Lee,

At some point it would help you to realize that much of your post to Lee is filled with inaccuracies. It's an interesting philosophy but not conceptually correct. Here's an example:

The magnetic field of the Earth has it's source in the liquid Iron outer core of the Earth. The Van Allen belts are NOT stable on their own and require the geocentric magnetic field to exist. The ISS routinely travels near the VA belts at high latitude and magnetic field intensity is not what one would expect if they were the source of the entire geomagnetic field.

Another issue. The entire paragraph about the "magnetic field of atoms" is packed with misconsceptions and inaccuracies. Diamagnetism and Paramagnetism are the classical opposites when talking about magnetization in response to a magnetic field, a concept not touched in your treatment. Ferromagnetism is a special case of effective paramagnetism with hysterisis which arises due to the Pauli exclusion principle at work in the mollecular lattice of iron, to name one.

I'm sorry to point this out, but you are not a reliable source of information when it comes to these matters. At some point, these concepts and the ability to utilize them to make predictions about the physical world have to be learned with rigor. Using philosophical or even artistic logical methodt to try to reason these issues out will only lead to inaccurate predictions. Also, having a lack of understanding WHY physicists believe these things leave you stranded on a raft of floatsom trying to cross an ocean.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for these matters but for it to be a fruitfull pursuit, you need to accept how little you understand about them, then learn...