[TropeADope]

How does FET explain isogonic lines? They don't conform to anything but a spherical earth.

[Rushy]

Isogonic lines change significantly over time. Are you going to tell us that the earth's shape also changes along with them? The only thing isogonic lines confirm is the basic properties of magnetism, not the shape of the earth.

[TropeADope]

Isogonic lines change significantly over time. Are you going to tell us that the earth's shape also changes along with them? The only thing isogonic lines confirm is the basic properties of magnetism, not the shape of the earth.

While they do change, their distribution does not. Only the amount of declination changes (essentially the magnitude of the variation). The map of NA shows this well. My point (which I should have expanded on in the original post) was that their distribution shows they are mapped onto a sphere. If not, the lines would be straight leading to/from the magnetic pole and not curved.
The other part of this is that it disproves the unipolar model of FE as even the "circular unipole" theory would not result in this pattern.

[Rushy]

Their distribution shows that the magnetic field lines are a spheroid, not the earth itself. Isogonic images are skewed as they get near Antarctica because the images incorrectly depict a round earth. Basic measurement with magnetometers shows that the skewing doesn't actually occur in the southern part of the disc.

[mtnman]

Basic measurement with magnetometers shows that the skewing doesn't actually occur in the southern part of the disc.

Please provide references for this statement.

[TropeADope]

Their distribution shows that the magnetic field lines are a spheroid, not the earth itself. Isogonic images are skewed as they get near Antarctica because the images incorrectly depict a round earth. Basic measurement with magnetometers shows that the skewing doesn't actually occur in the southern part of the disc.

What mtnman said plus, please show me a map of flat earth. I thought there wasn't one. How can you make a statement like that without even having a map?

[mtnman]

Their distribution shows that the magnetic field lines are a spheroid, not the earth itself. Isogonic images are skewed as they get near Antarctica because the images incorrectly depict a round earth. Basic measurement with magnetometers shows that the skewing doesn't actually occur in the southern part of the disc.

What mtnman said plus, please show me a map of flat earth. I thought there wasn't one. How can you make a statement like that without even having a map?

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer to either of those.

The only defense their map has is its non-existence.

I had another discussion where he trotted out the "what experiments have you personally done" line. I assume he expected me to have done none. So I described a couple of simple ones I had done. He claimed they were not experiments because they were too simple. Sure they were simple, doesn't mean they were not experiments. So I asked him to share some of his experimental results. Radio silence of course.

[mtnman]

BTW Trope, thanks for posting the question. I had never heard of this term before. I learned the idea of adjusting for the difference between true and magnetic north in the Boy Scouts, but wasn't a big deal as the difference was small where I lived. But I had never seen it plotted on a map, very interesting.

[TropeADope]

BTW Trope, thanks for posting the question. I had never heard of this term before. I learned the idea of adjusting for the difference between true and magnetic north in the Boy Scouts, but wasn't a big deal as the difference was small where I lived. But I had never seen it plotted on a map, very interesting.

Thanks, I learned about them in flight school and when I got on here I started thinking about how flying would/wouldn't work on a flat earth. It seems like everybody sticks to the same arguments over and over, but any concept of magnetism and how it works isn't one. There are a lot more questions to do with it that aren't even touched in the wiki, FAQ, or the google (from a FET perspective anyway). I'm really curious about how Rushy will respond.
If you're interested further, magnetic dip is another way in which FET doesn't really make sense.

[mtnman]

Another interesting topic, was not familiar with that one either, thanks.

With the use of that in flight school, I guess that makes all pilots part of the vast conspiracy, right? 

[TropeADope]

Another interesting topic, was not familiar with that one either, thanks.

With the use of that in flight school, I guess that makes all pilots part of the vast conspiracy, right? 

Lol, being part of the "gob'ment" makes me part of the conspiracy. 

[mtnman]

Another interesting topic, was not familiar with that one either, thanks.

With the use of that in flight school, I guess that makes all pilots part of the vast conspiracy, right? 

Lol, being part of the "gob'ment" makes me part of the conspiracy. 

LOL. Started to make a joke there, but someone would probably take it seriously.

[Rushy]

This is our current map.

[TropeADope]

This is our current map.

Ok, so first, all the other FEers are going to use the excuse that that isn't a proper map and they don't know what the earth actually looks like.
Second, please tell me, where is the southern magnetic pole located? Once you've done that, with use of your "simple measurements", tell me how you have readings that oppose the northern magnetic pole on the other side of the disc from wherever you end up arbitrarily putting the south magnetic pole(ie if you put it on the southern tip of SA, how are they in Australia).

[mtnman]

This is our current map.

Is this the same as the one in the wiki labeled as

Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth.

Where would one find the legend and scale so that distances can be measured on this map? Thanks.

[douglips]

This page has the best image of isogonic lines on a globe that I've been able to find. They don't look like latitude lines because the earth isn't uniformly magnetized:
http://www.flightlearnings.com/2012/07/09/latitude-and-longitude-meridians-and-parallels-variation/


So I don't know that it perfectly indicates a spherical earth.

[3DGeek]

Their distribution shows that the magnetic field lines are a spheroid, not the earth itself. Isogonic images are skewed as they get near Antarctica because the images incorrectly depict a round earth. Basic measurement with magnetometers shows that the skewing doesn't actually occur in the southern part of the disc.

What mtnman said plus, please show me a map of flat earth. I thought there wasn't one. How can you make a statement like that without even having a map?

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer to either of those.

The only defense their map has is its non-existence.

I had another discussion where he trotted out the "what experiments have you personally done" line. I assume he expected me to have done none. So I described a couple of simple ones I had done. He claimed they were not experiments because they were too simple. Sure they were simple, doesn't mean they were not experiments. So I asked him to share some of his experimental results. Radio silence of course.

Rushy also claimed to have done some experiments similar to Rowbotham using a laser pointer. 

This sounded plausible - and "lasers are really precise" - so people took it as truth.

I pointed out (with facts and math and stuff) that this is impossible because laser pointers produce 10 meter wide beams at those distances(!) and are far, far too dim to be visible.  Therefore we have to conclude that Rushy must have LIED about doing those experiments - (s)he did not offer any retraction or explanation despite responding to other posts on that thread.

Hence, EVERYTHING Rushy says about experiments has to be taken as coming from the mouth of a proven liar.  Believe nothing coming from that user without independent verification.

[mtnman]

Foiled again, stupid facts and math and stuff, LOL

[devils advocate]

This is our current map.

Errr Rushy you ever been to Australia?

It aint that shape mate, especially not that wide! Worst of all is that the errors are all along the coast, which is where most of the inhabitants live (I've been to Alice Springs and there's nowt much there) meaning that their google maps/sat navs would be noticeably out. Which they are not (from personal experiments conducted there).

[TropeADope]

This page has the best image of isogonic lines on a globe that I've been able to find. They don't look like latitude lines because the earth isn't uniformly magnetized:
http://www.flightlearnings.com/2012/07/09/latitude-and-longitude-meridians-and-parallels-variation/


So I don't know that it perfectly indicates a spherical earth.

They are adjustment lines to adjust for using a magnet to navigate true directions. Basically, a magnet is going to the magnetic pole, but maps and everything else is made using the true pole. Isogonic lines are to show you how much adjustment you need to correct the error the compass will give you. If you moved the mag. Pole to the same spot as the true pole, then they would be a sphere, but as rushy correctly pointed out, they would be a sphere for a bunch of different shapes (a cube for example).
The point I have made to this is to look at your picture of the spherical earth. It shows the lines for NA as straight. You could keep a straight course from say, San Diego to Cheyenne. Both are on that same line. Your magnetic adjustment would be a constant and your course is a constant one (if we ignore winds). Essentially, you can fly straight from the former to the latter. Now look at the same lines mapped onto a flat map. They're curved. They are the same lines but only a spherical earth matches what is actually experienced when flying.