Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

So now you believe that raising a ferrous object above its Curie temp is analogous to melting a glass lens?

A glass lens can be heated until it >>>>>>>>>expands slightly<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I said "molten lens"  dummy   not a "merely heated" lens.


an analogy is an analogy, thats all it is.          There is a fallacy called "taking the analogy too far"




Thats right son,  ever heard of a  "scattered phase" ??

In all honesty, I had no idea you were really that daft.   I was getting a clue, but wow.



Loss of coherent INDUCED FIELD,  either by increase of capacitance or mere dielectric coherency is LOST upon extreme heating (depending on the material),  Neo is diff. then Ferrite, and also diff. than somarium cobalt maggies.


My god, what ignorance.



Fundamentally you are 100% CLUELESS that a "magnet" is an object with enormous inter-atomic COHERENT magneto-dielectricity which, in coherency, has macro-atomic phenomena resultant of this coherency.




HINT:   all that shit called "ALIGNED DOMAINS"  only means COHERENCY




know the diff between  5 WATTS OF INCOHERENT LIGHT AND 5 WATTS OF COHERENT LIGHT??

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>5 WATTS OF INCOHERENT LIGHT  isnt enough to read a book by

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 WATTS OF COHERENT LIGHT WILL BURN YOUR ASS AND FUCKING PERMANENTLY BLIND YOU

[picowatt]

Heating to the Curie temp rarely implies heating "to the melting point".

Your analogy wherein a glass lens is "melted" is, at best, a very poor analogy to describe the Curie point.

Most people would likely not consider it an analogy at all...

PW

[TheoriaApophasis]

Heating to the Curie temp rarely implies heating "to the melting point".

No shit Sherlock

Most people would likely not consider it an analogy at all...

BANDWAGGON FALLACY 




Suggest you study this word:  COHERENT

[picowatt]

TA,

So again, I'll take your responses to mean you have no idea WHY the "dielectric coherency" is lost above the Curie temp and does not return upon cooling below the Curie temp.

As conventional science does have an explanation, I'll stick with that.

Thanks,
PW

[TheoriaApophasis]

So again, I'll take your responses to mean you have no idea WHY the "dielectric coherency" is lost above the Curie temp and does not return upon cooling below the Curie temp.

strawman fallacy.  I did explain why.

I dont need your approval, I only have to refute your ignorant ass.




Now you're being a sophistic GOON like HighforMiles   good luck that BS 





See the picture below asshole?  thats a DESCRIPTION, not an EXPLANATION.   



Learn the difference moron.