[Tontogary]

So if there is an ice wall at the southern extremities of the world, how are the Antarctic explorers explained away?
If someone is following a compass south, they get to the ice wall, or Antarctica, they then keep walking south to the South Pole (magnetic and geographic poles differ) where the dip of the compas needle is 90 degrees to the plane of the surface. Then keep on walking away from that point, they “appear” on the opposite side of the world.
If as is claimed the earths magnetic field is similar to a radial magnet, there MUST be a North Pole, which no one disputes, but also there MUST be a South Pole, which is seen to be beyond this ice wall, which we call Antarctica.
North of the magnetic equator, which runs around the earth at the same latitude as Singapore, a north seeking compass needle will dip below the horizontal, at a steadily increasing angle to the plane of the earth, until at the pole it will be vertical at 90 degrees down.
When passing south of the magnetic equator, the same needle points above the horizontal in line with the earths magnetic field, steadily increasing until at some point it will point 90 degrees to the plane of the surface. This is the other pole, or South Pole. If the earth has a radial magnetism (similar to a loudspeaker etc) then standing at that point you will be either on the underside of the world, or on the bottom of a sphere.

Would any flat earth era be able to claim how this is possible? Ie to stand on the underside of the world?

Also when people have crossed Antarctica, they take a course south to the South Pole, then when they reach there, North and appear on the other side of the “flat” world. To do so with the flat world they must circumnavigate the edge of the world going either east or west, which none of them do.

[ElTrancy]

I'm guessing the answer will be that the South Pole isn't a place, and is actually a ring around the "Ice Wall". And then they'll ramble on about some facts that are completely cherry picked, and then some more of the government conspiracies. After that we can expect some random argument about how all our facts are fake. You'll never get a real answer, just an answer they want to say. Just because they think something isn't true, doesn't mean it's not true.

[Parallax]

If earth was a globe, the distance round its surface at 45 degrees south latitude, couldn't be greater than it is at the same latitude to the north. However, since navigators find it to be double the distance, or double the distance it should be (according to the globe earth theory), this is cast iron proof earth is flat.

[inquisitive]

If earth was a globe, the distance round its surface at 45 degrees south latitude, couldn't be greater than it is at the same latitude to the north. However, since navigators find it to be double the distance, or double the distance it should be (according to the globe earth theory), this is cast iron proof earth is flat.

Where do they find it to be double, details please.

[StinkyOne]

If earth was a globe, the distance round its surface at 45 degrees south latitude, couldn't be greater than it is at the same latitude to the north. However, since navigators find it to be double the distance, or double the distance it should be (according to the globe earth theory), this is cast iron proof earth is flat.

This is an utterly bogus claim. Where are you getting your info? Show me one link from a reputable source. If you were actually correct, it would be evidence in your favor. Sadly for you, it is BS.

[Westprog]

If earth was a globe, the distance round its surface at 45 degrees south latitude, couldn't be greater than it is at the same latitude to the north. However, since navigators find it to be double the distance, or double the distance it should be (according to the globe earth theory), this is cast iron proof earth is flat.

Where do they find it to be double, details please.

There's a navigator posting on another thread. He can confirm that this is in fact totally true and not completely made up nonsense.

Though one could quickly look at air schedules (freely available online) to show that this is entirely true, and any travel agent can confirm that yes, the globe is a fraud and distances are twice as long in the so-called Southern Hemisphere.

[Tontogary]

If earth was a globe, the distance round its surface at 45 degrees south latitude, couldn't be greater than it is at the same latitude to the north. However, since navigators find it to be double the distance, or double the distance it should be (according to the globe earth theory), this is cast iron proof earth is flat.

Then please prove it. Your mentor Tom, asked me in another post to prove that the calculations i have been doing for years are right, so I now ask you to prove your claim, and i dont want some third party annecdote, i want diagrams, pictures and independent testimony.

Failing the above you will be proved to be wrong.

[Macarios]

If earth was a globe, the distance round its surface at 45 degrees south latitude, couldn't be greater than it is at the same latitude to the north. However, since navigators find it to be double the distance, or double the distance it should be (according to the globe earth theory), this is cast iron proof earth is flat.

Wrong.
You didn't compose it well.
Circumference of 45th parallel is measured using ground speed of solar noon to be 28 218 km.
(See this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9269.0 )

Are you saying that circumference of 45th parallel south is 56 580 km?
Navigators didn't and couldn't measure that.

This is why:
Distance from North pole to 45 degrees noth is 5 000 km.
From Norht pole to 45 degrees south is 15 000 km.
(Twice, or 10 000 km, is not to 45 south, it is to Equator.)

If the Earth was flat circumference of 45th parallel north would be 2*Pi*5000 = 31 416 km, 45th parallel south 2*Pi*15000 = 94 248 km.
If it was true, circumference of the Earth at 45 degrees south, compared to 45 degrees north, should then be three times greater, not two times.
(In reality their measurements didn't give those values.)

As you can see, sometimes is easy to test someone's honesty.

[Tontogary]

Not quite right that calculation.

1 degree of latitude is equal to 60 minutes, or 60 miles.

Therefore from the pole, (or supposed Center of the FE) 45 degrees north is 45 degrees from it, or 2700 miles radius, or 5400miles diameter X Pi gives a distance travelled around the world of 16,964 nautical miles.

45South is 135degrees from the pole, or 8,100 miles from the pole, or a diameter of 16,200 miles X Pi gives a distance around the world of 50,894 nautical miles. Which is 3 times the distance.

I have sailed along the 40th parallel south, (although not all the way round, but at least 1/3rd of the way) and can assure you it is no where near 50K nautical miles. Easy to determine, as we steam at 17. Knots, multiplied by the number of hours, and we get a pretty good accurate determination of distance. So please can you tell me why i am lying. I can assure you i am not!

[Tontogary]

If earth was a globe, the distance round its surface at 45 degrees south latitude, couldn't be greater than it is at the same latitude to the north. However, since navigators find it to be double the distance, or double the distance it should be (according to the globe earth theory), this is cast iron proof earth is flat.

Unfortunately this is, as usual, off topic.

I posted the question about magnetism, not distances, however i can open a new thread to discuss navigation, Astro navigation, calculating distances, and spherical trigonometry if you wish, but i fear you will not follow what i post, and dismiss it as lies.

Anyway back to magnetism;

The Q&A section describes the flat earth as having a radial orientated ring magnetism, sounds awfully technical doesn’t it?
The problem with that is that such magnets are essentially series of bar magnets arranged in a RING (that word is important) with the same poles all pointing towards the Center of the ring.

Here in lies the problem.
Anyone who knows anything at all about magnetism ( i am guessing not a lot of FEers, due to lack of response to a clearly titled thread) knows that like poles repel, and therefore there is no possibility to get all of the north poles in one location, as they will tear the flat earth apart at the pole, or there will be a large area that has no magnetic field, as the poles of the individual magnet sections cannot be close together, but form part of the inner ring, which there are calculations for, but from most radial magnets i have seen, it would be fair to say would cover about 2000 to 3000 miles from the pole.

As for the South Pole, it is physically impossible to produce a truly unipole magnet, so there would be a number of south poles around the perimeter of the world, but as they radiate out starting at the North Pole, these would be hundreds or thousands of miles apart, causing massive variations in the southern oceans. Granted there is on part of the southern Indian Ocean with variations up to 25 degrees, but that is only 1 spot, and not that great in the scheme of things.

So please can we have a rational explanation of the earths magnetic field with a flat Earth? I am interested to hear what the FEers have to contribute to the debate, other than it is a conspiracy, or lies, or made up. The Q&A page makes a claim, i would like the supporters of this idea to explain what they think is happening, i wont even (at this stage) ask for proof or evidence, and will debate the physics in question, so come on, give me some theories.

[Curious Squirrel]

If earth was a globe, the distance round its surface at 45 degrees south latitude, couldn't be greater than it is at the same latitude to the north. However, since navigators find it to be double the distance, or double the distance it should be (according to the globe earth theory), this is cast iron proof earth is flat.

Unfortunately this is, as usual, off topic.

I posted the question about magnetism, not distances, however i can open a new thread to discuss navigation, Astro navigation, calculating distances, and spherical trigonometry if you wish, but i fear you will not follow what i post, and dismiss it as lies.

Anyway back to magnetism;

The Q&A section describes the flat earth as having a radial orientated ring magnetism, sounds awfully technical doesn’t it?
The problem with that is that such magnets are essentially series of bar magnets arranged in a RING (that word is important) with the same poles all pointing towards the Center of the ring.

Here in lies the problem.
Anyone who knows anything at all about magnetism ( i am guessing not a lot of FEers, due to lack of response to a clearly titled thread) knows that like poles repel, and therefore there is no possibility to get all of the north poles in one location, as they will tear the flat earth apart at the pole, or there will be a large area that has no magnetic field, as the poles of the individual magnet sections cannot be close together, but form part of the inner ring, which there are calculations for, but from most radial magnets i have seen, it would be fair to say would cover about 2000 to 3000 miles from the pole.

As for the South Pole, it is physically impossible to produce a truly unipole magnet, so there would be a number of south poles around the perimeter of the world, but as they radiate out starting at the North Pole, these would be hundreds or thousands of miles apart, causing massive variations in the southern oceans. Granted there is on part of the southern Indian Ocean with variations up to 25 degrees, but that is only 1 spot, and not that great in the scheme of things.

So please can we have a rational explanation of the earths magnetic field with a flat Earth? I am interested to hear what the FEers have to contribute to the debate, other than it is a conspiracy, or lies, or made up. The Q&A page makes a claim, i would like the supporters of this idea to explain what they think is happening, i wont even (at this stage) ask for proof or evidence, and will debate the physics in question, so come on, give me some theories.

Sorry, but you'll have to explain more what's wrong with a ring magnet. From what I can see a radial ring magnet would create the appropriate field lines. I don't see anything here suggesting a 'series of bar magnets' as you describe.

[Tontogary]

Your picture of a radial ring magnet is just that, a ring, it does not have a pinpoint North Pole.

What you have found is a picture of a section of the lines of flux, not the whole diagram, and as you can see from the picture you provided the inner diameter of the ring is very a long way from the Center of the ring. If you provide all the flux lines you would see that there is a dead band in the Center, and the lines of flus are not vertical to the plane.

The simplistic diagram does not show how the radial field is actually made, whereas if you study how these magnets are made they are a series of bar magnets with the same pole all on the inner ring.

Your diagram does not show how the dip relative to the earth surface is vertical at the South Pole, which has been observed, as to get to that state one would need to be standing on the edge of the flat world, 90 degrees to plane of the flat world.

Show me a diagram of a radial magnet produced in a plane object, with a singular point pole, not a ring.

[kasai]

Well there is in fact an ice wall, that round-earthers will call the Antarctic Shelves. I'm not telling you guys to believe in flat earth, just don't be ignorant about researching it.

[Curious Squirrel]

Your picture of a radial ring magnet is just that, a ring, it does not have a pinpoint North Pole.

What you have found is a picture of a section of the lines of flux, not the whole diagram, and as you can see from the picture you provided the inner diameter of the ring is very a long way from the Center of the ring. If you provide all the flux lines you would see that there is a dead band in the Center, and the lines of flus are not vertical to the plane.

The simplistic diagram does not show how the radial field is actually made, whereas if you study how these magnets are made they are a series of bar magnets with the same pole all on the inner ring.

Your diagram does not show how the dip relative to the earth surface is vertical at the South Pole, which has been observed, as to get to that state one would need to be standing on the edge of the flat world, 90 degrees to plane of the flat world.

Show me a diagram of a radial magnet produced in a plane object, with a singular point pole, not a ring.

Ah thank you, some good information to help me learn some things. Never had a reason to study magnets before, so that image wasn't too far fetched to imagine being what was 'under' the flat Earth. On the flip side, I would point out briefly that the bipolar model doesn't have this issue (I don't think) as it can be created with a simple standard bar magnet. I mention the second bit as it's been said a number of times that the bipolar idea is the 'official' idea of the FES.

[Tontogary]

Can your describe the bi pole theory, or give a link, as i have not heard that one before.

[Curious Squirrel]

Can your describe the bi pole theory, or give a link, as i have not heard that one before.

It's shown in the wiki.


Not much more useful than the unipolar one as far as most things go, but it is technically the idea endorsed by TFES from my understanding.

[Macarios]

Some Flat Earthers are trying to use stereoscopic model of loudspeaker magnetic field, like this:



This way south magnetic pole would be near north geographic pole and pull north pole of magnetic compass towards it.

Unfortunately, it only opens even bigger problem:
Using magnetic compass is not just "point and click".
Earth is too big and not homogenous enough to have uniform magnetic field
The field is regularly measured and maps are published:
- map of magnetic declination
- map of magnetic inclination (dip)
- map of magnetic field intensity

How to explain it ??
It only looks easy.
You have to start trying to understand that it is not.

[Tontogary]

Can your describe the bi pole theory, or give a link, as i have not heard that one before.

It's shown in the wiki.


Not much more useful than the unipolar one as far as most things go, but it is technically the idea endorsed by TFES from my understanding.

But that map shows Antarctica! I thought FEers say you cannot get to the “South Pole” or Antarctica due to the ice wall?

[Curious Squirrel]

Can your describe the bi pole theory, or give a link, as i have not heard that one before.

It's shown in the wiki.


Not much more useful than the unipolar one as far as most things go, but it is technically the idea endorsed by TFES from my understanding.

But that map shows Antarctica! I thought FEers say you cannot get to the “South Pole” or Antarctica due to the ice wall?

Many do. But when the continent was discovered TFES made this adjustment to it's 'model' to account for it. It's part of why attempting to argue about a map is pointless as you never actually know for sure what map someone prefers until they tell you. I've seen at least 2 others bouncing around the other site at this point, including an AEP centered on the South Pole.

[Tontogary]

I have just spent a few hours trawling through the WIKI, and there is no discussion about magnetic field other than the “radial magnet” theory, which cannot explain the earths magnetic variation or dip.

The map showing Antarctica is a representation of a map, not the magnetic poles, and as far as i can see There is no discussion on having 2 magnetic poles.

The following document explains a bit about magnetic fields, and in the example of a speaker it shows that the magnetic lines of force will flow directly from the internal pole to the ring radial pole, however, that wont work, as the lines of force at the surface will mostly be parallel to the earths surface, and not dip relative to the plane, as actually happens.

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/super/life_sciences/E/E6.pdf

Please can we have some input from some FEers? It’s a bit of a one sided debate at the moment, maybe they are scared of engaging? Or dont have answers?