn't even noticed this, to be honest. I know I've seen threads like this before, back when I was an RE'er, and that Tom answered them satisfactorily, but I don't remember what the explanation was.
So, once again, FEers dodge the challenge. There is simply no explanation for the difference density in the Earth's magnetic field between the predictions of both theories.

The Davis model fails altogether to even explain the magnetic field. Finite disc theories fail to predict the increase or that the existence of the MSP. The magic jumping Sun theory does a horrible job of explaining the field's shape and poles.

Since RET predicts the increase as you move south of the Equator while most FETs predict the opposite, RET wins.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2012, 08:02:06 PM »
FET, on the other hand, tells us that north is in the center of the flat Earth and south is in the direction of the closest edge


Some versions of FET do. The model I support does not. Please read the FAQ.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2012, 08:40:10 PM »
FET, on the other hand, tells us that north is in the center of the flat Earth and south is in the direction of the closest edge


Some versions of FET do. The model I support does not. Please read the FAQ.

Ok, I think I found what you were directing me to.

Quote
Q: "Exactly what shape is the Earth if it is flat? Square or circle?"

A: Circle, like in the UN logo. However, the earth is NOT 2D; it is in the shape of a cylinder.

Does this change anything?  Is north not still in the center of the flat side of the cylinder and south not still towards the closest edge?  Maybe I am missing something.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2012, 08:42:04 PM »
This map is advocated by those who consider Antarctica as a distinct continent.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2012, 08:53:11 PM »
I don't want to derail this thread by pointing out how many times that map has been disputed.  I really thought that it had been abandoned in favor of maps that had much less distorted distances, especially between the Americas and Asia/Australia.

Let's try to stay on topic, then.  On your proposed map, how is the Earth's magnetic field laid out?  Are the magnetic poles in approximately the same place as RET?  If so, does the magnetic flux increase as you near these poles and decrease as you move away from them?

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2012, 10:42:34 PM »
tom has provided drawings of how this works somewhere, ive seen them before. they were heavily disputed as all of his claims are but they are here if you do some searching

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2012, 11:30:59 PM »
tom has provided drawings of how this works somewhere, ive seen them before. they were heavily disputed as all of his claims are but they are here if you do some searching

Thanks.  I did check the search before posting, and could not find any posts that were similar to my questions.  The search engine here sucks.  Maybe Tom can chime in.

Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2012, 11:50:09 PM »
tom has provided drawings of how this works somewhere, ive seen them before. they were heavily disputed as all of his claims are but they are here if you do some searching

Thanks.  I did check the search before posting, and could not find any posts that were similar to my questions.  The search engine here sucks.  Maybe Tom can chime in.
Here's a link to Tom Bishop's most recent failure on the topic: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50689.msg1244318#msg1244318

The only way to explain FE given the reality that the density increases as you go south of the Equator is to play the FE 'whack-a-mole' game and switch to the two-pole model. Of course then that model in turns fails to explain the reality that the density is constant along the Equator (and so much more). I assume the FEer are working on the next 'mole'
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2012, 04:27:26 AM »
This map is advocated by those who consider Antarctica as a distinct continent.

Oh yes, the Magic Jumping Sun map? The one you admitted being unable to account for the way the Sun is visible on opposite sides at the same time without appearing to make a huge jump in order to get there? You do realise that map not only doesn't solve the flux issue but has other even worse problems?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2012, 07:20:52 AM »


Wait a second, how do magnetic forces come back? There should not be a magnetic field in, for example, New Zealand, as the field cannot reach North in that direction.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2012, 08:00:42 AM »
<img>

Wait a second, how do magnetic forces come back? There should not be a magnetic field in, for example, New Zealand, as the field cannot reach North in that direction.
Oddly, that map does have an answer, though an obviously wrong one. To get from NZ to the MNP the line would run down (not south) around the right side and back down.

Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2012, 08:28:49 AM »
<img>

Wait a second, how do magnetic forces come back? There should not be a magnetic field in, for example, New Zealand, as the field cannot reach North in that direction.
Oddly, that map does have an answer, though an obviously wrong one. To get from NZ to the MNP the line would run down (not south) around the right side and back down.



Why is it obviously wrong?

Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2012, 08:42:20 AM »
<img>

Wait a second, how do magnetic forces come back? There should not be a magnetic field in, for example, New Zealand, as the field cannot reach North in that direction.
Oddly, that map does have an answer, though an obviously wrong one. To get from NZ to the MNP the line would run down (not south) around the right side and back down.
<img>

Why is it obviously wrong?
The strongest magnetic field line must take the shortest path. So a compass in NZ would point south incorrectly.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Earth's magnetic flux concentration
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2012, 11:45:35 AM »
With all that, it seems that in that model the magnetic field would be created by a bar magnet like sistem. Or maybe two poles.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.