FE's can not possibly explain this

Quote from: Yoduh on December 13, 2007, 02:58:08 PM

The charge of an electron is 1.6e-19 Coulombs, it's a fact, look it up in a textbook or perform your own experiments to prove it wrong.  You can't.  The same with the strength of Earth's magnetic field at the poles and equator.  Sheesh...

Appealing to authority is a fallacy for a reason.

a fact is an authority?  also, since i know you are a stickler for accuracy, it's "fallacy of reason".  although i suppose it's not impossible that he purposely committed a "fallacy for a reason".

you usually don't make any mistakes.  are you sure you're not drunk?  tired?

"Appealing to authority" is a fallacy for a reason.

And I was referring to his suggestion of relying on a textbook for confirmation as the appealing aspect.

Not possible, I have already disproved all possible exisdtance of a flat earth magnetic field, whether a bar magnet running vertically, or a giant disk magnet with the south pole around the outside.

How is it possible to measure the geomagnetic reversal effects on the planet, if one pole of the magnetic field is always below of the surface of the Earth?
How is the Magnetic flux of the Earth at its strongest measurable point at the south and north poles of the magnetic field desnity is not at its highest at these points?
Either way, the angle of the Earth's magnetic field is measurable at points along the Earth surface, under Tom Bishop's proposal it suggests that at the equator we would experience a magnetic field almost perpendicular to the surface of the Earth. It also suggests that where ever we stand on the surface of the Earth, we would always be heading both North and south, because the magnetic field lines run perpendicular to the surface of the planet.

We know this is on true, particularly at the equator, where the magnetic field runs almost parrallel to the surface of the Earth.

Im disproving all possible theories which could account for the earths Magnetic field.

Nice use of Solidworks, that was the first thing i scored an illegal copy of at University, That and MATLAB cause our course demanded we use it, filthy MATLAB...

Neways let me, using Solidworks show how these field lines would look in a volcanic rock under the FE model close to the south pole. This rock is large (almost the radius of the FE in length) to demonstraight the field lines more clearly.

The Lines are in 2D i didn't think it was necessary to waste the extra time to show the curvature, we all know how magnetic field lines curve, the above post shows it quite nicel.

Note in Both pictures the curved edge represents the FE edge. The rock is shaped like that to demonstraight the edge of the FE, again to make it easier to see how the field lines move out.

The flat edge represents a point close to the north magnetic pole.



The above is what, if FE theory was correct would be observed within the iron in the volcanic rocks...



However the above here IS the observed magnetic field lines in the rocks.

How can FE theory explain this?

What about Geomagnetic reversal? can FE theory explain that as well? Since Eramus' theory of FE magnetic poles is obviously false.

How could these giant magnets suddenly reverse their polar direction? To do that you would need to induce, for such an enormous magnet UNBELIEVABLE amounts of electrical energy to alternate the electron orbital speeds of the electrons in such a magnet.

SE theory gives a reason for this in dynamo theory, most likely due chaotic periods experienced by the magnetic field. Another less likely theory states that it is due to large parts ofpolarized crust sinking through the mantle and disrupting the magnetised nickel-iron inner core

innerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

http://www.psc.edu/science/glatzmaier.html

http://geophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/geomagnetic_reversal

Quote from: TheEngineer

It's Erasmus' theory.  You will have to ask him.  He also indicated that he had answered this already.  Try doing a search for it.

No he didn't answer it already, read the previous page, I already showed him his proof was wrong. If FE uses dynamo theory its magnetically disproven due to the inverted field lines we woudl experience due to the shape of the flate Earth. Instead of seeing the 64 we see in Atlanta or Sydney, it would be more like 75-85 because the flat earth is almost normal to the field direction. Also we can see that that the compass points towards the antarctic as opposed to the central core of the earth which, in FE theory would be below the earth. Geomagnetic reversal would also be impossible

If FE uses Eramus magnets, its disproven by the iron striations in rocks found on the Earths surface (previous page)

If FE uses a giant vertical magnet, it is disproven in the same way that a FE which uses Dynamo theory is.

Please note that a giant magnet would be identical to a veritcal giant solenoid or to a FE core

"Appealing to authority" is a fallacy for a reason.

And I was referring to his suggestion of relying on a textbook for confirmation as the appealing aspect.

ah, i understand your second point.  then, if that was indeed the proper context, you are right.

i think you didn't get my first point though (or i'm not getting your rebuttal).  to say that [something/anything] is a "fallacy for a reason" sounds like something is a "fallacy for a purpose" or a "fallacy on purpose".  the more "proper" way of calling an argument fallacious reasoning--while keeping the actual words as close as what you wrote, i believe, would be to say [something] is a "fallacy of reason".  i knew what you meant though.  word parsing.

did you draw this, bishop?  or did you go to a preschool class and pick a kid at random?

do you know how to spell "the"?

but hey, kudos for trying.

i think you didn't get my first point though (or i'm not getting your rebuttal).  to say that [something/anything] is a "fallacy for a reason" sounds like something is a "fallacy for a purpose" or a "fallacy on purpose".  the more "proper" way of calling an argument fallacious reasoning--while keeping the actual words as close as what you wrote, i believe, would be to say [something] is a "fallacy of reason".  i knew what you meant though.  word parsing.

"A fallacy is a component of an argument that is demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, thus rendering the argument invalid in whole."

When I said "appealing to authority is a fallacy for a reason," it was to illustrate that it's a fallacy because it's flawed in its logic (the reason). Hinting that his post suggested it, or at the very least, it might invoke it.

This is superb, he ignores me and feeds the troll.

I'm sorry to have neglected you divito, but our side conversation wasn't really on topic, and I had to leave the computer so I decided to respond to the person who was actually debating the thread topic.  Anyways, I guess if you want to live your life believing in only what you can prove yourself, that's fine.  But for the rest of us who don't want to waste the time or energy, it's much more efficient to just "believe" what our professors and textbooks say, as long as they can still explain how they derived their numbers/calculations/theory's/whatever.  I choose to believe that the charge of an electron is -1.6e-19 C because I know a verifiable experiment was done to prove it and I don't need to perform it myself as it's also already been re-performed by people more highly skilled and intelligent than myself.

An interesting note - I can't recall if I remembered the negative in my last posts, but it is a negative charge fyi, perhaps if you had done the fact checking like I said we could've viewed how the scientific method works - the acquiring or correcting of knowledge that ultimately leads to the better understanding of our physical world.

However if you still insist on personally gathered data, I can give you all the knowledge you need to prove magnetic field strength to yourself.  -
http://www.hartnell.edu/physics/labs/2b/7measurementoftheearthsmagneticfield.pdf
You could just purchase a galvanometer but there you're again trusting outside sources to read the fields correctly.  And we can't have that can we.

Anyways, I guess if you want to live your life believing in only what you can prove yourself, that's fine.  But for the rest of us who don't want to waste the time or energy, it's much more efficient to just "believe" what our professors and textbooks say, as long as they can still explain how they derived their numbers/calculations/theory's/whatever.  I choose to believe that the charge of an electron is -1.6e-19 C because I know a verifiable experiment was done to prove it and I don't need to perform it myself as it's also already been re-performed by people more highly skilled and intelligent than myself.

I don't really live my life with what I can prove myself, but I understand that anything I'm told may be false, or has the possibility of being incorrect, along with being true of course. I'm not saying that I can't take in all the information (because I do, hence my being here), but to "know" anything in whatever that subjectively means to someone, personal experience is usually necessary.

An interesting note - I can't recall if I remembered the negative in my last posts, but it is a negative charge fyi, perhaps if you had done the fact checking like I said we could've viewed how the scientific method works - the acquiring or correcting of knowledge that ultimately leads to the better understanding of our physical world.

This forum has allowed me to learn more and research more about the many subjects involved here, more than school ever did. I wasn't really prepared to debate specifics, because I haven't really read much about the subject (other than mentioning and suggesting the aspect of a monopole awhile back). I'm also waiting for TheEngineer to make a post because he knows far more than I do.

Also to note, while I can't remember the thread, a very well-educated and intelligent REer agreed that the magnetic field would be the same for both models. (Pretty sure anyways, I'll try to search for it to support this statement)

*** Found something close. This is the REer explaining it:

They do at both poles. Think of the FE as a empty spool of thread. The NP sits over the top spindle hole; the SP over the bottom spindle pole. The line travel between the poles over the surface of the spool, radiating equal and having equal strength at every "latitude".

So basically, the top portion of the spool would be the flat plane of matter we reside on. I'll continue looking.

"teh core"

LOL!

interesting, but it totally fails to explain the existence of an actual south magnetic pole, a small area where all compases point straight down!

if that picture was true, any ship that went anywhere near antarctica would see it's compasses point down!

also, satellites can detect magnetic fields way out in space, despite Bishop's claim that there is no such thing as space travel!

interesting, but it totally fails to explain the existence of an actual south magnetic pole, a small area where all compases point straight down!

if that picture was true, any ship that went anywhere near antarctica would see it's compasses point down!

Well yes, that's what happens. Compasses do not work in the entire Arctic and Antarctic circles. Since the Magnetic field lines are vertical the compasses just spin.

Quote from: eric bloedow on December 14, 2007, 08:20:29 AM

interesting, but it totally fails to explain the existence of an actual south magnetic pole, a small area where all compases point straight down!

if that picture was true, any ship that went anywhere near antarctica would see it's compasses point down!

Well yes, that's what happens. Compasses do not work in the entire Arctic and Antarctic circles. Since the Magnetic field lines are vertical the compasses just spin.

the compasses just spin.  wow.  once again, your ignorance ignorant argument precedes you.  you've never been to northern canada, have you.  i know you haven't, at least not holding a compass.  the proof is in your statement.

unless you are standing on the magnetic north pole, the compass does not spin.  it does not "spin wildly" anywhere in the arctic circle, except on the magnetic north pole.

instead, the compass continues to point to the magnetic north pole (well actually the south pole but not the way they mark the needle).  it may scrape the top/bottom of the housing, but it still points (magnetically) true.

haven't you learned by now to stop posting brain vomit you know nothing about?

the compasses just spin.  wow.  once again, your ignorance ignorant argument precedes you.  you've never been to northern canada, have you.  i know you haven't, at least not holding a compass.  the proof is in your statement.

unless you are standing on the magnetic north pole, the compass does not spin.  it does not "spin wildly" anywhere in the arctic circle, except on the magnetic north pole.

instead, the compass continues to point to the magnetic north pole (well actually the south pole but not the way they mark
the needle).  it may scrape the top/bottom of the housing, but it still points (magnetically) true.

haven't you learned by now to stop posting brain vomit you know nothing about?

The magnetic field lines are nearly vertical beyond the Arctic and Antarcitc circles. Compasses do not work there. At the latitude of Seattle, Washington the compass is already scraping along the bottom of the tray. Your own model agrees with this:

From http://www.sdsc.edu/pub/envision/v16.1/geo.html we see the following image:



"The Glatzmaier-Roberts geodynamo model simulated the 3-D magnetic field structure of the Earth. Blue field lines are directed inward and orange field lines are directed outward. The rotation axis of the Earth is vertical through the center; the field lines are drawn out to two Earth radii."

As we can see from the diagram, the compass actually only works within a narrow section of the earth. Too far North or South the compass will attempt to point vertically with the field lines. Since the magnetic field strength of the earth is not stronger than "gravity," the compass needle will not be able to defy gravity when the compass is tilted. Hence, the compass is useless anywhere where the magnetic field lines are vertical.

This is a widely known phenomenon and has made polar expeditions notoriously difficult.

interesting. the picture you posted there was from a group studying the core of the Round Earth to see why the field apparently shifts. that's right, your picture show the RE model's magnetic field, not the FE model's!

and nothing on that page says a compass would "scrape the bottom in seattle"! you made that up!

compasses only spin when within 10 or 20 miles of the pole, not "anywhere in the arctic circle"! ask anyone who's been to alaska!

and you wonder why no one believes you...

and nothing on that page says a compass would "scrape the bottom in seattle"! you made that up!

yes indeed he did just make that up.  like everything else he says.  i forgot to call him on that, good catch.  i've done quite a bit of hiking in those parts.  although i usually carry a gps for backup, i prefer to use topo maps, a compass, and dead reckoning.

anyone else live in washington, canada, or other far northern us state (any of which would be closer to the magnetic pole than washington)?  how 'bout scandinavian countries?

Classic..

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2007, 06:56:48 PM

Classic..

leave that for the noobs.  ;-)

it looks like a giant butt to me.

interesting. the picture you posted there was from a group studying the core of the Round Earth to see why the field apparently shifts. that's right, your picture show the RE model's magnetic field, not the FE model's!

and nothing on that page says a compass would "scrape the bottom in seattle"! you made that up!

compasses only spin when within 10 or 20 miles of the pole, not "anywhere in the arctic circle"! ask anyone who's been to alaska!

and you wonder why no one believes you...

Fact: At the latitude of Seattle Washington the compass already scrapes along the floor of its disk.

Evidence: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/899130154.Es.r.html

"So, what would happen to your compass as you walked north across Canada, towards the location of the North Magnetic Pole out on the Arctic ice? Well, here in Seattle the magnetic field is already tilting down into the ground, and I'm nowhere near the north pole. My compass still points north, but the needle is tilted, and the north end is scraping the bottom of the compass. If I started walking north, it would tilt more and more until it hit bottom and wouldn't work anymore."

The author of the article, William Beaty, goes on to explain that the compass is only usable in a very limited region between the Arctic and Antarctic circles. The compass needle is unable align with the vertical magnetic fields and defy "gravity" at the Northern and Southern regions of the earth, thus becoming useless to the explorer.

You lose.

Another victory for FE!

"So, what would happen to your compass as you walked north across Canada, towards the location of the North Magnetic Pole out on the Arctic ice? Well, here in Seattle the magnetic field is already tilting down into the ground, and I'm nowhere near the north pole. My compass still points north, but the needle is tilted, and the north end is scraping the bottom of the compass. If I started walking north, it would tilt more and more until it hit bottom and wouldn't work anymore."

i'm sorry, where does it say it spins madly, or unusable?  maybe you have a sixth sense, but it seems to me the person said the "compass still points north".

furthermmore, are you suggesting i take the personal account of one source that neither of us knows, over my own direct experience?  my compass needle didn't scrape in washington, and it worked just fine.

you lose.  (stated in irony.  repeating the single most idiotic assertion i've ever heard you [repeatedly] make.)

you lose.  just leave now.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2007, 02:56:22 PM

"So, what would happen to your compass as you walked north across Canada, towards the location of the North Magnetic Pole out on the Arctic ice? Well, here in Seattle the magnetic field is already tilting down into the ground, and I'm nowhere near the north pole. My compass still points north, but the needle is tilted, and the north end is scraping the bottom of the compass. If I started walking north, it would tilt more and more until it hit bottom and wouldn't work anymore."

i'm sorry, where does it say it spins madly, or unusable?  maybe you have a sixth sense, but it seems to me the person said the "compass still points north".

furthermmore, are you suggesting i take the personal account of one source that neither of us knows, over my own direct experience?  my compass needle didn't scrape in washington, and it worked just fine.

you lose.  (stated in irony.  repeating the single most idiotic assertion i've ever heard you [repeatedly] make.)

you lose.  just leave now.

Hey give the source some credit, he could have been tilting his compass up at an angle to see the face of it better and that caused the needle to scrape.

Quote from: eric bloedow on December 14, 2007, 01:41:02 PM

interesting. the picture you posted there was from a group studying the core of the Round Earth to see why the field apparently shifts. that's right, your picture show the RE model's magnetic field, not the FE model's!

and nothing on that page says a compass would "scrape the bottom in seattle"! you made that up!

compasses only spin when within 10 or 20 miles of the pole, not "anywhere in the arctic circle"! ask anyone who's been to alaska!

and you wonder why no one believes you...

Fact: At the latitude of Seattle Washington the compass already scrapes along the floor of its disk.

Evidence: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/899130154.Es.r.html

"So, what would happen to your compass as you walked north across Canada, towards the location of the North Magnetic Pole out on the Arctic ice? Well, here in Seattle the magnetic field is already tilting down into the ground, and I'm nowhere near the north pole. My compass still points north, but the needle is tilted, and the north end is scraping the bottom of the compass. If I started walking north, it would tilt more and more until it hit bottom and wouldn't work anymore."

The author of the article, William Beaty, goes on to explain that the compass is only usable in a very limited region between the Arctic and Antarctic circles. The compass needle is unable align with the vertical magnetic fields and defy "gravity" at the Northern and Southern regions of the earth, thus becoming useless to the explorer.

You lose.

I notice he refers to the scraping of the bottom on a cheap compass, however his nicer compass does fine on all counts. Not to mention he actually talked about dip needles which don't suffer from the same problem at all, and the magnetic field would be easily "traceable" in such a fashion if you were just trekking north I suppose.

Just something I caught while reading the article.

Compasses do not work in the entire Arctic and Antarctic circles. Since the Magnetic field lines are vertical the compasses just spin.

As a resident of Alaska, and a frequenter of the great outdoors, I am calling BS on this.  I have never had a problem using a compass anywhere in Alaska and that includes above the Arctic Circle. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2007, 09:41:20 AM

Compasses do not work in the entire Arctic and Antarctic circles. Since the Magnetic field lines are vertical the compasses just spin.

As a resident of Alaska, and a frequenter of the great outdoors, I am calling BS on this.  I have never had a problem using a compass anywhere in Alaska and that includes above the Arctic Circle. 

thank you.  that makes two people with direct experience to call bishop's bs.  even his own quoted source is essentially calling bishop's bs.  who else?

thank you.  that makes two people with direct experience to call bishop's bs.

His nickname doesn't make him a reliable source of information.

I was trying to make it sound like a retard saying retards.  Nobody gets it so I might change it.

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 14, 2007, 05:32:10 PM

thank you.  that makes two people with direct experience to call bishop's bs.

His nickname doesn't make him a reliable source of information.

doesn't necessarily make him not...

edit: it's his arguments that count.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on December 12, 2007, 10:13:52 PM

...Second, you'll do much better if you post your own observations. not just something to google.  That's sort of a ground rule...

a rule for you maybe, but not to me and, evidently, many others.  there is nothing wrong with standing on the shoulders of greats and building from there.  rather than reinventing the wheel every time.  if we could only debate what we have personally proved, mankind would be stuck in the stone age.  furthermore, personal anecdote is worth precisely dick.  it may work in sending people to the gas chamber, but except in rare cases has been deemed mostly worthless and unreliable to science.  for example, bishop's personal anecdotes have been demonstrated to be nothing more than convenient pathological lies.

yoduh has made some excellent arguments, even complete with visualizations.  [whether original artwork or more likely not, it's' better than most of us provide.]  outstanding first posts for a newbie, you must at least admit.  in fact, excellent posts in general - they have to be 95% better than the average stupid, juvenile post on this site.  and i still remember his initial frustration all too well, in all of my few weeks here.

keep it up yoduh.  ignore the naysayers no matter which camp they are in.  you will know you've won an argument, when the fe'ers disappear from it but yet are actively posting elsewhere.  that is the only personal satisfaction you'll receive from this site.

I lol'd.

the gas chambers were a great touch