Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[MarkE]

@Mark EGood points now what have we learned, well we have learned absolutely nothing new have we which is exactly what always happens when an argument is based on winning the argument rather than understanding. Why anyone can play that game, all you have said is false and logically it must be false because some very intelligent scientists who produced the picture below have proven you false. You see I don't have to think about anything or learn anything or research anything and all I have to do is show a picture, I win, but we both lose don't we?.
LOL, I will have to consider your question further before posting an answer.
AC

Are you really so far gone that you do not understand the very graphic that you have posted?  The picture you posted agrees with the conventional view.

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

Do you understand that you just killed your own argument against iron filings? 
By inducing a pole that is opposite polarity, the magnetized soft iron reduces
the reluctance gap between the poles.  Ergo the field set-up by the newly
magnetized soft iron only intensifies the field that was already in the region
of the dipole they surround.  Ergo their alignment does in fact correspond to
the field direction.  Ergo since they do not turn towards the dipole at the
dipole center, the proposition that the field turns there is false

.
Okay it seems pretty straightforward, where is the point of greatest field density and where is the point of the lowest field density?. The poles have the highest field density therefore the lowest density must be somewhere inbetween ie. the center. Now if the induced magnetic fields are coupled in lines then the translation of force in the field is along those lines repelling and attracting through there own coupling. So why would we think there would be any deflection in the induced magnetic lines near the center where the field has the least influence?. I know many think this is a simple issue but it is not as the induced iron filing fields are individual magnets interacting with one another as well as the external field, there is a lot of stuff going on here.
Of course once again my thoughts are in question because of the last picture I posted however the picture is based on neutron spin and not induced magnetism in iron which are obviously not the same thing. So there is our answer I believe however I have yet to understand the exact mechanism of how and why the field geometries are so different. Damn I think I just learned something...woot.
AC

[EMJunkie]

Are you really so far gone that you do not understand the very graphic that you have posted?  The picture you posted agrees with the conventional view.

What, NO FIELD LINES IN CLOSURE ON THEMSELVES? Wow! Nice assertion!

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

Are you really so far gone that you do not understand the very graphic that
you have posted?  The picture you posted agrees with the conventional view.

I could ask you the same question, the picture I posted looks nothing like the one posted of iron filings in a magnetic field... or have I missed something?.
AC

[MarkE]

@Mark EI could ask you the same question, the picture I posted looks nothing like the one posted of iron filings in a magnetic field... or have I missed something?.
AC

Quite the contrary.  According to the conventional view which iron filing experiments support, field lines become most parallel close to the dipole mid point.  According to this "equator" idea the field lines close ellipses at the equator.  In other words:  the curl is maximum there.  Look at your picture.  The lines come parallel.  They do not turn to form closed upper and lower ellipses.