*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7367
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Interesting train of thought.

So in a flat earth, there could be a "bar magnet" buried not too far below the surface.   So if you were to travel in the direction that the compass points ("North") then you could find yourself moving towards or away from the setting sun (conventionally "West" and "East").

I'm pretty sure there is no record of such a remarkable event.

But I'm VERY sure it can't be true because "North" is also indicated by the position of the star "Polaris" (aka "The Pole Star")...and mariners all over the world will use a mix of compass navigation and celestial navigation.

If Polaris was off in one direction and the compass needle pointing off in some completely different direction (more than the handful of degrees accounted for by the magnetic and 'true' pole issue) - then I'm 100% certain that this would have been written about in EVERY guide to navigation...and it just isn't.

There is simply no way that the compass could be pointing other than within a few degrees of Polaris without us knowing about it.  So if FET requires these crazy compass directions then it MUST be false.

I had assumed that you'd be imagining a magnetic field that closely matches that of RET...so a very deeply buried, curved magnet would be needed.

But there is simply no possibility that there are places on Earth where the compass points toward the rising or setting sun...NOT POSSIBLE!

 Unless you have compass readings from all over the world, who are you to say what is possible?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Interesting train of thought.

So in a flat earth, there could be a "bar magnet" buried not too far below the surface.   So if you were to travel in the direction that the compass points ("North") then you could find yourself moving towards or away from the setting sun (conventionally "West" and "East").

I'm pretty sure there is no record of such a remarkable event.

But I'm VERY sure it can't be true because "North" is also indicated by the position of the star "Polaris" (aka "The Pole Star")...and mariners all over the world will use a mix of compass navigation and celestial navigation.

If Polaris was off in one direction and the compass needle pointing off in some completely different direction (more than the handful of degrees accounted for by the magnetic and 'true' pole issue) - then I'm 100% certain that this would have been written about in EVERY guide to navigation...and it just isn't.

There is simply no way that the compass could be pointing other than within a few degrees of Polaris without us knowing about it.  So if FET requires these crazy compass directions then it MUST be false.

I had assumed that you'd be imagining a magnetic field that closely matches that of RET...so a very deeply buried, curved magnet would be needed.

But there is simply no possibility that there are places on Earth where the compass points toward the rising or setting sun...NOT POSSIBLE!

 Unless you have compass readings from all over the world, who are you to say what is possible?

Umm, Tom, we do have compass readings from all over the world. Even have maps with magnetic readings from all over the globe. FET doesn't even have a map, you may want to stop commenting on such topics until you figure out what your version of the Earth looks like.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7367
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Quote from: StinkyOne
Umm, Tom, we do have compass readings from all over the world. Even have maps with magnetic readings from all over the globe.

If you have them then it should be trivial to link those records here for us.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
Interesting.
Will you consider adding this on the wiki here?: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

The concept with this is solid in my view.

I obviously don't expect it to be part of a replacement model for the planarists mainstream position, but it's something that interests me.
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Quote from: StinkyOne
Umm, Tom, we do have compass readings from all over the world. Even have maps with magnetic readings from all over the globe.

If you have them then it should be trivial to link those records here for us.
If you google "magnetic readings map" you will find what I am referring to. You could do this before replying and not junk the thread up with useless posts asking to prove something that is widely available. I've owned cars that used these maps to further fine tune the accuracy of their built-in compass. This isn't some new theory.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7367
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Quote from: StinkyOne
Umm, Tom, we do have compass readings from all over the world. Even have maps with magnetic readings from all over the globe.

If you have them then it should be trivial to link those records here for us.
If you google "magnetic readings map" you will find what I am referring to. You could do this before replying and not junk the thread up with useless posts asking to prove something that is widely available. I've owned cars that used these maps to further fine tune the accuracy of their built-in compass. This isn't some new theory.

What's so hard about a link? We are talking about magnetic readings of the bi-polar model in this thread. It is not off topic.

Post your link and then show us how it is incompatible with a bi-polar model.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2017, 01:12:08 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Quote from: StinkyOne
Umm, Tom, we do have compass readings from all over the world. Even have maps with magnetic readings from all over the globe.

If you have them then it should be trivial to link those records here for us.
If you google "magnetic readings map" you will find what I am referring to. You could do this before replying and not junk the thread up with useless posts asking to prove something that is widely available. I've owned cars that used these maps to further fine tune the accuracy of their built-in compass. This isn't some new theory.

What's so hard about a link? We are talking about magnetic readings of the bi-polar model in this thread. It is not off topic.

Post your link and then show us how it is incompatible with a bi-polar model.

Because this isn't a specific study or one picture in particular. Google magnetic map of Earth and there are literally dozens of global and local maps. I don't understand how a flat Earth even has a uniform magnetic field without the dynamo effect of a spinning Earth, but I'm sure there is a theory for that in FET.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7367
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
If you don't have the data then you have no right to claim that such data exists as the basis of your argument.

You are sending us off to look at maps and we are supposed to assume that somebody actually measured the things you claim rather than being projected assumptions.

No. Show us the data and tell us how and who collected it.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
If you don't have the data then you have no right to claim that such data exists as the basis of your argument.

You are sending us off to look at maps and we are supposed to assume that somebody actually measured the things you claim rather than being projected assumptions.

No. Show us the data and tell us how and who collected it.

It isn't one entity that produced these maps. US Geological Survey, NOAA, European Space Agency, and others. And no, these aren't assumptions. They are actual measurements. The USGS flew a plane over the continental US and measured the magnetic field. ESA used satellites. I'm assuming NOAA used satellites, but didn't specifically look because satellites can't exist. smh...
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7367
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
If you don't have the data then you have no right to claim that such data exists as the basis of your argument.

You are sending us off to look at maps and we are supposed to assume that somebody actually measured the things you claim rather than being projected assumptions.

No. Show us the data and tell us how and who collected it.

It isn't one entity that produced these maps. US Geological Survey, NOAA, European Space Agency, and others. And no, these aren't assumptions. They are actual measurements. The USGS flew a plane over the continental US and measured the magnetic field. ESA used satellites. I'm assuming NOAA used satellites, but didn't specifically look because satellites can't exist. smh...

Show us the data and tell us how it can only suggest a round earth rather than just expecting people to believe that it supports you.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2017, 03:48:46 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

If you don't have the data then you have no right to claim that such data exists as the basis of your argument.

You are sending us off to look at maps and we are supposed to assume that somebody actually measured the things you claim rather than being projected assumptions.

No. Show us the data and tell us how and who collected it.

It isn't one entity that produced these maps. US Geological Survey, NOAA, European Space Agency, and others. And no, these aren't assumptions. They are actual measurements. The USGS flew a plane over the continental US and measured the magnetic field. ESA used satellites. I'm assuming NOAA used satellites, but didn't specifically look because satellites can't exist. smh...

Show us the data and tell us how it can only suggest a round earth rather than just expecting people to believe that it supports you.
What makes you think the shape of the earth is not round?

Look at timeanddate.com for data, as you have been told many times. Is it correct for your location?

If you were serious you would look for the data yourself, why have you not?  No clever replies please.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2017, 06:52:52 AM by inquisitive »

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
If you don't have the data then you have no right to claim that such data exists as the basis of your argument.

You are sending us off to look at maps and we are supposed to assume that somebody actually measured the things you claim rather than being projected assumptions.

No. Show us the data and tell us how and who collected it.

It isn't one entity that produced these maps. US Geological Survey, NOAA, European Space Agency, and others. And no, these aren't assumptions. They are actual measurements. The USGS flew a plane over the continental US and measured the magnetic field. ESA used satellites. I'm assuming NOAA used satellites, but didn't specifically look because satellites can't exist. smh...

Show us the data and tell us how it can only suggest a round earth rather than just expecting people to believe that it supports you.
What makes you think the shape of the earth is not round?
Is it news to you that people don't think that?
What is the name of this site again?
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Show us the data and tell us how it can only suggest a round earth rather than just expecting people to believe that it supports you.

Hey Tom.  Let me help you.  Move your mouse over the line of text below this one and push the button on the left of the mouse:

   http://lmgtfy.com/?q=magnetic+field+map+of+earth

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7367
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Show us the data and tell us how it can only suggest a round earth rather than just expecting people to believe that it supports you.

Hey Tom.  Let me help you.  Move your mouse over the line of text below this one and push the button on the left of the mouse:

   http://lmgtfy.com/?q=magnetic+field+map+of+earth

And how does it only support a round earth? Is that in one of the links there?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Interesting.
Will you consider adding this on the wiki here?: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

The concept with this is solid in my view.

I obviously don't expect it to be part of a replacement model for the planarists mainstream position, but it's something that interests me.

The "Davis Model" (and all others that appeal to General Relativity) are broken because they didn't actually read what Einstein wrote.   Gravity and Acceleration are only equivalent for a UNIFORM gravitational field and UNIFORM acceleration.

No "real world" gravitational field is uniform because it lessens in proportion to the square of the distance between bodies.   This is why we have tides.  In RET, the earth experiences a non-uniform gravitational field from the moon because the near-side and far-sides of the planet are appreciably different distances from it.  In FET, no such effect could happen.

So the "Davis Model" is a pile of poop - just like all the others.

I REALLY wish people would read the things they quote...they look such idiots when they don't.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
The "Davis Model" (and all others that appeal to General Relativity) are broken because they didn't actually read what Einstein wrote.   Gravity and Acceleration are only equivalent for a UNIFORM gravitational field and UNIFORM acceleration.
Gravitational pull and acceleration are equivalent, both are an inertial force. Uniformly across a mass is beside the point.

Quote
No "real world" gravitational field is uniform because it lessens in proportion to the square of the distance between bodies.   This is why we have tides.  In RET, the earth experiences a non-uniform gravitational field from the moon because the near-side and far-sides of the planet are appreciably different distances from it.  In FET, no such effect could happen.
Looks like you aren't dealing with the model but are rather trying to assert FE could never explain this.

Quote
So the "Davis Model" is a pile of poop - just like all the others.
You didn't even make an objection to the model.
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
The "Davis Model" (and all others that appeal to General Relativity) are broken because they didn't actually read what Einstein wrote.   Gravity and Acceleration are only equivalent for a UNIFORM gravitational field and UNIFORM acceleration.
Gravitational pull and acceleration are equivalent, both are an inertial force. Uniformly across a mass is beside the point.
No - ONLY if the gravitational field is uniform - which it isn't.  Gravitational fields vary according to square of the distance from the source.  Einstein's statement is a part of a thought experiment.
Quote
Quote
No "real world" gravitational field is uniform because it lessens in proportion to the square of the distance between bodies.   This is why we have tides.  In RET, the earth experiences a non-uniform gravitational field from the moon because the near-side and far-sides of the planet are appreciably different distances from it.  In FET, no such effect could happen.
Looks like you aren't dealing with the model but are rather trying to assert FE could never explain this.
The Davis model asserts that gravitation and acceleration are equivalent...and then goes on to say that there is universal acceleration and that we couldn't tell the difference between that and "true" gravity because Einstein says they are equivalent.   But that's not what Einstein said - so this is a FALSE justification.

In practice, you can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration - which is why (for example) gravity is less on mountain peaks...something which universal acceleration can't explain because a "fake gravity" created by acceleration would produce what would appear to be a uniform gravitational field...and it clearly ain't uniform because of the mountain thing.

So the reality of variable gravimetric readings is proof that acceleration cannot explain these phenomena.

Quote
Quote
So the "Davis Model" is a pile of poop - just like all the others.
You didn't even make an objection to the model.

Sorry - I assumed you could deduce that from the fact that the justification for it is bullshit (on account of not actually reading what Einstein said).
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?