A Cogent Theory of Magnetism

For decades, magnetism has been largely misunderstood. Early attempts at explanation in the 1990's resulted in such obscure sentiments as the Thermodynamic Eclipse Model of Temperature Equilibrium-based Scintillation Emission Dynamic and even the largely discredited Large Hadron Collider Experiment B-9952, “North or South — I'm lost”.

The main problem with previous explanations is that they missed the obvious. That is, the "N" in North and the "S" in South simply have characteristic lexicographical interactions, based on nothing more than simple geometry and gonodynamism.

Let me explain.

Take two unipolar North magnets. Try and make them join up. Jam them together. Harder! Nope. It just doesn't work.

The obvious question is, “What's going on???”

As the great cognitive physio-computational logician / quantum foam froth bringer Bob Krten (no relation) wrote in his spermicidal essay, “Dynamo Hum — a Lesbian Triptych Featuring Answers to the Great Multivibrational String and Wind Theories of the Baroquial Sequestrial “thing””, it's obvious that there's no one right answer.

Let's take a closer look:

@@   @@
@@@  @@
@@@@ @@
@@@@@@@
@@ @@@@
@@  @@@
@@   @@
@@   @@
@@   @@
@@   @@

A typical northern monopolular entity. Note the sharp sans-serif edges.

Consider the Gedankenexperiment of bringing two north poles together:

@@   @@                         @@   @@
@@@  @@       @@        @@      @@@  @@
@@@@ @@      @@          @@     @@@@ @@
@@@@@@@     @@            @@    @@@@@@@
@@ @@@@    @@              @@   @@ @@@@
@@  @@@   @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@   @@  @@@
@@   @@    @@              @@   @@   @@
@@   @@     @@            @@    @@   @@
@@   @@      @@          @@     @@   @@
@@   @@       @@        @@      @@   @@

Clearly, the two parallel aligned edges will bounce off each other, much like trying to compress a slinky. That's a non-starter.

What about two souths?

 @@@@@
@@   @@
@@   @@
 @@
  @@@
    @@
     @@
@@   @@
@@   @@
 @@@@@

   @
  @@@
 @@ @@
@@ @ @@
   @
   @
@@ @ @@
 @@ @@
  @@@
   @

 @@@@@
@@   @@
@@   @@
 @@
  @@@
    @@
     @@
@@   @@
@@   @@
 @@@@@

We've reached the same impasse! Both of the colinear parallel flat solid parts of the S reject each other, and bounce.

This explains repulsion; what about attraction?

Ok, so let's recap. Two colinear flat non-repudiated non-reciprocal disjoint morphous dihedral spherical anti-synchronous orbital k-landry-beta body entities simply don't attract. Well duh. Even a president can understand that!

So what drives the mystery of the attractive 1 over r-squared phenomenon known simply as “magnetism”?

Let's take a closer look:

 @@@@@
@@   @@
@@   @@
 @@
  @@@
    @@
     @@
@@   @@
@@   @@
 @@@@@

@@   @@
@@@  @@
@@@@ @@
@@@@@@@
@@ @@@@
@@  @@@
@@   @@
@@   @@
@@   @@
@@   @@

Well! That's certainly pretty clear, isn't it?

There is no such thing as magnetism!

Editor's Note

My editor informs me that “yes, Virginia” (his pet name for me), “there is such a thing as magnetism!”

Damnit.

Quoting Bill Murray, “Shit, shit, shit!”

Think, Brain!

Dum de dum de de do dum de do...

Aha! It occurs to me that “Magnetism is Like Velcro”, much like “His Majesty is Like a Stream of Bat's Piss”.

Consider a north and south pole (any north or south pole, they don't have to be from Poland!)

        @@      @
        @ @     @
  @@@   @  @    @
 @   @  @   @   @
@     @ @    @  @
       @@@ @  @
        @ @    @@
         @

Here we see the early metabolic phase of the per-phalic hyper non-terpine-induced “first contact” situation. An S body is trying to intersect with an N body.

The S body has rotated through space in order to intersect with the grapling-hook side of the N body. This is perfectly normal, and explained by the quantum superposition in space of all S bodies over the N-space of N bodies. (S bodies have a separate S-space.) Once the two bodies have intersected, it's impossible to separate them with anything other than the Strong Force (or a really good tug).

And there you have it — a complete theory of everything, including magnetism.