Magnets

If the earth is flat, how do magnets work because the earth's magnetic field requires it to be a sphere.

because the field radiates in all directions equally from a fixed point.

Quote from: Marker88 on April 07, 2013, 11:19:29 AM

because the field radiates in all directions equally from a fixed point.

Care to elaborate on that.

according to people who think the earth is round, the center of the field is the earth's core radiates in all directions, so the fact that compasses work everywhere and point to north and south regions, proves to them the earth is a sphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field

Quote from: Marker88 on April 07, 2013, 11:28:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2013, 11:20:19 AM

Quote from: Marker88 on April 07, 2013, 11:19:29 AM

because the field radiates in all directions equally from a fixed point.

Care to elaborate on that.

according to people who think the earth is round, the center of the field is the earth's core radiates in all directions, so the fact that compasses work everywhere and point to north and south regions, proves to them the earth is a sphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field

It proves nothing of the sort.

How? the waves produced from it go into 3 spacial dimensions.

And also #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fuckin' Magnets, how do they work?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2013, 11:29:24 AM

Quote from: Marker88 on April 07, 2013, 11:28:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2013, 11:20:19 AM

Quote from: Marker88 on April 07, 2013, 11:19:29 AM

because the field radiates in all directions equally from a fixed point.

Care to elaborate on that.

according to people who think the earth is round, the center of the field is the earth's core radiates in all directions, so the fact that compasses work everywhere and point to north and south regions, proves to them the earth is a sphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field

It proves nothing of the sort.

How? the waves produced from it go into 3 spacial dimensions.

The model for the Earth's magnetic field is based on a round earth, metallic core etc., but that in itself doesn't mean the Earth has to be round. But what a FE'r does need to do is explain how the magnetic field works on a flat Earth.

That I would really love to see.

Quote from: Marker88 on April 07, 2013, 11:31:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2013, 11:29:24 AM

Quote from: Marker88 on April 07, 2013, 11:28:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2013, 11:20:19 AM

Quote from: Marker88 on April 07, 2013, 11:19:29 AM

because the field radiates in all directions equally from a fixed point.

Care to elaborate on that.

according to people who think the earth is round, the center of the field is the earth's core radiates in all directions, so the fact that compasses work everywhere and point to north and south regions, proves to them the earth is a sphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field

It proves nothing of the sort.

How? the waves produced from it go into 3 spacial dimensions.

The model for the Earth's magnetic field is based on a round earth, metallic core etc., but that in itself doesn't mean the Earth has to be round. But what a FE'r does need to do is explain how the magnetic field works on a flat Earth.

That I would really love to see.

Its not possible, because it would have to spread relativity equally in all directions, and on 2 dimensional plane, it would be weaker near countries closer to the edge, which it isn't

Magnets are not reliant on the Earth's magnetic field. They work because of the Electromagnetic Force, one of the four fundamental forces of nature. Perhaps you actually are talking about compasses?

Magnets are not reliant on the Earth's magnetic field. They work because of the Electromagnetic Force, one of the four fundamental forces of nature. Perhaps you actually are talking about compasses?

Basically how electromagnetism fits into the flat earth theory

Personally, I think the FE theory goes further in explaining the magnetic poles of earth.

The RE theory states that the earth has a molten iron core that is spinning at a constant rate, which is what generates the magnetic fields. But wouldn't the core slow down over time, due to friction? If we consider the middle of a round earth to be a closed system in which energy can neither penetrate nor escape (ignoring for the time being geothermal energy, of course) then the friction would gradually slow the rotation speed of the earth's core, gradually weakening the magnetic poles. This is not the case. Clearly, energy is being applied to this system to offset the losses due to friction, which is impossible in a RE world.

We know that gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, and FE theory attributes this to energy being applied to the earth causing an upwards acceleration which results in gravitational forces. If we are using the Antarctic Icewall model of a flat earth, with magnetic north being the center of the earth, possibly the earth rotating on this central axis (like a record player) as it accelerates upwards would cause a field to be generated. The same force that is applying the upwards acceleration would apply the rotational force, thus conserving energy. In much the same was that rotational velocity can be represented by a vector angling orthogonally from the center point of rotation, so too could a magnetic field be generated.

The magnetic field is not believed to be caused by a spinning core (I think you're thinking of that sci fi movie "The Core"?). The idea is that there is a very hot inner core of iron, kept solid by pressure, surrounded by a molten iron outer core. The liquid iron circulates by convection, generating electric current and magnetic fields. The convection can continue for a long time, as long as the inner core is hotter than the top of the liquid part. So that's not really a problem for the round earth theory.

The problem with your idea is that if the Earth were a disc spinning like that there would be a centrifugal force pulling us toward the edge. Even if that weren't the case there would be no reason for a magnetic field to be generated. You don't get magnetic fields just by spinning a metal disc.

Magnets are not reliant on the Earth's magnetic field. They work because of the Electromagnetic Force, one of the four fundamental forces of nature. Perhaps you actually are talking about compasses?

I assumed he was asking how the Earth's magnetic field gets generated. It's pretty obvious magnetism itself doesn't rely on any particular Earth shape. Although I agree the OP could be a little clearer.

But the Magnetic field of the Earth still fits the topic I think. So how is that supposed to work in FE exactly? Any FE experts care to explain?

The problem with your idea is that if the Earth were a disc spinning like that there would be a centrifugal force pulling us toward the edge. Even if that weren't the case there would be no reason for a magnetic field to be generated. You don't get magnetic fields just by spinning a metal disc.

But if the disc is thick enough couldn't the lower parts of earth, heated up by the thing that causes UA, be molten as well? assuming that the disc is in rotation (as I would expect for an accelereted disc), I guess this could generate a magnetic field as well. With the magnetic south pole at the bottom...that may be a problem...

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 07, 2013, 09:10:04 PM

The problem with your idea is that if the Earth were a disc spinning like that there would be a centrifugal force pulling us toward the edge. Even if that weren't the case there would be no reason for a magnetic field to be generated. You don't get magnetic fields just by spinning a metal disc.

But if the disc is thick enough couldn't the lower parts of earth, heated up by the thing that causes UA, be molten as well? assuming that the disc is in rotation (as I would expect for an accelereted disc), I guess this could generate a magnetic field as well. With the magnetic south pole at the bottom...that may be a problem...

Yeah, I suppose if the UA kept the bottom of the Earth molten, you'd still get convection currents, but of course that's a big "if". Not sure what kind of field you'd get either, if any. On the ice wall model the entire edge would have to be the South magnetic pole. No idea if that's possible, but maybe. On the two pole model, it's more like a conventional bar magnet maybe?

But again, the disc can't be rotating or we'd feel that pull (everything pulled South). I guess it's possible it could turn very slowly and not notice, but it seems unlikely that no one wouldn't have detected even a tiny force.

On the ice wall model the entire edge would have to be the South magnetic pole.

Incorrect.  Flux lines can point in a direction that is not the south magnetic pole.

There is nothing about magnetism which requires a round earth, firstly.

The earth's magnetic field is produced by a georeactor.

Georeactor? That's a cool idea. Any experimental evidence?

But again, the disc can't be rotating or we'd feel that pull (everything pulled South). I guess it's possible it could turn very slowly and not notice, but it seems unlikely that no one wouldn't have detected even a tiny force.

But according to a round earth theory the planet is rotating, and we are not flung off into space from centripetal forces. (BTW, centripetal forces themselves are "fake forces" even for RE theorists because they provide no equal and opposing force.)

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 07, 2013, 10:24:36 PM

But again, the disc can't be rotating or we'd feel that pull (everything pulled South). I guess it's possible it could turn very slowly and not notice, but it seems unlikely that no one wouldn't have detected even a tiny force.

But according to a round earth theory the planet is rotating, and we are not flung off into space from centripetal forces. (BTW, centripetal forces themselves are "fake forces" even for RE theorists because they provide no equal and opposing force.)

I was talking about centrifugal force. It's called a pseudo force or fictitious force, not a "fake" force. It's well defined and understood; the name doesn't mean that it's somehow mysterious or unreliable. We can actually measure the effect. Things weigh less at the equator than near the poles. Why would this be the case on a flat disc?

Quote from: Tom_Wilson on April 08, 2013, 07:41:37 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 07, 2013, 10:24:36 PM

But again, the disc can't be rotating or we'd feel that pull (everything pulled South). I guess it's possible it could turn very slowly and not notice, but it seems unlikely that no one wouldn't have detected even a tiny force.

But according to a round earth theory the planet is rotating, and we are not flung off into space from centripetal forces. (BTW, centripetal forces themselves are "fake forces" even for RE theorists because they provide no equal and opposing force.)

I was talking about centrifugal force. It's called a pseudo force or fictitious force, not a "fake" force. It's well defined and understood; the name doesn't mean that it's somehow mysterious or unreliable. We can actually measure the effect. Things weigh less at the equator than near the poles. Why would this be the case on a flat disc?

"It's well defined and understood" isn't an explanation for anything. Measuring the effect of a fictitious force sounds like a pretty ridiculous concept. I would check your analysis if measuring fictitious forces proves anything to you. And this fictitious force, however you have defined it, does not only exist on a three dimensional sphere. It exists on a two dimensional plane also. Have you never ridden a merry-go-round?

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 08, 2013, 09:30:01 AM

Quote from: Tom_Wilson on April 08, 2013, 07:41:37 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 07, 2013, 10:24:36 PM

But again, the disc can't be rotating or we'd feel that pull (everything pulled South). I guess it's possible it could turn very slowly and not notice, but it seems unlikely that no one wouldn't have detected even a tiny force.

But according to a round earth theory the planet is rotating, and we are not flung off into space from centripetal forces. (BTW, centripetal forces themselves are "fake forces" even for RE theorists because they provide no equal and opposing force.)

I was talking about centrifugal force. It's called a pseudo force or fictitious force, not a "fake" force. It's well defined and understood; the name doesn't mean that it's somehow mysterious or unreliable. We can actually measure the effect. Things weigh less at the equator than near the poles. Why would this be the case on a flat disc?

"It's well defined and understood" isn't an explanation for anything. Measuring the effect of a fictitious force sounds like a pretty ridiculous concept. I would check your analysis if measuring fictitious forces proves anything to you. And this fictitious force, however you have defined it, does not only exist on a three dimensional sphere. It exists on a two dimensional plane also. Have you never ridden a merry-go-round?

Yes, I have, recently in fact! The reason it is "fictitious" is the it only affects things inside the rotating reference frame. Standing on the ground by the merry go round, you do not feel a force. On the merry go round, you could easily measure the force, say by means of a Newton meter. Thanks for the example!

Now, apply this to your rotating disc model. You are inside the rotating reference frame. So you should be able to measure a "force" pulling things due south.

And when I say well defined and understood, this is what I mean, that you can calculate the force and the answer will agree with measurements. Also, I guess centripetal and centrifugal force are the same? Centrifugal is from the center, and centripetal is toward the center, two sides of the same coin perhaps?

from http://easycalculation.com/physics/classical-physics/learn-centripetal-force.php:

Centripetal Force Formula:
Centripetal Force:



Radius:



Velocity:



 where,
f = Centripetal Force,
m = Mass,
r = Circular Radius,
v = Velocity

EDIT: But of course this is getting a little off topic. Even if the flat disc of Earth was rotating, and for some reason we didn't notice it, it's not really clear how this generates a magnetic field. If I take a metal plate and spin it, I don't expect to see a magnetic field generated.

I'm not sure what all of those equations are designed to prove. I think we've established that if there is a centripetal/centrifugal force that its effects are negligible in either theory.

The original point was that the disc is likely to be spinning in some capacity. But possibly not all of the layers are spinning at the same speed. If a molten metal layer was spinning at a different velocity with respect to the crust, this could generate the magnetic fields necessary to create a polar north.

I'm not sure what all of those equations are designed to prove. I think we've established that if there is a centripetal/centrifugal force that its effects are negligible in either theory.

The original point was that the disc is likely to be spinning in some capacity. But possibly not all of the layers are spinning at the same speed. If a molten metal layer was spinning at a different velocity with respect to the crust, this could generate the magnetic fields necessary to create a polar north.

The equations prove my point that the force is precisely defined and predictable. It may be negligible on a round Earth, but it is measurable. What we do measure is consistent with a round Earth but not a flat Earth. You could use the exact same equations for a flat Earth, if you knew the rotation speed, to predict what the force should be at any given location. Also, Coriolis force, another pseudo force, is not negligible at all, we need to account for it for all kinds of things.

As for the rotating disc idea with different layers, I suppose you could argue that a field might be created this way, but I don't know what shape of field you'd get. That's well beyond me. But you run into the same problem you mentioned in the beginning - there would be some friction between the layers, so it would slow down eventually unless something was pushing one layer while keeping the other stationary (or rotating slower). Maybe if you could show how the top layer stays still but the bottom one rotates, that would solve the problem of centrifugal force. But again - a very big "if".

Centrifugal force is "fictional", because it's just a result of inertia. Every object wants to move in a straight line. If it rotates with earth, it can't, so we measure a "force" pulling it outside, but what we observe is in fact the resistence of the object against the force of gravity that presses it to follow the rotation of earth. So in a RE model CF makes us a little bit "lighter", but in a spinning FE scenario, as Shmeggley said, it would measurably pull us towards the edge.

Georeactor? That's a cool idea. Any experimental evidence?

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/aug/cover#.UWOyAZM3tic


Quite a bit of evidence has already been compiled despite the deafening silence from the Orthodoxy.