If I can't explain it enough for people like you to understand then I have to try and find a way to do that....but equally you people need to try your best to understand the set up from my side by understanding my overall theory of Earth which leads up to this.
I have, the problem is that it is full of so many internal contradictions and has no chance of matching reality. But I still let you try to show that that is wrong by explaining these problems.
Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.
I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.
Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.
This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.
From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.
So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.
Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.
The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.
Jane is one person that grasped a fair bit because she allowed herself to take out a fair chunk of other bias.
The main distinction between me and Jane is that Jane didn't point out all the problems.
She knew it didn't have any chance of matching reality due to all the problems with it, including how it contradicts reality and itself. But she just wanted to know everything your model had, rather than wanting a model to match reality.
People like you spend far too much time jumping on one thing and then calling it dishonest and pathetic and all the rest of whatever comes out of your typing minds.
No, I notice a key part of your model not matching reality.
I call your continual avoidance of that issue dishonest and pathetic and all the rest. For your model, it simply means it is wrong.
There are plenty of examples of this. The polarity of magnets is just the most recent.
Any time there is a problem with your model where it fails to match reality you do whatever you can to dodge this issue, even when it shows your model must be fundamentally wrong.
One tactic you use is to try to switch between different topics.
Yet you then tell me and others to just stick to one.
Understand the strength of atmospheric pressure and you understand the displacement of it and that return pressure back upon each dense mass.
Understand the pressure gradient and you understand that the atmosphere pushes things up, not down, as well as trying to crush it inwards, not down.