Great, everything is starting to make a bit more sense now. I think what threw me off the most was that the electrostatic field is so simple, with such a standard explanation as being the direct result of charge exuded from an elementary particle, so i kind of assumed i should be able to grasp the magnetic component in the same way. However it seems that the explanation for "why magnetic field" has underpinnings in quantum electrodynamics. I was expecting some direct cause and effect explanation, like: when an electron is moving, x, y and z happens with the photon and the electrostatic waves, and BOOM, there's your reason for magnetic fields. I see now that it's much more complicated.
At least the math for effects of magnetic fields is fairly straightforward :). And the reasons/explanations for the "perpendicular to velocity" part also has quantum underpinnings, right?
Also how do i know what is affected by magnetic fields? Magnetic fields still only affect things on the basis of them having a positive or negative charge, right? They just affect them in a different way because the physics of particles being in motion change the mechanics? And permanent magnets are tied into, and affected by those same principles?
Then there must be some similarities on the quantum level between magnetic fields generated by motion of a charge and stationary magnetic fields of permanent magnets?
So then does that mean the outcome of the observation is relativistic too? From their frame of reference would they only be affected by electrostatic fields, whereas from my frame of reference i would see it unfold as though they had been under the influence of a magnetic field?
So unless I'm mistaken, it's the same set of rules (in the sense that it's a matter of attractive and repulsive forces), but the mechanics and manifestations of particles when in motion unfold differently from when at rest? And the explanations for why are mostly Q.E.D based?