The missing 3D magnetism theory.

[nataliaeggers]

If 2D magnetism (flat magnets, QM magnetism) exhibits perfect symmetry, following Maxwell’s equations, but 3D magnetism transforms most repulsive interactions by torque into attraction, with spherical bodies being impossible to repel, if Modern Physics says “the fact that 3D magnetism repulsion to torque to attraction is very well known by physicists since ever, it does not conflict directly with Maxwel’s equations”, if this distinction is accepted as a real world observation to save Maxwell’s equations (and what was built upon it, Special and General Relativity), so, where is it officially documented?
Which are the formulas for torque conversion to attraction that explains the 100% attractive interactions with cosmological bodies, that are unconstrained in a vacuum, free to rotate?
Which formula explains my two rectangular neodymium magnets on my table where from 64 possible interactions possibilities I encountered 40 attractions by rotating, 16 direct attractions and only 8 sustained repulsions?
How each dimension from the 3D affects the outcome of magnetic interactions?
If Modern Physics claims that repulsive torque into attraction is so obvious — acknowledging its existence in order to save Maxwell’s magnetism, then, where is hidden Modern Physics when someone like me asks to explain it mathematically?
Why the same Modern Physics, which allowed mathematics to usurpe Physics roles in understanding the fundamental laws of the universe (the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is statistical/mathematical — not physical), does not provide a mathematical framework for 3D magnetism — which is a fundamental law of the universe?

 

[Dale]

If you actually want anyone to answer then you might want to focus on one well-described question rather than a dozen vague questions.

Also, paragraphs help people read and understand what you write. A little bit of clarity and organization will make it much more likely that people can answer.