#### TomFoolery

• 404
• Seeking truth, the flatter the better
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2019, 03:33:09 PM »
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.

I think the coolest part was the "Ferro-fluid frozen in time" I got on the back!

I agree it doesn't disprove a sphere earth, but the this topic was specifically started on the basis that the wiki was wrong to say that the flat earth had a radially oriented magnetic field. The original poster said it was impossible for such a thing to exist.

Thank you all for your indulgence

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #61 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.
BobLawBlah.

#### TomFoolery

• 404
• Seeking truth, the flatter the better
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #62 on: February 16, 2019, 09:08:07 PM »
While I agree that it is quite cool that you made that,
Thanks!
Quote
that is still not a radially oriented magnet. It just isn't.
Well, so there's two questions at hand here. One is if the magnet is radially oriented, and the other is the field on the surface magnetically oriented *like the wiki states is the case on the flat earth.*

I think we both agree that the magnetic field on the surface of my model fits what is proposed on the wiki to be the magnetic field on the surface of the flat earth:
A compass anywhere within the bounds of the ice wall still points north/south.

And that is the main point to this whole discussion.

But we might as well speak on the technicality of whether the magnet is radially oriented further in since you brought it up.
Do you agree that if I sliced off a thin layer from the top of my magnet, or had formed it very thing, that the thin slice would be essentially radially oriented?

But even if it had a significant thickness, if you looked at the lines of force, you would probably see that it was still rather radial, but in a 3D space, sort of an union.
If you can imagine a flat radially oriented magnet, imagine a hemispheric magnet cut an onion cut in half with the north pole in the center and the south spread around the outside surface. That would still be radially oriented, just in 3D instead of 2D.
Quote
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,
I'm not ready to agree with you that the homogeneous model I made is axially oriented inside, below the surface. Maybe semi-radial, semi-transverse-toroidal?

I agree that the first model I made out of the ring magnet and the iron pole piece did contain an axially oriented ring magnet as a component, which had its overall field modified with a pole piece to produce a radial pattern on one side.

However the second one I made simply cannot be axial because it wasn't magnetized with axial fields. It was magnetized with a radial field.
There are numerous domains aligned radially. And that, my friend, is how it creates a radial field on its surface!
Quote
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.
Well, if you like, I would be grateful if you did draw a diagram of what you think my magnet is like inside. Then when you're done, I can cut it in half (It's just wax!) and actually measure the internal magnetic pattern, and we can see if you're correct!

I don't mind cutting it in half at all, since I can take the pieces, remelt them, and re-mold a new one if I like, since it's just wax and hematite powder!
Quote
But that's beside the point. I am merely stating that it is incorrect terminology to say that it is radially oriented.
If there are a significant number of magnetic domains (i.e the micro-magnets) aligned radially, I frankly don't see why it's not the correct terminology to say it's radially oriented.
Quote
Convergence on a single point is impossible as you and I both agree due to magnetic Fields lines having to sum equally.
I'm not sure what you mean by "convergence on a single point." Could you elaborate?
I do realize (and previously stated) that the magnetic field does not funnel out through a single pinpoint on the poles -- not for a radial magnet nor for a regular axial or bar magnet -- but I don't see a problem with all the north pole field coming out through a non-zero-sized area in the center.
Quote
Your center pole shows multiple field lines, correct? Not a single field line? Correct.
Oh dear. umm, how do I say this. The reason I'm squirming here is it looks like you may believe that "magnetic lines of force" are actual discrete threads of magnetism twining through space.. but I can hardly bring myself to believe that a tenured engineer such as yourself  would even come close to thinking that.

But in reality, there are no actual discrete field lines. It is a smooth average field. Within that field there is a direction and a strength at any point, but there are not discrete threads of force...  It just happens that due to like poles repelling that iron filings happen to form strands of iron filings that just happen to line up with the direction of the fields orientation. But other than the concentration of the field caused by the iron filings themselves, there is no such thing as discrete field lines, and therefore invalid is the question of how many there are.
Quote
Those field lines are perpendicular to the disc surface. Therefore it is axial.
I beg to differ. The "lines of force" (and by that I mean the direction of the field!) definitely come perpendicular off the side face of a bar magnet, why couldn't they come perpendicular off the side face of a true radially oriented disk magnet?
Quote
No field lines are emitting from the narrow side of the disc. If there were that would be radial.
What do you mean? You mean off the outside edge which has a cylindrical surface shape?

I do realize that the diameter of my outer ring pole is somewhat smaller than the diameter of my bulk material, so technically I have sort of one radially oriented magnet with an inverted radially oriented magnet outside that. But if I remold it with a smaller mold, it would eliminate that outside ring deadzone area, leaving it as a single radial magnet.

I honestly don't understand how you can't come to grasp the fact that if the domains are radially arrayed, that it's a radially oriented magnet. I'll grant you that while it may be radially oriented on it's surface, that it may be toriodally oriented deeper in.

But it is still radially oriented, and it still shows that the flat earth could have what we as observes on top of the earth would identify as a radially oriented magnetic field.

PS: Had a flat earth calf born today:
(With the snow and cold weather we brought it inside to dry it off before putting it back with it's mother.)

Edit: I got my quote blocks messed up... edited to fix.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2019, 09:22:52 PM by TomFoolery »

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #63 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?

BobLawBlah.

#### TomFoolery

• 404
• Seeking truth, the flatter the better
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #64 on: February 17, 2019, 04:37:09 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?

Thanks for taking the time to reply!

I certainly understand your description of the difference between radial and axial. In fact, I've known the difference between radial and axial for this entire discussion

If you're saying my wax magnet simply an axial magnet, then you're mistaken.

Near the surface the orientation is almost entirely radial. As you get deeper into it, the angle begins to curve a bit as shown in my sketch.

If you're saying that my magnet is not an exact 100% totally perfect radial magnet, OK fine the orientation is not exactly a perfectly aligned 100% radial orientation.

But if you're saying it's closer to axial than to radial, then I'm going to 100% disagree.

It is much much closer to radial than axial. The top mm or so *is* pert near exactly radial. With increasing depth, the deviation from exactly radial  increases, but not toward axial but rather double conical or toroidal  -- but not even close to axial!

I have one yes/no question for you:

If I took a million pie-slice shaped N-S bar magnets that were tapered just right to make a million slice pie, and sintered them to form a little pie with all the N poles in the center, would that be a radially oriented disk magnet then?

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #65 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.
BobLawBlah.

#### TomFoolery

• 404
• Seeking truth, the flatter the better
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2019, 01:54:27 AM »
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.

Answer my one yes/no question and I'll be delighted indulge your request.

I do need to tell you that when I cast my magnet, my form was bigger than the active magnetic field area of my master magnet, so there's a kind of dead zone around the outside, so to expose the actual edge of the radial section, I would need to carve off some from the diameter -- which I am totally glad to do because it's wax and I can re-mold it into whatever I want! Would carving off some of the dead area invalidate the experiment in your opinion? Or would I need to cast a new smaller magnet?

Here's my yes/no question again, in case you missed it:

I have one yes/no question for you:

If I took a million pie-slice shaped N-S bar magnets that were tapered just right to make a million slice pie, and sintered them to form a little pie with all the N poles in the center, would that be a radially oriented disk magnet then?

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #67 on: February 18, 2019, 02:19:12 AM »
Answer: yes, it would be. That's what I've been trying to get at the whole time. Apologies for the late reply.
BobLawBlah.

#### TomFoolery

• 404
• Seeking truth, the flatter the better
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2019, 02:38:36 AM »
Answer: yes, it would be. That's what I've been trying to get at the whole time. Apologies for the late reply.

Great.

So question: As I mentioned, my magnet mold was too big as compared to my master magnet, so there's a deadzone around the outside edge. I need to either cast a new smaller magnet, or carve off the outside edge to eliminate the non-radial part. I'll start by carving off the outside edge in a spot, but if you say that's invalid then I'll cast a new smaller magnet that correctly fits my master magnet's field. How's that sound?

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2019, 03:09:29 AM »
Why would carving that off invalidate it?
BobLawBlah.

#### TomFoolery

• 404
• Seeking truth, the flatter the better
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2019, 03:18:48 AM »
Why would carving that off invalidate it?

I don't think it would, but I didn't know if you would say "Objection your honor, he modified it...."

#### TomFoolery

• 404
• Seeking truth, the flatter the better
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2019, 11:02:26 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.

Alright, a series of events delayed me but I got it done!

A couple notes - as I mentioned before, the wax magnet was bigger than the magnetic field zone of the master magnet so I had to trim off some outer dead area to get to the point where the pole is.

Also, the magnet is not super strong, and the strands of iron filings just toppled over every which way if I pointed them up.

However, you can clearly see that the edge is very much a pole, and that it is radially oriented, and that the "lines of force" are going out away from the edge, not toward the other side. I tried it on a regular axially oriented magnet and it was totally different.

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2019, 12:31:21 AM »
I saw no filings hanging off of the side of the magnet. I saw them hanging off of the edge. And pointing down due to gravity (RE) or UA (FE). To me that is a failure. You can disagree but the best you will get out of me or anyone else that cares to comment (crickets...) will say inconclusive.
BobLawBlah.

#### TomFoolery

• 404
• Seeking truth, the flatter the better
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #73 on: February 19, 2019, 01:33:36 AM »
I saw no filings hanging off of the side of the magnet. I saw them hanging off of the edge. And pointing down due to gravity (RE) or UA (FE). To me that is a failure. You can disagree but the best you will get out of me or anyone else that cares to comment (crickets...) will say inconclusive.

The magnet is not very strong. And per my previously submitted sketch, the magnet is only really nearly radially magnetized right near the surface And guess what? That's where the iron filing stick!

If it had been axial as you claimed, they would not have stuck straight out, they would have folded right over to the other pole. But the other pole wasn't there!

I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape over my magnet. I was always clear that the radial area was on the surface.

If I removed all the extra off the bottom, just leaving a thin section on top (i.e. the radially oriented part) would that make you happy?

And the one I made comes very close to being one, and in fact if I were to take just the top layer of it, it *would be* one.

It very clearly is NOT axial, as you stated. Sure there's material there that isn't magnetized much or at all, but the part that is is radially magnetized.
But hey, it's something I threw together in 20 minutes with minimal effort. If I'd made a special master magnet which had all the right geometry to make the idealistic radially oriented magnet, I could have made it stronger and more even and everything, but you'd probably say it wasn't really one magnet because it was made of multiple individual hematite powder grains, I don't know.

If you think you can make a better one then for pete's sake do it!

Why do those who won't build stuff pester those who did build stuff?

But the whole point of this was to answer the question whether it was possible for the earth to have a radial magnetic field above the surface - which you also already admitted was not impossible.

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #74 on: February 19, 2019, 02:56:44 AM »
No you are twisting my words. What you have shown I admit can exist on a flat earth, and yes if you take a million thin bar magnets radially positioned you would have a fair approximation of a radial magnet. But what you have shown is not radial. It just simply isnt it. I drew a diagram of axial coordinates and polar coordinates and how it relates to magnetic field orientation, but I havent been able to compress the photos enough to meet the size requirements. I will upload it tomorrow when I am not just on my phone.

I am not knocking your skills. It's quite impressive actually. And fun to watch. I am merely trying to correct your use of certain terminology and the same as my response to the original post about the Wiki.
BobLawBlah.

#### TomFoolery

• 404
• Seeking truth, the flatter the better
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #75 on: February 19, 2019, 03:26:10 AM »
No you are twisting my words. What you have shown I admit can exist on a flat earth, and yes if you take a million thin bar magnets radially positioned you would have a fair approximation of a radial magnet. But what you have shown is not radial. It just simply isnt it. I drew a diagram of axial coordinates and polar coordinates and how it relates to magnetic field orientation, but I havent been able to compress the photos enough to meet the size requirements. I will upload it tomorrow when I am not just on my phone.

I am not knocking your skills. It's quite impressive actually. And fun to watch. I am merely trying to correct your use of certain terminology and the same as my response to the original post about the Wiki.

Well this dilemma reminds me of a question I asked previously and I didn't notice you answer: When was the last time you played with iron filings and a magnet!??

Reason I ask is because if you tried this with an axial magnet, those strands of iron filings would NOT be sticking out straight from the edge. They would have quickly been attracted to the opposite pole and flipped over to it.

I'll grant you that the magnetized region is very thin there. But you gotta admit that it's also not axially oriented there. I should have put it in the video, but I also tried an axially oriented magnet and it was drastically different!

If you really think an axially oriented magnet can do what you saw in the video I last posted, then please do it and take a picture and send it to me.

1: Have you *personally with your own hands* experimented with a magnet and iron filings in the last 10 years?
2: If I sliced off just the top layer of my magnet so it was very thin, and it still acted the same way as you saw in the video, would you agree that the thin top layer is essentially radially oriented?

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #76 on: February 19, 2019, 03:57:04 AM »
I play with magnets as part of my job. I have magnets at home. You are proceeding down the route of logical fallacy of argument from authority.

If you show me the same magnet with the filings on the entire surface of the side that you just cut a straight section off of, and without holding it up on its side, then, and only then may I even consider saying you are close to making a radial magnet. I, however could clearly see two things. 1) Gravity was making the filings stick out from the edge. 2) some of the filings had started to curve over the edge as in an axial magnet orientation. I hope I explained this well enough.

Anyways lay the magnet flat on its larger top or bottom surface. Then throw filings at the thickness or side of the magnet. My guess is it won't stick out straight. And not because of the weakness of magnetic field, because you already demonstrated that it in your first video of this magnet that the iron can stand straight on end.
BobLawBlah.

#### TomFoolery

• 404
• Seeking truth, the flatter the better
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #77 on: February 19, 2019, 04:37:41 AM »
I play with magnets as part of my job. I have magnets at home. You are proceeding down the route of logical fallacy of argument from authority.

If you show me the same magnet with the filings on the entire surface of the side that you just cut a straight section off of, and without holding it up on its side, then, and only then may I even consider saying you are close to making a radial magnet. I, however could clearly see two things. 1) Gravity was making the filings stick out from the edge. 2) some of the filings had started to curve over the edge as in an axial magnet orientation. I hope I explained this well enough.

Anyways lay the magnet flat on its larger top or bottom surface. Then throw filings at the thickness or side of the magnet. My guess is it won't stick out straight. And not because of the weakness of magnetic field, because you already demonstrated that it in your first video of this magnet that the iron can stand straight on end.

Whatever.

You still have not answered my question whether you've played with a magnet and iron filings in the last 10 years.  Sure you said you play with magnets all the time, but that doesn't mean you used iron filings on them. Heh, everyone who uses a cell phone plays with magnets every day because there are magnets in the speaker and the vibrator motor.
But I asked before and I asked today specifically if you used iron filings on a magnet. You've refused to answer twice already.

As to my magnet, look. I know the truly radial section is a very thin layer on top. That's because of how I charged it. But that doesn't mean that it's not radial in that part.
I also know that if the edge of the magnet was an N-S boundary of an axial magnet that the strands of iron filings would have all immediately whipped over to the other pole, and would not have been repelled by each other.

I could make a jig and make a better magnet that would show exactly what you're asking for, but why?

You've already made numerous statements that were not true (I'm sure you believed them at the time) but the point is you started out with an exceptionally flawed understanding of magnetism.
And you've been absolutely stubborn, requiring me to actually build a model for you to see that you were wrong.
First you said a radial field on the earth was not possible. So I constructed a magnet that showed it was possible.
Then you said a 3 poled magnet was not possible. So I constructed a composite one, and you ruled it out because it was two magnets forced together.
So then I made one out of a single piece of steel.
And said my radial flat earth magnet was not valid because it wasn't homogeneous and was constructed from other pieces, even though the field would work on the earth's surface.
So I made a homogeneous magnet that had the same radial field pattern on the surface of it.

The point I'm making is  you simply don't have a good understanding of magnets, and if you simply understood magnetic domain theory, you'd have understood it right away, but you were too stubborn to think for yourself, and I had to prove to you that you were wrong every single step of the way.

What this has led me to realize is that you just don't understand magnets don't have the sense to realize it, and that even though I could go on proving you  wrong with working models, there's no point because however much I prove you're going to make some other absurd claim and refuse all logic and I'll just have to build another model, and it's never ending.

Maybe some day I'll have the time to build a jig for making the magnet of your dreams (or night mares  ) but not right now.

We clearly demonstrated that the earth could have on its surface the magnetic field that the wiki describes.

And I want to get some work done on this project to disprove gravity. Don't you want me to do that?

#### stack

• 1452
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #78 on: February 19, 2019, 05:27:49 AM »
And I want to get some work done on this project to disprove gravity. Don't you want me to do that?

Yes.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### TomFoolery

• 404
• Seeking truth, the flatter the better
##### Re: Magnetic Field
« Reply #79 on: February 19, 2019, 05:45:03 AM »
And I want to get some work done on this project to disprove gravity. Don't you want me to do that?

Yes.

me too