No ROFL Kenny.  There is no "dielectric inertial plane" in a magnet.

You disagree Kenny?  Please go ahead and discuss what a dielectric inertial plane is in a standard bar magnet.  You say the dielectric inertial plane is at the half-way point of the magnet.  Okay, please elaborate.  What is the dielectric inertial plane exactly in the bar magnet?  Just saying that "it's there" will not cut it.

Please tell us exactly what the dielectric inertial plane is, without pointing to your book.

MileHigh

LOL nice find/replace

The white line of the bloch wall is still shown on magnetic viewing film....

The dielectric inertial plane is in the SAME place on the inside diameter as the outside diameter.
A rig magnet is no different than if you took a bar magnet and looped it into a circle


The term "Bloch wall"


A: doesnt mean a DAMN THING

B: doesnt DESCRIBE a damn thing

C: Absolutely doesnt EXPLAIN a damn thing.


 
Keep using that nonsense phraseology however as you wish.   

You say the dielectric inertial plane is at the half-way point of the magnet.

Didnt ever say that,  I said due to F.I.   (field incommensurability), its dominance is forced to the physical midpoint of any magnet


and shifts (actually it PRE SHIFTS as I have demonstrated) to the mind point of two magnets in voidance ("attraction" , which is a wrong word)


I explain it FINE,  IN THE BOOK,   go read it you lazy Bonobo monkey,   or dont,  I dont give a damn 

Here is some food for thought for you guys.

You have your standard bar magnet.  One of you says there is a Bloch wall.  One of you says that there is a dielectric inertial plane.

Now, take that standard bar magnet and imagine a very thin slice of the magnet that divides the magnet into two halves.  The center of the thin slice of the magnet is where the alleged Bloch wall is, or the alleged dielectric inertial plane is.

Then imagine two equally thin slices on either side of the center slice.  One slice on the north side of the magnet, and the other slice on the south side of the magnet.

So, two slices are not in the Bloch/dielectric region and the other slice is in the Bloch/dielectric region.

What can you say about the three slices?

MileHigh

Then imagine two equally thin slices on either side of the center slice.  One slice on the north side of the magnet, and the other slice on the south side of the magnet.

So, two slices are not in the Bloch/dielectric region and the other slice is in the Bloch/dielectric region.

What can you say about the three slices?

MileHigh

FOOL,        I mention this at LENGTH in the book,  you can take a magnet and slice it (if you could)  10000000000000000 times top to bottom,    EVERY SLICE will have a "N and S pole"   AND A dielectric inertial plane.


Go study the term  INCOMMENSURABLE  , ala the Platonists , Pythagoras.


Your thinking is very limited. 

So, two slices are not in the Bloch/dielectric region
MileHigh

The dielectric is EVERYWHERE, but magneto-dielectric geometry FORCES (ala fluid mechanics models) the dielectric to the center of ANY physical magnet



Dont you even GET IT AT ALL?    You can think of a magnet as a Magneto-dielectric "laser", as an analogy, its OPERATING COHERENTLY ,  same as laser light (in a manner)


POINT NONSPECIFIC  self-similarity in the ENTIRE MAGNET

Kenny:

"Electrical inertia" is often used to describe the property of inductance.  It looks to me like you read a bunch of pre-1930 stuff and got all confused with the terms and adopted them anyways and added your own spin to them.  You didn't understand that a lot of the old terms have equivalent terms using modern terminology.

The problem is that to argue anything new in electromagnetics (we are not really discussing QED) you have to demonstrate competency in the established theory.  That's the way it works and anybody with common sense knows that you have to learn the basics to progress onto the more advanced stuff.  You have been caught red-handed as being a poseur that doesn't understand the basics.  So your claims are classic rank amateur claims from somebody that doesn't want to believe that they don't know what they are talking about.

Answer my slice question if you can.

MileHigh

Kenny:

"Electrical inertia" is often used to describe the property of inductance.  It looks to me like you read a bunch of pre-1930 stuff and got all confused with the terms and adopted them anyways and added your own spin to them.  You didn't understand that a lot of the old terms have equivalent terms using modern terminology.

MileHigh

Answer the question I asked you 20 pages ago..........  DEFINE :  FIELD      


"""" bunch of pre-1930 stuff"""


OH SHIT!!! I didnt know the NATURE of electricity, dielectricity and magnetism CHANGED since the 1930s!!!!!!!    ROFL !!!!     Mother nature never got that MEMO


You remind of that idiot Roman, I cant recall his name, ........he said in 600 C.E.    "everything known and invented has already been discovered"