This video presents a challenge to the basic gyre explanation I have placed as fundamental to a sound magnetic base. As ed explains simply, " modern theory neglects half the magnetic current!" the rotating magnetic field of Örsted is not described by the right or left hand rule! There are 2 gyres that twist against and through each other. Thus Arago's disc rotates in one direction and a compass needle points. Directly at the rotating edge. Thus in " pole magnetic" terms the poles hunt and follow the " opposite" pole and the compass rotates with the rotating disc. In tribomagnetic/ electric terms, the friction between disc and air ' charges" the disc which then induces a charge in the compass . The compass is attracted and repelled which torques the needle , but the rotation transmits a twist in the torque that rotates the needle in the direction of the rotating disc.

These 2 models both naturally explain the rotation coupling in their fundamental terms, which involve both fundamentals. However the rule that wires with current flowing in the same direction attract each other seems to be a mistake.

The two gyres move against each other . Thus ABC moves against ACB , they also pass through each other . Opposing gyres give a net 0 gyre , but we see that coupling " causes" twisting. In the compass. Ed shows that the gyres are not closed loops but expanding gyres. The north pole expands on one side of the wire( wire aligned East West) and the south pole on the other. These are captured by his inducting fish wire " needles". You can see some of this structure in Dinu's video.

Thus the wires carrying around it the same gyrating space will attract by magnetic pole models . By gyre interaction , if the viscosity is great enough the rotation would result in a twisted wire that will repel at certain points of contact and not repel at other points of contact.

In free space we see that this results in rotationl displacement followed by attraction.

When I look at the behaviour of plama on the sun the rotational repulsion attraction " cycle" is evident. The simple charge or pole models are uitable for local or very small behaviours in ths cycle, but the gyre models give a better intuition.

Thanks Barau. Newton definitely did not concede action at a distance, and it remained a puzzle as long as space was regarded as nothingness. However Faraday and Einstein both accepted an aether or Ether concept.

Einstein took great pains to conceal the aether basis to all his ideas, for war reasons. At that time espionage rules were simple. The word or concept of aether was taken to mean you were a Nazi sympathiser! Later after the atomic bomb he made an impassioned plea for the restitution of the aether concept into physics.

In my elements you will note the presence of gear chains. This and filamentation is my mechanism for spatial interaction in viscous media. The complex rotations of the 3 gyres are certainly capable of setting up such complex gear chain and coupled transmissions.

The notions of absolute space and time plus that of material point are the cornerstones of Newtonian dynamics. The entire science of mechanics (be it the mechanics of celestial bodies of Laplace, the mechanics of rigid bodies of Euler, the mechanics of incompressible liquids of Helmholtz, or the mechanics of solid continuum of Cauchy) is based on those three fundamental notions.

The complete description of material point is rendered by specifying one scalar quantity (its mass) and one vector quantity (its translational velocity). I believe that the conception of material point based on such a definition has a fatal drawback which, in the final analysis, is responsible for the failure of all attempts (including that of Maxwell) to offer a successful mechanical model for treating electromagnetic phenomena.

What exactly is the problem with the existing definition of material point that renders it impotent for dealing with phenomena where rotational motion in a continuous medium of substance plays dominating role (like the phenomenon of turbulence of which magnetic action is but one manifestation)?

The answer induced by the question itself is a simple one: the definition of material point has nothing to say about the rotational mode of motion. But, strangely enough, Newtonian mechanics, built on the notion of material point capable of translational motion only, deals quite successfully with some phenomena where the rotational motion is manifest - spinning and rotating tops and gyroscopes. How is that possible?

The issue here is not Newton, Wren , Huygens etc. they had no such limited view of a "material point". This is a misleading notion adduced by later" Newtonian" academicians . Such " teachers" failed to read the Principia or to be advised by those who had and understood it. Momentum for example is a non Newtonian description for a measure he called the quantity of motion.

Newtons work applies to the rotational situation because he applied it successfully to such situations, which is how he came to posit centripetal and centrifugal force, however this is not to say Newton was inerrant. He clearly dd not understand the rotational behaviour of fluids, but he was careful to not jump to conclusions without empirical basis. His work in book 2 was a personal "fail", and yet it advanced fluid dynamics in so many fruitful ways.

The point mass Newton used was, is and can only be a physical abstraction in this case Newton was careful to ensure it was identified with the centre of force action, that is the Barycentric centre of a corpuscular object. In this case it is " sensible" to merely ignore rotation of the centre, but that is not the same as denying the rotation of this Barycentric point!

The definition and understanding of viscosity as a mechanical property measure requires it to be defined in terms of rotation of "viscous" media, not in terms of slipping parallel surfaces or Hookes springs stretched in parallel.

This is another profound statement by Jehovajah. I would go even further, and assert that the thing we casually call potential energy could be, and should be defined in terms of rotation of "viscous" media.

Contemporary science operates in the language of kinetic/potential dualism of energy, all other types - electric, magnetic, chemical, atomic, nuclear, heat, etc. - being all but a manifestation of one or the other type. However, at the next level of introspection, potential energy is probably nothing but the energy associated with a hidden motion of invisible substance so minute that it should be relegated to an altogether different scale in the hierarchical structure of the universe. Indeed, it seems meaningless to speak of energy in the state of utter stillness. If so, energy duality should be perceived as duality of energy associated with two modes of motion irreducible to each other - translational and rotational.

Anyhow, that is the mode of thinking, which, in my view, has the potential of making progress in understanding the nature of potential energy. Concentrating attention exclusively on the "how" potential energy works, leaving aside the "why" it works the way it works (in other words, refusing even to contemplate the "mechanism" of potential energy) is a sure way to block the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Despite searching very hard for a simple practical demonstration of Ampere£s Force Law, I have found none. This is itself instructive. The law is almost certainly mathematically derived and not empirical!

When current carrying wires are placed next to each other, rather than attract or repel, they oscillate.mthat is they attract and repel sequentially . Eventually the settle into a state of dynamic equilibrium.

The Biot Savnt law and amperes law are derived from current carrying loops!

What the difference is is the difference between translation and rotation! It is a huge dynamical difference!

I shall continue to search, but like electros tic induction the reasonableness of the explanations are mechanically suspect, relying on a charge model . It is equally explainble in terms of a rotational medium model, that is a spaciometric vortex model.

For example: why have such a complicated process for summing the triangles? Secondly some ratios seem odd or misapplied. I do not think the demonstration gives the whole story!

The issue of metrication is very implement and pragmatic. You find a Metron that fits and you count that! The issue comes only when you wish to use a standard Metron that does not fit. But then why would you do that? Usually the answer is " we'll we only know the measurement in these units!". I am still smashed by how many people still want temperature measurements in Fahrenheit!

Certain traditions build p around certain numerals, but in this case Archimedes would have had no problem applying a summation method of this sort, especially using the most appropriate formula for a general solution!

However, using geometrical relationships to establish mpirically laws is fraught with difficulties, procedurally and philosophically. Newton, in establishing his philosophical grounds was careful to replace experiential conception with defined measure, even if he used the same name for the concept and the measure!

I have found it instructive to read hs actual introduction to the Principia, as he explains much that others choose to leave out.

The fundamental concept is Newtons derived concept of Motive. This is intimately related to his understnding and interpretation of Aristotles Metaphysics. This ancient work on motion and movement is the prime argument for the existence of a universal being, beyond our Ken, which motivates everything causally while itself bring causless! However, rather than introduce that philosophical debate ino physics Newton argues for the fundamental general notion of causative motive as axiomatic. Then this cause transforms corporeal matter in measurable ways, by which measurable behaviours we might have some limited sense of the divine awesome powers in which we live and move and breath and have our very being!

In the end Newton seeks only to glorify his god not to comprehend him/ it.

In short, the motion of vis and vis viva is not defined beyond common sense. Thus the common sense notion of pressing and pressure , stress or tension are good mouth concepts but they require related but different measures. The most general measure is that of pressure.mthese measures are derived by calculation, and defined by a process of companion. Newton uses what can be metronised! Hydrostatics establishes density, rulers establish geometric forms that can be called Arithmoi and thus counting and factorisation rules can be applied. Corporeal bodies can be measured, their positions defined and displacements measured. The final element required was a constructed notion called absolute time, by which he combined duration and astronomical position ( or rather astrological position) . Such a concept really only became possible with the invention of accurate timepieces. Huygens and others were instrumental in that development, but it really was a social as well as scientific movement towards greater efficiency in travel and communication and commerce.by sea.

So pressure as a measure reminds us we need a medium , a motion and a surface of contact.action at a distance is thus anathema to these measures.

While continuous media seem to be unphysical, it is really atomic corpuscles in a vacuum which are a unphysical construct. All we can " sensibly" say is that density variation is ubiquitous and fractal, and any apparent distance between dense regions has never proved to be empty of everything!

FouNd this demonstration at last....but wires in series usually means a continuous loop, while parallel usually means the voltage is applied to a common set of terminals!!

Is amperes law correct with regard to current direction?

While continuous media seem to be unphysical, it is really atomic corpuscles in a vacuum which are a unphysical construct. All we can “sensibly" say is that density variation is ubiquitous and fractal, and any apparent distance between dense regions has never proved to be empty of everything!

This is precisely the way I feel. But when I rail against the principle of continuity calling it trite and ill defined, what I have in mind is the mathematical notion of continuous and differentiable function. The problem with that notion is that it does not capture the fractal nature of the distribution of substance (visible and invisible matter at sensible and insensible distances) in the universe.

Here is a quote from Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein illustrating how badly a logical deduction can go wrong when one misses on the fractality of nature:

... we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density.

This quote suggests that it does not even occur to Einstein that the distribution of matter in the universe might have a fractal nature (which is implicit in the principle of scale invariance, by the way). Indeed, if the distribution of matter is essentially fractal then any logical conclusion that is hinged upon the possible values of the mean density of matter is meaningless for the simple reason that mean density of matter cannot be defined: the value of mean density you get will depend on how you do the averaging - anywhere from zero to infinity. There is no meaningful way of defining the notion of mean density for the entire universe where the substance distribution is essentially fractal.

Think again about the cylinder area paradox - mathematically it is in the same league. By that I mean that the value of the cylinder area you get will depend on how you choose the limit process. In other words, the result you get will depend on the degree of wrinkleness so to speak (in Mandelbrot's parlance - fractal dimension) of the approximating surface made up of triangles which are decreasing infinitely in size with each step of the chosen approximation process.

If Le Sage's theory [of gravitation], or anything of a similar nature, be at all a representation of the mechanism of gravitation, a fatal blow is dealt to the notion of tranquil form of power we have called potential energy. Not that there will cease to be a profound difference in kind between it and ordinary kinetic energy; but that BOTH will be henceforth to be regarded as kinetic. What we now call kinetic energy is that of visible motions, also of motions of the smaller parts of bodies, and of the luminiferous ether, etc., each of these being more refined, as it were, than the preceding. But if Le Sage's theory be true, potential energy of gravitation is a kinetic form still further refined than any of these. And the conservation of energy may perhaps once more be completely and accurately expressed as the conservation of vis viva, though the term will of course have then a meaning incomparably more extensive than its original one.

Most probably potential energy cannot be reduced to kinetic energy of translational motion alone for the simple reason that potential energy is, by its very definition, stationary (not to be confused with static or tranquility). I think the reduction of potential energy to kinetic will require a combination of translational and rotational motions. The combination of these two modes of motion in dynamical equilibrium (that's what I mean by stationary) at the level of the corresponding aether is probably what constitutes the potential energy of matter at the next level up from that aether in the hierarchy of material structure of the universe.

By applying the qualifier corresponding to the word aether I want to emphasize that the aether, which is responsible for the phenomenon of gravitation, probably is not the same aether that is the seat of electromagnetic phenomena.

If the invisible substance of the universe turns out to be fractal in accord with the principle of scale invariance (aether1, comprised of aether2, comprised of aether3, ... ad infinitum) then the search for the unified field theory à la Einstein is, inexorably, a futile exercise.

In this theory moving fluid or charge gave rise to magnetic force. In particular the charge moved in a loop pattern.

As far as I can find out Ampere experijmented on looped conductors and derived his law from looped conductors. It appears to be Biot and Savart who first idealised the magnetic force along an infinite wire. Biot , like Newton imagined an infinite cylinder to describe the behaviour of the " fluid" round it. You will find this in Book 2 of the Principia. However, this was a mistake Newton made in attempting to understand the behaviour of fluids around a rotating stressor!

The difference between a closed loop and an infinite wire could not be more marked! A rectilinear helical propagation in fluids causes repulsion not attraction between parallel propagations in the same direction. . However a circular helical propagation creates by necessity a bipartisan flux phenomenon through the central disc. Thus while at the edges of the discs a pair of wires will repel each other within the central region a common flux will flow. The nature of this flux is vorticular and filamental . In a similar or analogous manner to Betnoullis fluid pressure law the venturri effect of the flux leads to a lower internal pressure. This pressure is low enough for the external pressure to force the wire loops together , overwhelming their natural repulsion.

Thus Ampere measured the attractive resultant force of the circular loop, and ignored the empirical repulsion between the wires which is a smaller effect. It was apparently due to Biot that the mistake was made, asserting attraction between parallel wires of infinite length. The only experimental data I have found refutes that assertion. In practice, amperes law is based on measurements of loops of wire, that is on the magnet analogue , not the electric prototype or primitive assumed by Ampere.

The rotational nature of so called magnetism means that an " individual" pole magnet will not be found. The polarisation of magnetic phenomenon arises out of rotational behaviour.

The assumption of a primitive charge naturally took Ampere to the microscopic level, a scaled assumption based on the behaviour of conducting loops. However, the loop itself as a contiguous ( continuous but discrete) phenomenon is sufficient if it is dynamic. The material loop in motion requires no primitive to explain its behaviours beyond an assumed "first cause " logical system. However that is not even necessary if one can accept human limitation to knowing and the evident fractal structure of natural phenomenon.

If you did not already know it, these measures are defined and manufactured by a standards committee. Directly it is a Metron defining body hich decides on the best Metron for certain conceptual notions . The members all have a trained belief system which while different to everybody else's nevertheless aims to safeguard commonly accepted notions. These are the ones who really decide the scientific paradigm and who keep tabs on scientific convention and best practice as well as empirically demonstrable behaviours.

Their belief system has to change if the magnetic base of our understanding is yo be realised. We see that already they are attempting to move from a standard magnet at 4° kelvin to some fancy electronic circuitry supposedly controlling single electrons. The ld standard is based on a magnet and electromagnetic photon voltage generation. Then a formula is used to calculate a current of the required standard. It des not even matter if the wires attract or repel, because that is not used to actually measure a defined unit!

I have stated that the attraction of two infinite current surrounded wires is wrongly defined as attractive! The experimental evidence is just not there to support this assertion. In fact what evidence there is is contradictory. However I do not think MIT Tech would label the effect wrongly.

This video shows that any circuit behaves like a solenoid. Thus ampere was not able to experimentally isolate a line segment to correspond to the infinite wire pair used in the classical definition of the ampere.nwhat is observed therefore is not the attraction of 2 wires but the attraction of two wire loops or circuits.

## Comments

As ed explains simply, " modern theory neglects half the magnetic current!" the rotating magnetic field of Örsted is not described by the right or left hand rule! There are 2 gyres that twist against and through each other. Thus Arago's disc rotates in one direction and a compass needle points. Directly at the rotating edge. Thus in " pole magnetic" terms the poles hunt and follow the " opposite" pole and the compass rotates with the rotating disc. In tribomagnetic/ electric terms, the friction between disc and air ' charges" the disc which then induces a charge in the compass . The compass is attracted and repelled which torques the needle , but the rotation transmits a twist in the torque that rotates the needle in the direction of the rotating disc.

These 2 models both naturally explain the rotation coupling in their fundamental terms, which involve both fundamentals. However the rule that wires with current flowing in the same direction attract each other seems to be a mistake.

The two gyres move against each other . Thus ABC moves against ACB , they also pass through each other . Opposing gyres give a net 0 gyre , but we see that coupling " causes" twisting. In the compass. Ed shows that the gyres are not closed loops but expanding gyres. The north pole expands on one side of the wire( wire aligned East West) and the south pole on the other. These are captured by his inducting fish wire " needles". You can see some of this structure in Dinu's video.

Thus the wires carrying around it the same gyrating space will attract by magnetic pole models .

By gyre interaction , if the viscosity is great enough the rotation would result in a twisted wire that will repel at certain points of contact and not repel at other points of contact.

In free space we see that this results in rotationl displacement followed by attraction.

When I look at the behaviour of plama on the sun the rotational repulsion attraction " cycle" is evident. The simple charge or pole models are uitable for local or very small behaviours in ths cycle, but the gyre models give a better intuition.

Einstein took great pains to conceal the aether basis to all his ideas, for war reasons. At that time espionage rules were simple. The word or concept of aether was taken to mean you were a Nazi sympathiser! Later after the atomic bomb he made an impassioned plea for the restitution of the aether concept into physics.

In my elements you will note the presence of gear chains. This and filamentation is my mechanism for spatial interaction in viscous media. The complex rotations of the 3 gyres are certainly capable of setting up such complex gear chain and coupled transmissions.

Newtons work applies to the rotational situation because he applied it successfully to such situations, which is how he came to posit centripetal and centrifugal force, however this is not to say Newton was inerrant. He clearly dd not understand the rotational behaviour of fluids, but he was careful to not jump to conclusions without empirical basis. His work in book 2 was a personal "fail", and yet it advanced fluid dynamics in so many fruitful ways.

The point mass Newton used was, is and can only be a physical abstraction in this case Newton was careful to ensure it was identified with the centre of force action, that is the Barycentric centre of a corpuscular object. In this case it is " sensible" to merely ignore rotation of the centre, but that is not the same as denying the rotation of this Barycentric point!

Contemporary science operates in the language of kinetic/potential dualism of energy, all other types - electric, magnetic, chemical, atomic, nuclear, heat, etc. - being all but a manifestation of one or the other type. However, at the next level of introspection, potential energy is probably nothing but the energy associated with a hidden motion of invisible substance so minute that it should be relegated to an altogether different scale in the hierarchical structure of the universe. Indeed, it seems meaningless to speak of energy in the state of utter stillness. If so, energy duality should be perceived as duality of energy associated with two modes of motion irreducible to each other - translational and rotational.

Anyhow, that is the mode of thinking, which, in my view, has the potential of making progress in understanding the nature of potential energy. Concentrating attention exclusively on the "how" potential energy works, leaving aside the "why" it works the way it works (in other words, refusing even to contemplate the "mechanism" of potential energy) is a sure way to block the advancement of scientific knowledge.

When current carrying wires are placed next to each other, rather than attract or repel, they oscillate.mthat is they attract and repel sequentially . Eventually the settle into a state of dynamic equilibrium.

The Biot Savnt law and amperes law are derived from current carrying loops!

What the difference is is the difference between translation and rotation! It is a huge dynamical difference!

I shall continue to search, but like electros tic induction the reasonableness of the explanations are mechanically suspect, relying on a charge model . It is equally explainble in terms of a rotational medium model, that is a spaciometric vortex model.

For example: why have such a complicated process for summing the triangles? Secondly some ratios seem odd or misapplied. I do not think the demonstration gives the whole story!

The issue of metrication is very implement and pragmatic. You find a Metron that fits and you count that! The issue comes only when you wish to use a standard Metron that does not fit. But then why would you do that? Usually the answer is " we'll we only know the measurement in these units!". I am still smashed by how many people still want temperature measurements in Fahrenheit!

Certain traditions build p around certain numerals, but in this case Archimedes would have had no problem applying a summation method of this sort, especially using the most appropriate formula for a general solution!

However, using geometrical relationships to establish mpirically laws is fraught with difficulties, procedurally and philosophically. Newton, in establishing his philosophical grounds was careful to replace experiential conception with defined measure, even if he used the same name for the concept and the measure!

I have found it instructive to read hs actual introduction to the Principia, as he explains much that others choose to leave out.

The fundamental concept is Newtons derived concept of Motive. This is intimately related to his understnding and interpretation of Aristotles Metaphysics. This ancient work on motion and movement is the prime argument for the existence of a universal being, beyond our Ken, which motivates everything causally while itself bring causless! However, rather than introduce that philosophical debate ino physics Newton argues for the fundamental general notion of causative motive as axiomatic. Then this cause transforms corporeal matter in measurable ways, by which measurable behaviours we might have some limited sense of the divine awesome powers in which we live and move and breath and have our very being!

In the end Newton seeks only to glorify his god not to comprehend him/ it.

In short, the motion of vis and vis viva is not defined beyond common sense. Thus the common sense notion of pressing and pressure , stress or tension are good mouth concepts but they require related but different measures. The most general measure is that of pressure.mthese measures are derived by calculation, and defined by a process of companion. Newton uses what can be metronised! Hydrostatics establishes density, rulers establish geometric forms that can be called Arithmoi and thus counting and factorisation rules can be applied. Corporeal bodies can be measured, their positions defined and displacements measured. The final element required was a constructed notion called absolute time, by which he combined duration and astronomical position ( or rather astrological position) . Such a concept really only became possible with the invention of accurate timepieces. Huygens and others were instrumental in that development, but it really was a social as well as scientific movement towards greater efficiency in travel and communication and commerce.by sea.

So pressure as a measure reminds us we need a medium , a motion and a surface of contact.action at a distance is thus anathema to these measures.

While continuous media seem to be unphysical, it is really atomic corpuscles in a vacuum which are a unphysical construct. All we can " sensibly" say is that density variation is ubiquitous and fractal, and any apparent distance between dense regions has never proved to be empty of everything!

Is amperes law correct with regard to current direction?

These ideas provide a welcome challenge to the gyre or vorticular pressure model for magnetism I am advancing here.

Here is a quote from Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein illustrating how badly a logical deduction can go wrong when one misses on the fractality of nature: This quote suggests that it does not even occur to Einstein that the distribution of matter in the universe might have a fractal nature (which is implicit in the principle of scale invariance, by the way). Indeed, if the distribution of matter is essentially fractal then any logical conclusion that is hinged upon the possible values of the mean density of matter is meaningless for the simple reason that mean density of matter cannot be defined: the value of mean density you get will depend on how you do the averaging - anywhere from zero to infinity. There is no meaningful way of defining the notion of mean density for the

universe where the substance distribution is essentially fractal.entireThink again about the cylinder area paradox - mathematically it is in the same league. By that I mean that the value of the cylinder area you get will depend on how you choose the limit process. In other words, the result you get will depend on

the degree of wrinklenessso to speak (in Mandelbrot's parlance -fractal dimension) of the approximating surface made up of triangles which are decreasing infinitely in size with each step of the chosen approximation process.translationalmotion alone for the simple reason that potential energy is, by its very definition, stationary (not to be confused withstaticortranquility). I think the reduction of potential energy to kinetic will require a combination oftranslationalandrotationalmotions. The combination of these two modes of motion in dynamical equilibrium (that's what I mean bystationary) at the level of thecorrespondingaether is probably what constitutes the potential energy of matter at the next level up from that aether in the hierarchy of material structure of the universe.By applying the qualifier

correspondingto the word aether I want to emphasize that the aether, which is responsible for the phenomenon of gravitation, probably is not the same aether that is the seat of electromagnetic phenomena.If the invisible substance of the universe turns out to be fractal in accord with the principle of scale invariance (aether1, comprised of aether2, comprised of aether3, ...

ad infinitum) then the search for the unified field theoryà laEinstein is, inexorably, a futile exercise.http://www.ampere.cnrs.fr/parcourspedagogique/zoom/courant/formule/index-en.php

In this theory moving fluid or charge gave rise to magnetic force. In particular the charge moved in a loop pattern.

As far as I can find out Ampere experijmented on looped conductors and derived his law from looped conductors. It appears to be Biot and Savart who first idealised the magnetic force along an infinite wire. Biot , like Newton imagined an infinite cylinder to describe the behaviour of the " fluid" round it. You will find this in Book 2 of the Principia. However, this was a mistake Newton made in attempting to understand the behaviour of fluids around a rotating stressor!

The difference between a closed loop and an infinite wire could not be more marked! A rectilinear helical propagation in fluids causes repulsion not attraction between parallel propagations in the same direction. . However a circular helical propagation creates by necessity a bipartisan flux phenomenon through the central disc. Thus while at the edges of the discs a pair of wires will repel each other within the central region a common flux will flow. The nature of this flux is vorticular and filamental . In a similar or analogous manner to Betnoullis fluid pressure law the venturri effect of the flux leads to a lower internal pressure. This pressure is low enough for the external pressure to force the wire loops together , overwhelming their natural repulsion.

Thus Ampere measured the attractive resultant force of the circular loop, and ignored the empirical repulsion between the wires which is a smaller effect. It was apparently due to Biot that the mistake was made, asserting attraction between parallel wires of infinite length. The only experimental data I have found refutes that assertion. In practice, amperes law is based on measurements of loops of wire, that is on the magnet analogue , not the electric prototype or primitive assumed by Ampere.

The rotational nature of so called magnetism means that an " individual" pole magnet will not be found. The polarisation of magnetic phenomenon arises out of rotational behaviour.

The assumption of a primitive charge naturally took Ampere to the microscopic level, a scaled assumption based on the behaviour of conducting loops. However, the loop itself as a contiguous ( continuous but discrete) phenomenon is sufficient if it is dynamic. The material loop in motion requires no primitive to explain its behaviours beyond an assumed "first cause " logical system. However that is not even necessary if one can accept human limitation to knowing and the evident fractal structure of natural phenomenon.

Their belief system has to change if the magnetic base of our understanding is yo be realised. We see that already they are attempting to move from a standard magnet at 4° kelvin to some fancy electronic circuitry supposedly controlling single electrons. The ld standard is based on a magnet and electromagnetic photon voltage generation. Then a formula is used to calculate a current of the required standard. It des not even matter if the wires attract or repel, because that is not used to actually measure a defined unit!

This video shows that any circuit behaves like a solenoid. Thus ampere was not able to experimentally isolate a line segment to correspond to the infinite wire pair used in the classical definition of the ampere.nwhat is observed therefore is not the attraction of 2 wires but the attraction of two wire loops or circuits.