Magnetism Revisited (note)
Sven Gelbhaar
0:46am 22.7.2019
Magnetism: does it have to involve moving electrons? What if it were simply an
orientation of ionization (more electrons distributed toward this axis vs any
other)? But surely that wouldn’t be stable in and of itself. Explore tomorrow
(well, later on today after I sleep). Although this would explain why two
magnets, opposite ends (North and South) oriented toward one another, would
merge or cling to one another as they do. Reconcile with
https://www.academia.edu/38551316/The_forgotten_theory_of_AndreMari%C3%A8_Ampere
(in that a current — a moving stream of electrons — would certainly change the
orientation of a magnetic substance’s atomic orientation in this fashion;
allowing for permanent magnets without supposing that electrons are ejected from
the North end and somehow circle back around automagically before re-entering
the South end of the magnet). How would this be stable at the ends, where
electrons would effectively fight against this form of magnetism? Hmmmmm If
this were the case, the South end (in particular) would want to normalize out
the asymmetry of the electron-distribution. So, if we empirically observe a
weakening of magnetic strength towards this end of a permanent magnet in
particular, this would in effect prove this theory. Obviously a magnet of this
nature would demagnetize (even in an electric/matter vacuum) over time. Google
after sleep. Zzzz
[Personal Note (to myself): re: conservation of energy in 1st patent] FLIP the
magnets on X axis (from top-down view) every so often! Net energy gain is thus
achieved.