*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2019, 06:41:01 AM »
It's from the link I posted earlier. Come on. FFS. Good lord.

Which link that you posted? One that showed only what Gauss said, or the one where anonymous people had written their understanding of what Gauss said?

The point is you're claiming that Gauss's law does not allow a magnet with an uneven number of poles. As best as I can tell, all he claimed was that you cannot have a north pole without a south pole or a south pole without a north pole, in other words, you cannot have a monopole magnet.

Can you show me where Gauss himself said you cannot have an uneven number of poles or a radially oriented magnet?

I totally get it that you cannot have a monopole magnet.

But a monopole magnet is clearly not a multipole magnet.

It's my understanding and interpretation that Gauss' Law of Magnetism states or alludes to the fact that you can't have, essentially, an odd number of poles, 'free poles' as it were. Your understanding and interpretation may be different. (I would wake Gauss up and ask him, but he was on an epic bender last night, not to be disturbed.)

Gauss' Law aside, is there any evidence that odd multipole magnets exist? Maybe they do. I can't find anything.

I built one:



But if everyone things that's invalid because it's  multiple sintered peices, I may have to try making a single piece 3 pole magnet with my diamond blade on my 12-pole magnet.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1229
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #41 on: February 13, 2019, 06:59:10 AM »
I just woke up CFG.

A) He's madder than a hornet, though still a little drunk so not as angry as he would be had I waited till morning.
B) He's not sure what to make of your invention, he's scribbling wildly on parchment right now. Symbols and such. I think it's best to let him settle down some.
C) How do we apply your odd-poled magnet to perhaps the moebius strip that is earth?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2019, 02:35:58 PM »
But if everyone things that's invalid because it's  multiple sintered peices, I may have to try making a single piece 3 pole magnet with my diamond blade on my 12-pole magnet.
Unless you can show that the earth has multiple south magnetic poles, isn't this whole discussion moot?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2019, 05:18:13 PM »
<snip>
It's my understanding and interpretation that Gauss' Law of Magnetism states or alludes to the fact that you can't have, essentially, an odd number of poles, 'free poles' as it were. Your understanding and interpretation may be different. (I would wake Gauss up and ask him, but he was on an epic bender last night, not to be disturbed.)

Gauss' Law aside, is there any evidence that odd multipole magnets exist? Maybe they do. I can't find anything.

If all the poles have equal force, then I agree that there definitely has to be an equal number of N and S poles.

However, knowing that the magnetic flux doesn't come out a pinpoint on the poles but is distributed over the surface of each pole, and knowing that a magnet is actually made up of millions of series and parallel magnetic domains, I do not see why you could not have a magnet with one pole that was larger (but less intense per unit area) or even a magnet with one north pole and two weaker south poles.

But I'm all for experimentation and truth so I intend to keep experimenting until I figure it out.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2019, 05:22:08 PM »
I just woke up CFG.

A) He's madder than a hornet, though still a little drunk so not as angry as he would be had I waited till morning.
B) He's not sure what to make of your invention, he's scribbling wildly on parchment right now. Symbols and such. I think it's best to let him settle down some.
C) How do we apply your odd-poled magnet to perhaps the moebius strip that is earth?

I'm not sure how to apply a radially or odd-poled magnet to a multidimensional mobius  earth. I gotta admit, the radially oriented magnet model does work more easily on a flat disk earth than it does on a 3D mobius earth.

I'm hoping to find some flat earther's here that are smarter than me so we can figure some stuff out. What do you think my chances are?

never went to high school, and have no GED, so I imagine I can learn a lot from smarter flat earthers.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #45 on: February 13, 2019, 05:26:18 PM »
Unless you can show that the earth has multiple south magnetic poles, isn't this whole discussion moot?

Well, maybe not completely moot.
There seems to be some who say that it's not possible to have a radially oriented magnet. They equate it to a magnet with multiple south poles, which they say is impossible.
What they seem to be ignoring is that all magnets are made up of zillions of tiny micro magnets, and in fact every magnet has billions and billions of north poles and south poles, but because they are usually all coherent, it appears as much larger poles spread over a larger area.


*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2019, 07:10:07 PM »
For those who may be interested, because some doubted the possibility of a true single piece homogeneous (Same material all the way through) I made a 3 poled magnet.
It has two south poles on the ends and one north pole in the middle.

By "north pole" I mean it matches the earth's north pole, so the North end of the compass points at it.

So if you thought a multipole magnet was not possible, well here is one. You can clearly see that the center pole is twice as strong as the two end poles, which Gauss's law for magnetism requires.

And it stands to reason, that if we can have two poles, we could have a radially oriented magnet as well.



*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #47 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.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 07:57:27 PM by WellRoundedIndividual »
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #48 on: February 13, 2019, 08:30:11 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.

Yeah, it's just a section of an allen wrench, I used it because tool steel can hold a magnetic bias better than mild steel. I could mail it to you so you could test it, but I think you're coming around to the fact that it's entirely possible that what you saw in the video is what you'd see with it in your hands.
Quote
However, lets consider this.  I am going to take a stab at what you have done (a little slight of hand and ambiguity).
What? Slight of hand? that's not very nice. Do you know what slight of hand is? It's intentionally tricking somebody into thinking they saw something that they did not see.
There was no slight of hand. It was a single take un-edited video of exactly what you would have seen if you'd been doing the experiment yourself.
Quote
What you have actually done is taken an object that is not normally magnetized.
Doh, that is how they make magnets. They take things that aren't normally magnetized and mix them, treat them, and magnetize them. In fact they have used strips of tool steel for the magnet in compasses for years, even though it's "not normally magnetized."
Quote
You have then taken two permanent magnets and magnetized the object.
Doh! Of course that's what I've done. It's how every real engineering science student does it for a hundred years. How else would I have done it?
Quote
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 -
Somewhat right? either it's got 3 poles or it hasn't. So what - maybe two of them are half-poles, but they are unique separate poles.  And maybe the center pole is made up of more magnetic domains combining forces, just like they combine forces on any pole. But it's all one piece of metal that was not treated any differently along its length as far as grain structure or alloying - it was simply magnetized with 3 poles. It would be absurd to try and claim that it's not 3 poles.
Quote
-but disingenuous, as well.
Now wait a second. For a pedicured engineer with the truth on your side, how come you have to constantly resort to an Ad hominem approach?
Nothing disingenuous in what I did. Can't we just stick to the facts here?
Quote
Considering that you declined to give the details of how you made said "magnet" -
Declined, you say? If you said I neglected to explain how I did it, at least your statement would be true, even if irrelevant.
But Declined? Declined implies that somebody asked me to explain and that I had declined to tell them.
The only reason I didn't explain how I did it was because it's obvious how I did it because it's how engineering students have been doing it for a hundred years.
I knew you knew how it was done, and google knew how it's done, and it's obvious and simple. If anyone had asked, I would have told them.
Quote
- or should I say material that has been given temporary magnetic properties.
Wait a second. Are you demoting my 3 pole magnet to temporary?  ;D ;D
But really, all magnets loose some strength when they come out of the manufacturing process. Depending on alloy and grain structure they can still remain very strong, but not all magnets are that kind and while they lose their magnetism over time, it doesn't mean they are temporary. They just aren't as strong for as long.
Tool steel has been used for weak magnets for ages. Sure, it eventually loses its magnetism. I still have a little magnet I got as a birthday gift when I was perhaps 5. It's really weak now. It was some commercially made magnet from the hardware store.
The point is, my tool steel magnet is a permanent magnet. That doesn't mean that any magnet will last forever, but it's not temporary like an electromagnet.

Let's face the facts. You've repeatedly told me that you *know* I'm wrong and that there was no such thing as a 3 poled magnet.
The original poster said basically that it was not possible for a flat earth to have a radial magnetic field, and you agreed with him.

I have now demonstrated that not only is it possible for the earth to have a radial magnetic field on top, but I've demonstrated a 3 poled magnet, and you've found corroborating evidence elsewhere to that effect.

Look, we both don't know everything, we were both wrong about some things, and we both learned a whole lot. And that's OK.

I admitted I had not heard of Gauss's law for magnetism. I admit that the 12 pole magnet has 12 opposite poles on the other side, and slicing it would produce something other than a 3 pole magnet. After you wrote, I pried it out of it's metal back-shell and put it on the iron filing plate and sure enough you were dead right about the 12 pole motor magnet.

It's time  you admit that you were wrong on a number of points as well, and that I'm not being intentionally misleading nor am I as stupid as you've made me out to be. Only about half that stupid  ;D

Edit: Looks like you edited to add another argument, so I'm editing to respond to it.
Quote
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.

Exactly how do you define two south poles right next to eachother?
I mean I agree if the domains were like this >>>>>>   gap <<<<< it would would be two poles.
But what if they are smashed right up towards eachother like >>>>>><<<<<< ?
How can you say it's two poles? Remember, the domains in a regular NS bar magnet are paralleled like this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
and they all add up for a stronger force, right?
So why would not >>>>>><<<<<<< add up for a stronger single pole force?

« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 08:43:37 PM by TomFoolery »

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #49 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.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #50 on: February 13, 2019, 09:18:37 PM »
Unless you can show that the earth has multiple south magnetic poles, isn't this whole discussion moot?

Well, maybe not completely moot.
There seems to be some who say that it's not possible to have a radially oriented magnet. They equate it to a magnet with multiple south poles, which they say is impossible.
I'm not going to say that a magnet with multiple south poles is impossible because I'm sure that someone like you would jump through more than a few hoops to make such a magnet.  I would, however, say that nature would most likely not go through the bother unless there are some awfully unusual processes happening.

What they seem to be ignoring is that all magnets are made up of zillions of tiny micro magnets, and in fact every magnet has billions and billions of north poles and south poles, but because they are usually all coherent, it appears as much larger poles spread over a larger area.
Yes, what we commonly refer to as "magnets" are made up of many individual magnetic domains aligned in certain ways.  However, those "magnets" homogeneous materials and the "opposites poles attract and like poles repel" general rule means that those magnetic domains will naturally align themselves as efficiently as possible.  The concentration of north poles at the center and radial spreading of south poles at the edge are a very inefficient alignment and not at all likely to occur in nature.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2019, 09:21:43 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.

Ok cool, thanks. So seeing as how my belief is consistent with what I am able to observe, am I cleared of all charges of "intentionally misleading" then, at least for the time being?  ;D

I must admit to you that yesterday I ordered a pound of magnetite powder off of ebay. I think my intentions are obvious. But if I'm able to make a homogeneous disk magnet with a north pole in the center and a south pole around the outside, I would feel obligated to mention it here, but since the product has not arrived I cannot experiment yet.
I've never worked with magnetite powder before so I really don't know what to expect.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #52 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.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2019, 09:47:58 PM »
It took me a couple reads, but I think I agree with everything you said, except:
<snip>
I would, however, say that nature would most likely not go through the bother unless there are some awfully unusual processes happening.

Naturally, anyone supporting the flat earth theory has to get used to a lot of awfully unusual processes happening.
Even the ball earth theory on the source of the earth's magnetism is a lot of speculation.
I can see how you get a magnetic field if you have a DC electric current. Or I can see how you get an electric current if you have motion and a magnetic field.
But somehow they are getting the magnetic field from a rotating globe with no electricity input?
And it's supposed to have to do with the earth's rotation and Coriolis. And yet every few hundred years it reverses itself suddenly?
I bet everybody gets dizzy when it quickly changed surface speed by 2000mph at the equator!

But I'd say that of all the awfully unusual processes happening that must be accepted by a flat earther, a radially oriented magnetic field on the earth is the least of  them.

The things that mystify me much more are things like flight times, the map dilemma,  the sun, the moon, the horizon and level issue, and stuff like that.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #54 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...
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2019, 10:38:10 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...

Got a link?

I actually grew up enamored with Tesla. I have a book which contains every patent he ever filed. I grew up reading his biographies and autobiographies.

It seems the earth is pretty much a big electrical conductor. In fact, some power companies didn't want to have to run two wires to carry the high voltage, so they ground one lead from the output of their high voltage step up transformer, and just run the other lead along poles. The earth acts like an electrical conductor for the return current.

It is true that there is a vertical voltage gradient across the atmosphere. But it's more like a static charge, and doesn't really pass much current through the earth.
But I have built a measuring apparatus that measured the atmospheric voltage differential. I was going to use it as an artificial horizon by measuring voltage difference on wingtips of model airplane for stabilized flight. Never got around to finishing the project, but I tested it and the voltage is real.
But the available current is almost zero, so I had to use fet input op amps as zero-current input voltage followers to measure the voltage.
But I digress, this is definitely off topic.

Back to the magnetic field, folks. Is there enough evidence to say that it could be radially oriented above the surface of the earth?
The reason this is important is because the magnetic compass does always point generally north and south, and if we're going to entertain a flat earth, we need our compasses to work with our map.
Unless someone's got a better idea for the wiki entry -- an idea which conforms to observed reality (that compasses work centered around the north pole, or the center) and it also needs to conform to flat earth theory -- I think "radially magnetized" is a pretty good place to start.
If evidence comes up that it simply cannot be that, or that something else works and makes more sense, then great let's discuss it.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2019, 11:20:01 PM »
It took me a couple reads, but I think I agree with everything you said, except:
<snip>
I would, however, say that nature would most likely not go through the bother unless there are some awfully unusual processes happening.

Naturally, anyone supporting the flat earth theory has to get used to a lot of awfully unusual processes happening.
Which leads to the question of what sort of natural processes would be required to create the magnetic field lines that are observed on the earth?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #57 on: February 14, 2019, 12:26:52 AM »
It took me a couple reads, but I think I agree with everything you said, except:
<snip>
I would, however, say that nature would most likely not go through the bother unless there are some awfully unusual processes happening.

Naturally, anyone supporting the flat earth theory has to get used to a lot of awfully unusual processes happening.
Which leads to the question of what sort of natural processes would be required to create the magnetic field lines that are observed on the earth?

First of all, we must remember that a present inability to show a possible mechanism is certainly not evidence that a mechanism doesn't exist.

Having said that, it's doubtful we will come up with a simple provable explanation for what causes the magnetic field on the flat earth.
Heh, even  the globers who have had a hundred years to try and figure it out aren't exactly sure. If you google it, you see that almost every article on the topic starts out with "It is believed that..."

Having yet again said that, maybe it has to do with the sun? Per flat earth theory, the sun moves in a circle around above the earth generally over the "equator."
Maybe the sun has some electric field which produces a magnetic field at right angles just like moving electrons do.
Can I prove it? Of course not. But the sun's in the right place doing the right thing to create that orientation of a magnetic field.
If you look at electromagnets, they often make electromagnets that have one pole in the center and the other pole around the outside, and the wire wound around inside. The electrons travel the exact same path as the sun does, and the magnetic orientation is the same as the magnetic field is on the flat earth.

But I don't know how that would all fit in with my 3D mobius model.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #58 on: February 16, 2019, 02:56:52 AM »
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.

Well folks, my pound of hematite powder arrived today so I made a 4" diameter radially oriented solid homogeneous disk magnet by mixing melted candle wax  and hematite powder, forming a mold around the top of my existing flat earth magnet, and pouring it in..!

Naturally I got a pole reversal but no matter, it still illustrates that it's entirely possible for the earth to be flat and still have a radially oriented magnetic field on the surface, as the wiki says, which would allow compasses to still work. more or less.

You can see that the iron filings stand up on the pole in the center and on the pole around the edge.



Also found out what the back of the flat earth looks like! Instead of ice walls, it's got lava rock walls!


Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 393
    • View Profile
Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #59 on: February 16, 2019, 09:54:15 AM »
That's actually pretty cool, well done. I guess that means earth's magnetic field could work on a flat earth. Of course, this doesn't disprove sphere earth either but it's something that works on both at least.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?