[TomFoolery]

You would still have 2 magnets.
However, what you would not have is a south geomagnetic pole that wanders about around and off the shore of Antarctica like what is observed in the real world.

No, you would not still have 2 magnets. Remember, magnets are made up of millions of micro magnets. There's no such thing as two magnets, really. You might have two groups of magnets, but who cares? You might have a million groups of magnets each made up of a million micro magnets/magnetic domains, but they all work together to form whatever you end up with as a final pole pattern/orientation. The magnetic domains or micro magnets don't care whether their group was molded at the same time as another nearby group or not. Their position and orientation is all that matters, and that is what defines the orientation of a magnet.

As to the poles moving, naturally we don't have to worry about the south pole since it's a ring. As to the north pole wandering, obviously the magnetic north pole is the spot that just happens to have the strongest magnetic field, and obviously whatever's down there causing the magnetic field shifts around with time.
Ok we can worry about the "south" "pole" if you want - obviously the magnetic "south pole" is just a hot spot  that is also drifting around.

As a matter of fact, it would not surprise me to find out there were multiple hot at both magnetic poles, both the ring pole and the center pole.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think it means.

Please explain center pole electromagnet.

I'm not disputing your claim that the earths magnetic field could be produced by an electrical charge. We already know the earth holds an electrical charge from Nikola Tesla.

Anyways, you show me a radially oriented ring magnet. They do not exist in nature and no one makes a true radially oriented ring magnet. You said it yourself! "However, it is sort of radially magnetized."

We can imagine lots of things, but it doesn't make them true or possible. The field lines of a magnet always end up parallel. They do not converge to a point. No matter how finely you slice the magnet and rearrange it. They will not converge to a point and make it a true radially oriented magnet. You can pontificate on your great imaginations all you want. It doesnt change that fact.

[TomFoolery]

You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think it means.

Please explain center pole electromagnet.

I'm not disputing your claim that the earths magnetic field could be produced by an electrical charge. We already know the earth holds an electrical charge from Nikola Tesla.

Anyways, you show me a radially oriented ring magnet. They do not exist in nature and no one makes a true radially oriented ring magnet. You said it yourself! "However, it is sort of radially magnetized."

We can imagine lots of things, but it doesn't make them true or possible. The field lines of a magnet always end up parallel. They do not converge to a point. No matter how finely you slice the magnet and rearrange it. They will not converge to a point and make it a true radially oriented magnet. You can pontificate on your great imaginations all you want. It doesnt change that fact.

I know that you asked for a radially oriented ring magnet, but then I figured you'd just say "Ha! The earth doesn't have a hole in the center!" so I went one better and I now present to you a radially oriented *disk magnet.* See attached photos. I even got north in the center and south around the outside edge. And I even taped on the best map we have, with a grossly stretched Australia. Poor mateys down there got some long drives if they go east or west!

By center-poled magnet I simply mean one with a north pole in the center and the south pole distributed more or less evenly around the outside edge of the disk.

I am totally mystified by your inability to grasp two simple concepts -- one being that lack of evidence "for" is not  inherently evidence "against": Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it is impossible for it to exist!  -- and the other thing that mystifies me is your inability to understand that magnets are made up of millions of tiny micro magnets called magnetic domains, and these domains can be arranged in whatever order you want, and so any sort of magnetic pole orientation is valid as long as there's a north and a south. I'm really not making it up. If you can build a 6-segment radially oriented ring magnet, why not a 60 segment, or a 600 segment, or a 6 million segment radially oriented ring magnet? The little magnetic domains don't care how many segments there are. If you were using 6 segments, the magnetic field would be significantly un-round. But if you used 6 million of them, it'd be pert near good and round!

But anyway, I have herein shown you a 4" diameter radially oriented permanent magnet with a north pole in the center and a south pole around the outside edge.
The little red & blue rod is a little magnet that I use as a compass to show that anywhere on the face of the flat magnetic earth, the compass always points between north and south, thus confirming the radial pattern.

And the iron filings also confirm a surprisingly even radial orientation - you can see how they stand up in the center and at the outer edge - and arc over in between clearly showing that it's got one pole in the center and the other pole around the outside edge.

Edit: The video uploaded!

I really don't think we have grounds to say, as OP did, that "there is no way a flat disk can have a single north pole and then infinitely many south poles, all scattered around "the edge of the world". Magnets like this simply don't exist."

Well my friend, now they exist. In the video I demonstrate that the compass works  correctly all over the face of the flat earth inside the ice wall. I do have some reversal anomalies right at the ice wall because I didn't get the geometry exactly correct because I just threw it together from stuff I had lying around -- but it clearly illustrates the principle that the earth very well could have a north magnetic pole in the center and a south magnetic pole around the outside, and our magnetic compasses would all still work fine.

Bedtime here, catch you when the sun comes back over my way.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

What you've shown me again is an axial orientation. Do you see the iron fillings standing straight up at two points? Those are the two axes. That is not radial. The filings need to stick to the side of the magnet. You are being deliberately false with your photo. All you have done is taken an axial disc magnet from a speaker and glued a metal plate on top. Wow.

It essentially boils down to Gauss's law.  You cannot have a true radially magnetized orientation, because that would mean there is multiple south poles and one north pole (the point of convergence). That violates Gauss's law that basically states that each magnetic field line must have an equal (entering and exiting).

See attached drawing of a "radially" oriented magnet. It is not truly radial, due to the fact that you have to obey Gauss's law and there cannot be a singular north pole, and therefore there cannot be a solid disc.  There must be a hole - or something in the hole that is not magnetized. I should have drawn the field lines on the top view, but I forgot. They will still be in a segment or arc form with parallel field lines - even if you chop it up into little pieces and call it guacamoooooleeey.

[markjo]

You would still have 2 magnets.
However, what you would not have is a south geomagnetic pole that wanders about around and off the shore of Antarctica like what is observed in the real world.

No, you would not still have 2 magnets. Remember, magnets are made up of millions of micro magnets. There's no such thing as two magnets, really. You might have two groups of magnets, but who cares? You might have a million groups of magnets each made up of a million micro magnets/magnetic domains, but they all work together to form whatever you end up with as a final pole pattern/orientation. The magnetic domains or micro magnets don't care whether their group was molded at the same time as another nearby group or not. Their position and orientation is all that matters, and that is what defines the orientation of a magnet.

Right.  Whether or not an object is a magnet or not depends greatly on the orientation of those magnetic domains.  If the domains are aligned, then you have a magnet.  If the domains are randomly oriented, then you don't have a magnet, regardless of how many "micro magnets" are in the material.

As to the poles moving, naturally we don't have to worry about the south pole since it's a ring.

Except that it isn't a ring.  There is a spot on the earth that is currently off the shore of Antarctica where the magnetic field lines are vertical.  This is known as the geomagnetic (or dip) south pole.  The movement of those vertical magnetic field lines has been observed for over a hundred years.

As to the north pole wandering, obviously the magnetic north pole is the spot that just happens to have the strongest magnetic field, and obviously whatever's down there causing the magnetic field shifts around with time.

No.  The geomagnetic magnetic north pole is where the magnetic field lines are vertical.

Ok we can worry about the "south" "pole" if you want - obviously the magnetic "south pole" is just a hot spot  that is also drifting around.

Yes, you do need to worry about the "south pole" because it's a widely used navigational marker in the southern hemiplane.

As a matter of fact, it would not surprise me to find out there were multiple hot at both magnetic poles, both the ring pole and the center pole.

Huh?  Not quite sure what you mean.

[TomFoolery]

Except that it isn't a ring.  There is a spot on the earth that is currently off the shore of Antarctica where the magnetic field lines are vertical.  This is known as the geomagnetic (or dip) south pole.  The movement of those vertical magnetic field lines has been observed for over a hundred years.

I do remember reading about dip meters, and in fact my little model magnetic flat earth shows the same thing, except it shows a single dip pole in the center and a ring dip around the outside, although if my ring magnet was a lot larger and weaker it could have a "hot spot" at one point along the outer ring. And in fact, the earth may have multiple unknown magnetic hot spots around the ice ring -- it's hard to explore out there.. I have in my office a 6 poled magnet out of a brushless DC motor from an old floppy drive. It's a single piece ceramic magnet with 6 north and 6 south poled. Maybe you call that a 12 pole magnet?

And that's the other thing,. considering the ice wall is so heavily guarded by treaty and armed forces, and large banks of dry ice, it's really beyond the realm of certain knowledge for 99.999% of people to actually go observe the stated magnetic south pole.

But thank you for writing and I'll definitely think about what you've said.

[ChrisTP]

And that's the other thing,. considering the ice wall is so heavily guarded by treaty and armed forces, and large banks of dry ice, it's really beyond the realm of certain knowledge for 99.999% of people to actually go observe the stated magnetic south pole.

That's not the case and you can just go there, it's not like you need a passport but there's no accommodation and guidelines to follow if you go on an expedition but if you were really not scared to die from the harsh conditions, you could just go to the south pole yourself. No one would stop you probably, it's just not wise. Without supply drops along the way you'd need to carry a huge amount of supplies for yourself, even the most well trained soldiers that have tried do to so found it basically impossible.

But yea if you were really dead set on going, no one will stop you.

[TomFoolery]

What you've shown me again is an axial orientation.

Incorrect. I can see that it's been a while since you played with a magnet and some iron filings. *please* go try it.

Do you see the iron fillings standing straight up at two points?

I sure do. When they are standing straight up, that is the pole, because opposites attract and like repels. Where they are standing straight up is right on the pole, and it follows the lines of magnetic force, and the lines of magnetic force do exactly the same thing on the magnetic poles of the earth. They are vertical at the magnetic poles.

Those are the two axes. That is not radial.

No, those are not the axes. Those are the poles. It is radially magnetized, just like your diagram, except there's no hole in the middle.
Please watch the video again and you will see where I remove the flat earth magnet and bring in a regular N-S bar magnet, and you can see that the iron filings stand up over the poles, and lay down between the poles.
If you don't believe me, go get a magnet and some iron filings and try it for yourself, you will see that the filings stand up over the poles and lay flat between the poles.

The filings need to stick to the side of the magnet. You are being deliberately false with your photo.

Huh? The filings stick all over. The only question is are the lines of force vertical or horizontal.
And please don't say I'm being deliberately false with my photo. It's one thing to say I don't know anything about physics, but to accuse me of being deliberately false just isn't nice, you know what  mean?

All you have done is taken an axial disc magnet from a speaker and glued a metal plate on top. Wow.

Actually, it's not a speaker magnet. And just putting on a metal plate would not have created that center north pole.

It essentially boils down to Gauss's law.

You didn't even look up Gauss's law before posting that. Please look it up. Gauss's law relates to *electric* fields, not magnetic forces! Dude! Don't be lazy. Well I mean you can be if you want but it makes my job easier 

You cannot have a true radially magnetized orientation, because that would mean there is multiple south poles and one north pole (the point of convergence).

You seem to forget that each magnet is made up of millions of micro magnets (called magnetic domains) and that each of them has a south and a north pole.
But let me simplify it for you: Let's say you had two bar magnets [N====S] and [N====S] ok? Take them, and super glue together their two north poles. They aren't going to like it but you can force them, right? Now what have you got? You got a magnet with two south poles and one north pole!
That just proved that you are wrong, and that it *is* possible to have a magnet with one north pole and multiple south poles.

You are also not understanding that there is no sharp dividing line between N and S on a magnet: It's made up of million little micro magnets all lined up end to end, and each one has a very weak magnetic force but they all add up. So the magnetic field is produced linearly along the length of the magnet, essentially.

I do not understand how you cannot grasp the fact that magnets are already made up of millions of tiny magnets, and that you can arrange them in any way you like to have any number of south and any number of north poles, as long as there's at least one of each.

That violates Gauss's law that basically states that each magnetic field line must have an equal (entering and exiting).

Please provide a link. I googled it and only found references to electric fields, and electric fields are not magnetic fields. That's why walking across the carpet zaps you but it doesn't cause paperclips to stick to your fingertips, while a magnet does pick up paperclips but it doesn't zap you.

Now if you're saying the magnetic field is weaker around the outside, I don't have a problem with that. The N forces have to add up to the S forces, and if spread over a larger area, will be weaker. I'm not arguing that. But no reason a magnet can't have a pole in the center and the other around the outside.

See attached drawing of a "radially" oriented magnet. It is not truly radial, due to the fact that you have to obey Gauss's law and there cannot be a singular north pole, and therefore there cannot be a solid disc.  There must be a hole - or something in the hole that is not magnetized. I should have drawn the field lines on the top view, but I forgot. They will still be in a segment or arc form with parallel field lines - even if you chop it up into little pieces and call it guacamoooooleeey.

You are wrong. There does not have to be a hole for there to be a pole in the center.
I really don't know why I'm arguing magnetics with someone who hasn't played with a magnet and iron dust in years,  but please please please get a magnet and some iron dust and try it out!

You will see that the iron dust stands up on the poles, and lays down between them.
The lines of magnetic force on my flat earth magnet are very similar to how they are/would be on a flat earth, and it shows that the compass would still work on a flat earth.
And it shows that a radial magnetic field is entirely possible.

Look, can you please get a magnet and some iron filings? You can get them off ebay, or just go into a machine shop with a magnet and say "Hey can I get some iron filings off the floor under the grinder?

And if you don't want to do real science yourself, then watch my video or others videos again and you will see that the iron filings clearly stand straight up right on the poles.

[markjo]

Except that it isn't a ring.  There is a spot on the earth that is currently off the shore of Antarctica where the magnetic field lines are vertical.  This is known as the geomagnetic (or dip) south pole.  The movement of those vertical magnetic field lines has been observed for over a hundred years.

I do remember reading about dip meters, and in fact my little model magnetic flat earth shows the same thing, except it shows a single dip pole in the center and a ring dip around the outside, although if my ring magnet was a lot larger and weaker it could have a "hot spot" at one point along the outer ring. And in fact, the earth may have multiple unknown magnetic hot spots around the ice ring -- it's hard to explore out there.. I have in my office a 6 poled magnet out of a brushless DC motor from an old floppy drive. It's a single piece ceramic magnet with 6 north and 6 south poled. Maybe you call that a 12 pole magnet?

Except that all magnetic field lines point towards a single north magnetic pole and a single south magnetic pole.  Do you have any documentation of multiple south magnetic poles being observed?

And that's the other thing,. considering the ice wall is so heavily guarded by treaty and armed forces, and large banks of dry ice, it's really beyond the realm of certain knowledge for 99.999% of people to actually go observe the stated magnetic south pole.

Except that the magnetic south pole is currently off the shore of Antarctica in international waters with no guards to worry about.  Even so, there is a thriving Antarctic tourist industry that you may want to look into before worrying too much about how heavily guarded the Antarctic may or may not be.  My guess is that the most formidable Antarctic guard is the weather.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Ok, maybe my phrasing is incorrect, but I am not a moron. Vertical field lines as you have shown are an axially oriented magnetic field.

I know how magnets work. I work with them every day. Ever heard of servo motor using the Hall effect to determine orientation and position of a motor?

See diagram below.

Also, Gauss's law for Magnetism is a thing. Look it up, buckaroo. Guess you are wrong. (Why would I not know about Gauss's law? I am a degreed mechanical engineer).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_magnetism

Please, continue to tell me that I am wrong.

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=magnetization-direction

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/magdir.asp

[TomFoolery]

Ok, maybe my phrasing is incorrect, but I am not a moron. Vertical field lines as you have shown are an axially oriented magnetic field.

I dare you to take a good strong bar magnet and lay it flat under the glass. And you will see that the iron filings stand up at the poles. Put a ring of these magnets in a circle, same thing will happen and you'll get the same pattern that I did.
Just because an axial magnet causes a ring of standing spikes doesn't mean that the side of a radial magnet can't do the same thing -- it just also stands up in the center.

I know how magnets work. I work with them every day.

I'm finding that hard to believe. But whatever. Actually, everybody who uses a cell phone, computer, drives a car or rides the bus "works with magnets every day." But that's different then actually grabbing a magnet, some clear plastic, and a pile of iron filings. When was the last time you did that?

Ever heard of servo motor using the Hall effect to determine orientation and position of a motor?

Certainly. One of my hobbies is designing and building small CNC machinery. I have motors that use a NS magnet and a hall as a low resolution position encoder, and I even have some that have a NSNSNSNSNSNS 500 count quad encoder on the back that uses a magnet with 500 north poles and 500 south poles. Yeah yeah I know they usually use optical encoders for that but I have in my possession several little Japanese Hitachi motors as I recall with 500 count magnetic incremental encoders in them.

See diagram below.

Thanks

Also, Gauss's law for Magnetism is a thing. Look it up, buckaroo. Guess you are wrong. (Why would I not know about Gauss's law? I am a degreed mechanical engineer).

Frankly, I'd never googled it before. But I googled it and it was all about electricity and with your apparent lack of connection with reality, I just assumed you didn't know.
And you gotta admit you weren't being super helpful because you didn't even say which of Gauss's laws you were referring to nor did you specify how it proved your point.
I know straw grabbing when I see it and I saw it.
And even the WP article that you just link to says right in it "The name "Gauss's law for magnetism"[1] is not universally used."
So you can't really say you were being forthright and helpful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_magnetism

Please, continue to tell me that I am wrong.

Actually, why don't you tell me how I'm wrong. I just showed you a video that clearly shows that a compass can work all over the flat earth.
Why don't you tell me how Gauss says what I've done is impossible.

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=magnetization-direction

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/magdir.asp

I'm well aware that super strong magnets have their domains pre-oriented a certain way for maximum strength.
They even say the following:

"Why must neodymium magnets have a preferred magnetization direction?
Neodymium magnets are made this way because we want them to be as strong as possible.  If we made magnets that were just as easy to magnetize in any direction, they wouldn’t be nearly as strong"

They *could* make them without having a preferred magnetization direction, they just wouldn't be as strong!

The earth is not a neodymium magnet. And it's not made in K&J's factory.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

You are misinterpreting what I am trying to tell you. I am not saying what you have shown in your video is impossible. It obviously is.

What I am saying is that calling it radially oriented is not TRUE. NOT your experiment. You have an axially oriented magnet. The field lines emerge from the top surface of the magnet, not across the diameter of the magnet (aka diametrical alignment), nor does it come out the sides of the magnet and wrap around go to the center (aka radially).

I agree that what you have shown can occur on a flat earth. I am just saying it is not radially oriented. What do you not understand here?

[TomFoolery]

You are misinterpreting what I am trying to tell you. I am not saying what you have shown in your video is impossible. It obviously is.

What I am saying is that calling it radially oriented is not TRUE. NOT your experiment. You have an axially oriented magnet. The field lines emerge from the top surface of the magnet, not across the diameter of the magnet (aka diametrical alignment), nor does it come out the sides of the magnet and wrap around go to the center (aka radially).

I agree that what you have shown can occur on a flat earth. I am just saying it is not radially oriented. What do you not understand here?

Wonderful, thank you!

So this begs the question, if a the magnetic fields above the surface of the earth (assuming a flat shape) appear to be radially oriented, then how can way say it's not?

If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, I'm gonna call it a duck unless you can prove to me it's not. Fair enough?

And remember the OP said "there is no way a flat disk can have a single north pole and then infinitely many south poles, all scattered around "the edge of the world". Magnets like this simply don't exist."

Would you agree with me that the OP is wrong in his statement there? You just said "I agree that what you have shown can occur on a flat earth."
And the OP says that "there is no way a disk can have a single north pole....."


Also, please specifically site which claim of Gauss indicates that you cannot have a radially oriented disk magnet. You've been throwing that reference around for a while now but not once giving the exact thing that Gauss is supposed to have said that supports your point.

Show some good faith! I made a working model, and a video, I went to some effort to demonstrate my point. And you've cited Gauss's name multiple times, but not once pointed out what he said that proves I'm wrong! And you don't even have to build anything or upload anything, just find a link and provide it here!
(And I don't mean "Here's 945 pages worth of links go read them(oldest trick in the book) but show me exactly what he said and how that proves me wrong.)

[WellRoundedIndividual]

I will attempt to explain this again.  People have always told me I am horrible at explaining things.

Gauss's Law of Magnetism states in short that it is impossible to have a monopole, due to magnetic flux through a closed surface being zero. So having multiple south poles directed at one singular north pole violates that law.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c2

https://em.geosci.xyz/content/maxwell1_fundamentals/formative_laws/gauss_magnetic.html

This can be demonstrated experimentally by the fact that when you cut a magnet in half, you end up with two magnets, both having a north and south pole. You do not end up with two monopole magnets. And, in addition, you cannot have X number of south poles directed at Y number of North poles if X does not equal Y. X must always equal Y, or you violate Gauss's Law of Magnetism.

I hope that explained it better.

[TomFoolery]

<snip>
Gauss's Law of Magnetism states in short that it is impossible to have a monopole, due to magnetic flux through a closed surface being zero.
<snip>

Okay good so far.
I never ever claimed that the earth was a monopole. A monopole magnet is like a one ended stick. Or a battery with only one terminal. I get that. No contest.
But then you say....:

So having multiple south poles directed at one singular north pole violates that law.

Halt! Halt!  Now you've taken a huge leap and drawn a conclusion that Gauss does not state!
A monopole magnet is one thing. A multipole magnet is an entirely different thing!
You can definitely have a 3 ended stick, or a battery with two negative plates and a positive plate, or, well you get the idea.
Surely an engineer of any type would understand this, especially since you know that the magnetic domains are many and are small.
If Gauss really states that you cannot have unmatched number of north and south poles then show me where he says it. But I'm quite sure he doesn't.
And if Gauss really states that you cannot have a south pole that's distributed over a larger surface area than the north pole, then show me where!
Sure, the pole with more surface area will be weaker per unit area because the two forces  have to be balanced, but that's a horse of a different color!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c2

https://em.geosci.xyz/content/maxwell1_fundamentals/formative_laws/gauss_magnetic.html

This can be demonstrated experimentally by the fact that when you cut a magnet in half, you end up with two magnets, both having a north and south pole. You do not end up with two monopole magnets. And, in addition, you cannot have X number of south poles directed at Y number of North poles if X does not equal Y. X must always equal Y, or you violate Gauss's Law of Magnetism.

I hope that explained it better.

Thank you, at least I know what in the world was going through your mind. You really had my worried there!

You must remember that the magnetic field is actually produced by tiny magnetic domains. And each of them does balance out because each one has exactly one north and one south pole. But you can create all sorts of patterns in a magnetizable media by arranging those domains.

Gauss says you cannot have a south pole without a north pole. He didn't say that you couldn't have 3 south poles and one north pole, but only that the force from the 3 south poles must balance out for the one north pole.

I'm not at all trying to say that the 3 south poles are *each* of the same magnetic strength as the one north pole, no, that would violate Gauss's law of magnetism.
But if the 3 south poles add up to the same flux density as the one north pole, then Gauss is happy and I can rest my case.

The impossibility of a monopole magnet simply cannot be used to disprove a 3 pole magnet nor can it be used to disprove a radially oriented magnet.
Sure, if you have a 3 pole magnet, the center pole will be stronger than the two end poles. Gauss definitely states that. The forces have to equal out, but no reason they can't be divided up.

Did you really think a 3 pole magnet (SNS) or a radially oriented magnet was the same impossibility as a monopole magnet? Or were you just trying to see if a flat earther would catch you on it? 

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Try doing some further reading.

"The equation states that there is no net magnetic flux b (which can be thought of as the number of magnetic field lines through an area) that passes through an arbitrary closed surface S. This means the number of magnetic field lines that enter and exit through this closed surface S is the same. This is explained by the concept of a magnet that has a north and a south pole, where the strength of the north pole is equal to the strength of the south pole (Fig. 35). This is equivalent to saying that a magnetic monopole, meaning a solitary north or south pole, does not exist because for every positive magnetic pole, there must be an equal amount of negative magnetic poles."

[TomFoolery]

Try doing some further reading.

"The equation states that there is no net magnetic flux b (which can be thought of as the number of magnetic field lines through an area) that passes through an arbitrary closed surface S. This means the number of magnetic field lines that enter and exit through this closed surface S is the same. This is explained by the concept of a magnet that has a north and a south pole, where the strength of the north pole is equal to the strength of the south pole (Fig. 35). This is equivalent to saying that a magnetic monopole, meaning a solitary north or south pole, does not exist because for every positive magnetic pole, there must be an equal amount of negative magnetic poles."

That wasn't Gauss writing! It was... Who the Tarzan wrote that?! Right, so you're quoting an un-named author or the work of collaboration between unknown internet contributors.

That's a mule of a different color than Gauss stating it!

I think the unnamed author meant "for every positive magnetic pole, there must be an equal amount of negative magnetic pole" (I dropped off the s on the end.)

I agree that the N pole flux must add up to the S pole flux.
On the micro scale, the magnet is made up of micro magnets and if you count those north and south poles they are an equal number.

Please find where Gauss states what you say he states, or lets get in contact with that unknown author and question him about it.

You really gotta be careful trusting anonymous unsigned sources on the internet. At least if the author puts his name and a contact link for him, people can ask him to see if he made a mistake. But as it is, we don't know who wrote it, but it looks like if I had a github account I could fix that false statement they make there. Or maybe you have a github account and you put that false statement there?

Totally not a definitive source.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

It's from the link I posted earlier. Come on. FFS. Good lord.

[TomFoolery]

It's from the link I posted earlier. Come on. FFS. Good lord.

Which link that you posted? One that showed only what Gauss said, or the one where anonymous people had written their understanding of what Gauss said?

The point is you're claiming that Gauss's law does not allow a magnet with an uneven number of poles. As best as I can tell, all he claimed was that you cannot have a north pole without a south pole or a south pole without a north pole, in other words, you cannot have a monopole magnet.

Can you show me where Gauss himself said you cannot have an uneven number of poles or a radially oriented magnet?

I totally get it that you cannot have a monopole magnet.

But a monopole magnet is clearly not a multipole magnet.

[stack]

It's from the link I posted earlier. Come on. FFS. Good lord.

Which link that you posted? One that showed only what Gauss said, or the one where anonymous people had written their understanding of what Gauss said?

The point is you're claiming that Gauss's law does not allow a magnet with an uneven number of poles. As best as I can tell, all he claimed was that you cannot have a north pole without a south pole or a south pole without a north pole, in other words, you cannot have a monopole magnet.

Can you show me where Gauss himself said you cannot have an uneven number of poles or a radially oriented magnet?

I totally get it that you cannot have a monopole magnet.

But a monopole magnet is clearly not a multipole magnet.

It's my understanding and interpretation that Gauss' Law of Magnetism states or alludes to the fact that you can't have, essentially, an odd number of poles, 'free poles' as it were. Your understanding and interpretation may be different. (I would wake Gauss up and ask him, but he was on an epic bender last night, not to be disturbed.)

Gauss' Law aside, is there any evidence that odd multipole magnets exist? Maybe they do. I can't find anything.