181

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 17, 2019, 07:05:03 PM »

One request. If you would indulge me. If not that's ok.

Make a video taking iron filings and place them on the side of the magnet. Let's see where the land and how they orient. My answer is that they will not stick to the side of the magnet. They will flip and stick standing straight up on either the outer edge of the top or will go to the center. Radial magnet would have the filings stick out of the sides. Axial would have them standing on the top flat surface of the earth standing up.

182

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 17, 2019, 03:37:28 PM »

Kinda busy with kids but here is my quick reply.

Imagine that your homogeneous magnet was just a bunch of bar magnets. (Just for illustrative purposes). The positions of the south poles are positioned around the circumference and this is what YOU are referring to as radially oriented. But oriented and positioned are not the same thing. In your example, the positions are radial but the orientation is such that your "bar magnets" are standing on end. That gives it an axial orientation of the magnetic field lines.

If you wanted a true radial ORIENTATION, you would lay the bar magnets on their side. Do you understand the difference?

183

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 16, 2019, 06:33:56 PM »

While I agree that it is quite cool that you made that, that is still not a radially oriented magnet. It just isn't. Its actually oriented. While you can say that the south poles are situated and possibly divided evenly around the outer circumference of the disc and the north pole is situated in the center, it is still not radiating from a center point, aka, a radius. The magnetic field lines are obviously balanced and satisfying Gauss's law of magnetism, but it is axially oriented, as I have provided time and again many diagrams showing what is meant by industry and scientific standards what the difference is between diametric, axial, and radial. I would draw another diagram, but a) you would ignore it as you have done all the other ones, and b) I am on a bathroom break from my kids so I have no real time at them moment to do so. I know TMI.

But that's beside the point. I am merely stating that it is incorrect terminology to say that it is radially oriented. Convergence on a single point is impossible as you and I both agree due to magnetic Fields lines having to sum equally. Your center pole shows multiple field lines, correct? Not a single field line? Correct. Those field lines are perpendicular to the disc surface. Therefore it is axial. No field lines are emitting from the narrow side of the disc. If there were that would be radial.

All you have done (which is still cool btw), is show the exact same field orientation as your earlier post of whatever kind of magnet you said it was.

184

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 13, 2019, 09:56:25 PM »

Now, I cannot say for certain this actually confirmed, but Nikola Tesla did many experiments to demonstrate that the earth has an electrical charge. Anywho...

185

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 13, 2019, 09:31:30 PM »

My responses or others are not meant to hinder you from exploring. By all means, do it and show us your results. I will not be mad if you prove us wrong. However, I think a simple look at something and making a conclusion based on simple observation is ignoring the fact that there are probably more underlying causes and mechanisms to what you are seeing. And that requires rigorous testing methods and equipment to specifically analyze what is happening.

186

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 13, 2019, 08:57:51 PM »

Please, do not get lost in the semantics of how I say things. I am not calling you stupid. You believe something that based on simple optical observations match what you believe.

You have already demonstrated how two south (or north poles) situated near each other can seem to show a larger magnetic flux density - with your ring magnet stack.

I cannot conclusively say that you have not made a true 3 pole magnet - nor can I conclusively say that you have! It would require equipment for analysis that I do not have access to.

That is why I said I have my suspicions that the tool steel is acting like your ring magnet stack - two south poles in extreme proximity to each other.

I concede that my interpretation of permanent and temporary magnets was in error. I was taking the word permanent at its face value - a magnet that already contains a magnetic field that does not have to be induced by some other method (be it magnet or current). My apologies.

187

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 13, 2019, 07:28:17 PM »

Ok, lets take a step back here.  In the context of which you have provided, yes, there seems to be 3 poles. Seeing that I do not have that object in my hand, I cannot confirm nor deny that there are 3 poles.

However, lets consider this.  I am going to take a stab at what you have done (a little slight of hand and ambiguity). What you have actually done is taken an object that is not normally magnetized. You have then taken two permanent magnets and magnetized the object.  The experiment can be found on the internet by taking two permanent magnets and converting a bicycle spoke (I also saw a safety pin) into a "3 pole" magnet. So, you maybe somewhat right - but disingenuous, as well. Considering that you declined to give the details of how you made said "magnet" - or should I say material that has been given temporary magnetic properties.

In fact, the more I think about it, I come to the same conclusion from the earlier experimental evidence you posted.  The stacked ring magnets is the same as this. You have taken to permanent magnets, using (lets call it the north pole) of each and magnetized the ends of the random material. I cannot confirm this but it is my suspicion that there exists 2 south poles in the middle of the material, the same way your stacked ring magnet was oriented. The only reason it cannot repel the other pole away, is due to the material strength being larger than the magnetic flux density.

188

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 13, 2019, 04:30:51 AM »

It's from the link I posted earlier. Come on. FFS. Good lord.

189

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 13, 2019, 02:08:04 AM »

Try doing some further reading.

"The equation states that there is no net magnetic flux b (which can be thought of as the number of magnetic field lines through an area) that passes through an arbitrary closed surface S. This means the number of magnetic field lines that enter and exit through this closed surface S is the same. This is explained by the concept of a magnet that has a north and a south pole, where the strength of the north pole is equal to the strength of the south pole (Fig. 35). This is equivalent to saying that a magnetic monopole, meaning a solitary north or south pole, does not exist because for every positive magnetic pole, there must be an equal amount of negative magnetic poles."

190

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 12, 2019, 08:57:29 PM »

I will attempt to explain this again.  People have always told me I am horrible at explaining things.

Gauss's Law of Magnetism states in short that it is impossible to have a monopole, due to magnetic flux through a closed surface being zero. So having multiple south poles directed at one singular north pole violates that law.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c2

https://em.geosci.xyz/content/maxwell1_fundamentals/formative_laws/gauss_magnetic.html

This can be demonstrated experimentally by the fact that when you cut a magnet in half, you end up with two magnets, both having a north and south pole. You do not end up with two monopole magnets. And, in addition, you cannot have X number of south poles directed at Y number of North poles if X does not equal Y. X must always equal Y, or you violate Gauss's Law of Magnetism.

I hope that explained it better.

191

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 12, 2019, 08:08:07 PM »

You are misinterpreting what I am trying to tell you. I am not saying what you have shown in your video is impossible. It obviously is.

What I am saying is that calling it radially oriented is not TRUE. NOT your experiment. You have an axially oriented magnet. The field lines emerge from the top surface of the magnet, not across the diameter of the magnet (aka diametrical alignment), nor does it come out the sides of the magnet and wrap around go to the center (aka radially).

I agree that what you have shown can occur on a flat earth. I am just saying it is not radially oriented. What do you not understand here?

192

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 12, 2019, 06:14:32 PM »

Ok, maybe my phrasing is incorrect, but I am not a moron. Vertical field lines as you have shown are an axially oriented magnetic field.

I know how magnets work. I work with them every day. Ever heard of servo motor using the Hall effect to determine orientation and position of a motor?

See diagram below.

Also, Gauss's law for Magnetism is a thing. Look it up, buckaroo. Guess you are wrong. (Why would I not know about Gauss's law? I am a degreed mechanical engineer).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_magnetism

Please, continue to tell me that I am wrong.

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=magnetization-direction

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/magdir.asp

193

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 12, 2019, 10:45:51 AM »

What you've shown me again is an axial orientation. Do you see the iron fillings standing straight up at two points? Those are the two axes. That is not radial. The filings need to stick to the side of the magnet. You are being deliberately false with your photo. All you have done is taken an axial disc magnet from a speaker and glued a metal plate on top. Wow.

It essentially boils down to Gauss's law.  You cannot have a true radially magnetized orientation, because that would mean there is multiple south poles and one north pole (the point of convergence). That violates Gauss's law that basically states that each magnetic field line must have an equal (entering and exiting).

See attached drawing of a "radially" oriented magnet. It is not truly radial, due to the fact that you have to obey Gauss's law and there cannot be a singular north pole, and therefore there cannot be a solid disc.  There must be a hole - or something in the hole that is not magnetized. I should have drawn the field lines on the top view, but I forgot. They will still be in a segment or arc form with parallel field lines - even if you chop it up into little pieces and call it guacamoooooleeey.

194

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 12, 2019, 03:45:43 AM »

You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think it means.

Please explain center pole electromagnet.

I'm not disputing your claim that the earths magnetic field could be produced by an electrical charge. We already know the earth holds an electrical charge from Nikola Tesla.

Anyways, you show me a radially oriented ring magnet. They do not exist in nature and no one makes a true radially oriented ring magnet. You said it yourself! "However, it is sort of radially magnetized."

We can imagine lots of things, but it doesn't make them true or possible. The field lines of a magnet always end up parallel. They do not converge to a point. No matter how finely you slice the magnet and rearrange it. They will not converge to a point and make it a true radially oriented magnet. You can pontificate on your great imaginations all you want. It doesnt change that fact.

195

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 11, 2019, 08:18:50 PM »

My whole intention was to address what is in the WIKI.  Which the OP graciously stated for us that the earth's magnetic field is radially oriented.  What I have drawn is not radial. What you have is not radial.  It is axial. This has been my point the whole time. Therefore, the Wiki is incorrect. You cannot have a radially oriented magnet.

Yes, we can have what you describe, if you conveniently ignore the fact that the underside of the magnet has to exist, as well - which is what the Wiki would suggest with a radially oriented magnet.

I apologize if my intention in my response was not clear.  Of course, I thought the intention of any response to a topic is to the topic itself.

196

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 11, 2019, 08:06:21 PM »

You are still wrong.  Your ring magnet still operates the way I said it does.  The cylinder in the center still has a north and south magnetic pole.  The ring magnet has a top layer that is one pole, and the bottom layer is the opposite pole. It is not possible to have a single pole magnet spreading out radially from a center.  This is evidenced by the fact that the iron filings on the outside of the ring are curved outward and down towards the other side of the ring magnet. See attached photo of a diagram I just drew.

197

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 11, 2019, 07:11:15 PM »

You obviously did not pay attention to what is in the links I sent.  The key phrase is radially magnetized.  The magnetic field lines do not and will not converge to a point, or in other words spread out radially from a single point. They practically say it cannot be done. Even providing a graphic showing the misconception of a radial magnetization in a flat ring.

Your hard drive example is faulty logic right in your own statement of "something very close to it." In other words, its not it.

Throw some iron filings around your speaker magnet and find out what the magnetic field looks like.  Its a ring magnet that has the north pole on the top layer and the south pole on the bottom layer. The north or south pole is not radially sorted on the inner diameter of the ring.

198

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 11, 2019, 05:13:26 PM »

Tomfoolery, you are completely wrong. No disc or ring magnet can be radially magnetized.

So says companies that manufacture magnets for a living.

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/magdir.asp


And before you post a link to a Chinese website toting a radially magnetized magnet - its bullocks. Its an approximation using sintered arc segments. Already read it and researched it.

Also, here:

https://www.armsmag.com/news-samarium-cobalt-magnets-magnetization-orientation.html

See bottom of page.

And, also take note - none of these approximated radial magnets are discs. They are rings.

Research, whaaa???

199

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 11, 2019, 02:22:13 PM »

AATW, good point. But are you saying the earth has a large plastic plug in the middle? Is it threaded nylon?

200

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field

« on: February 11, 2019, 11:16:16 AM »

While you are correct about the orientation of the magnetic poles of a speaker magnet, it is still literally a ring magnet. It has hole in the middle. All of them do. A ring magnet must have a hole. The earth does not have a hole in its middle that I know of. Unless perhaps its guarded by security guards hired by the UN.