It is, therefore, suggested that this reaction effect
presented by Gunn may well reconcile the difficulties with the
Runcorn experiment. The same effect could also account for the
variable nature of the solar field and the anomalies arising from
this.

However, even if the Runcorn experiment can be overcome,
there is still the negative result of Blackett’s experiment and
that of Wilson on the swinging iron bar. This might be dealt
with if we consider the implication of the hypothesis that there
exists in close association with any element of matter a negative
electric charge proportional to its mass. This is really the
basis of the statement expressed by the above formulation of the
hypothesis.

Augenheister [Augenheister, Phys. Zeit., v. 26, p. 307;
1925] has shown that this assumption gives the correct ratio for
the magnetic fields of the Sun and the Earth, but he also
recognized the physical difficulties of assuming the existence
of real charges of the necessary magnitude and the consequent
very large electrical fields which must accompany them in an
electrically conducting material such as the Earth’s core. One
way out of this difficulty is to argue that in an aggregation of
matter as with the Earth the negative charges associated with
mass are cancelled by migrating charge, but that the balance is
made up by a repulsion of free migrating charge displaced to the
outer boundaries of the body. For example, in order to establish
charge balance with the negative-mass charge some electrons might
be displaced from the atomic structure of the matter involved,
and these electrons would spread around the Earth in the
ionosphere. On this model, mass exhibits no charge in laboratory
experiments and has no apparent magnetic effect detected by the
Wilson or Blackett experiments. Furthermore, the Augenheister
problem is overcome. Even the Runcorn experiment is no longer
applicable because the distributed charge theory does not hold.

This interpretation of the hypothesis puts the prime source
of the geomagnetic field outside the Earth, in the ionosphere.
This has been objected to by Bauer [L.A. Bauer, Terr. Magn., v.
28, pp. 1-28; 1923] who has shown by spherical harmonic analysis
that most of the Earth’s field is of internal origin. For
example, Bauer ascribes as much as 94 per cent of the Earth’s
field to internal causes. Since the Earth’s ionosphere would
need to cancel a substantial part of the field arising from the
distributed charge for Runcorn’s results to be reconciled with
the Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis, this objection is of paramount
importance. However, even here it is very important to remember
that the most general assumption used in spherical harmonic
analyses of the Earth’s field is that the Earth’s magnetic
potential is composed of two portions, one due to magnetic matter
within the Earth’s sphere and the other due to magnetic matter
outside the Earth’s sphere. The operative words in this
assumption are ‘magnetic matter’. In this sense a current
encircling the Earth and seated in the ionosphere does not
constitute magnetic matter located wholly outside the Earth’s
surface. For example, a current around the equator at a height
of 200 km gives rise to two elements of magnetic matter, one
situated inside the Earth and the other outside the Earth, the
latter being related to the former in the ratio of the areas
2(pi)Rx200 and (pi)R², where R is the Earth’s radius in km.

Since r is 6,371 km, it is seen that, curiously enough, this
gives 94 per cent of the magnetic matter ascribable to ionosphere
currents as seated within the Earth.
The results of spherical harmonic analysis do not preclude
magnetic reaction seated in the ionosphere, provided this
involves charge migration around the whole Earth. For stellar
bodies, no harmonic analysis data are available and, therefore,
the closed spiral-type motion of gas ions may supplement the
reaction effect of any charge migration. The result deduced by
Bauer is certainly of no relevance to stellar bodies.

From such consideration, the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis
could well survive in a modified form. We have introduced a
charge in the ionosphere which could well be objected to for
other reasons. Perhaps we can even regard this as compensated
by charge which does not rotate with or at the same speed as the
Earth. Perhaps, though, this is stretching the hypothesis too
far.
Nevertheless, this gives scope to understand reasons for
substantial changes in magnetic fields in astronomical bodies
over short periods of time, and there is now evidence that the
magnetic poles of many stars even exchange positions in a few
days. As Runcorn [S. K. Runcorn, The Times (London), April 26,
1965, p. 11] stated very recently: “This is one of the most
stimulating challenges of cosmic magnetism”.

The Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis stands rejected today.
Instead, the theory of hydromagnetism is applied to account or
the geomagnetic field. An excellent account of this subject has
been presented by Elsasser [W.M. Elsasser, American Jour. Phys.,
v. 23, pp. 590-609; 1955] and [W.M. Elsasser, American Jour.
Phys., v. 24, pp. 85-110; 1956]. This theory will have great
difficulty in accounting for the reversal of the magnetic poles,
though it can be applied to account for the Earth’s secular
variation of magnetic field. Bullard and others [E.C. Bullard
et al., Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., v. 243A, pp. 67-92; 1950] have
provided an account of he westward drift of the Earth’s magnetic
field in terms of theory which they state to be consistent with
other theories of the origin of the main field, provided there
is a differential rotation within the core. This statement
recognizes that the prime source of the geomagnetic field might
well stem from something other than a hydromagnetic effect. The
great concern for the reversal of the magnetic field in stars
stimulates a consideration of other possible accounts for cosmic
magnetism.

The above discussion of the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis does
stress the possibility that there might well be some link between
gravitation and cosmic magnetism. It is therefore of some
interest that new ideas about gravitation already presented in
this work are found to be capable of extension to geomagnetism.
The fact that, in developing equation (6.12) [the above
formula for magnetic moment MM], the elemental magnetic moment
is found proportional to X squared [X being a distance from the
Earth’s centre] shows that the character of the geomagnetic field
matches that of a uniformly distributed charge over the Earth’s
volume. The distributed charge theory was found by Runcorn to
give field gradients opposite to those observed in practice.
Here, however, it must be remembered that, by the theory
developed, the geomagnetic field is attributed to a radial
displacement of charge. The charge is displaced, in effect, to
the boundary of the rotating aether. Clearly, therefore, if the
effect of the rotation is to generate an effective uniformly
distributed charge within the aether, an exactly balancing charge
of opposite polarity must be established at the boundary. The
displaced charge is, by its nature, constrained to balance in the
radial plane. Thus, in considering magnetic moment, it is found
that the charge displaced to the boundary, in rotating with the
Earth’s aether, produces exactly double the magnetic moment given
by (6.12) in the opposite direction. Quantitatively, therefore,
(6.12) still applies. In considering magnetic field gradients,
however, by Runcorn’s mine experiments, the component of magnetic
field attributed to distributed charge is oppositely directed
with respect to the general magnetic field of the Earth. Thus,
the result of the Runcorn Experiment actually supports the theory
developed.

In considering the dipole nature of the geomagnetic field
as evidenced by the results of Runcorn’s experiments, it is to
be noted that a double strength shell containing an opposed
single strength distributed charge would appear to present a
field form more like a dipole than does a single strength shell.

The rotation of Earth has been argued to produce the
geomagnetic field by an induction effect in an electrical aether
medium rotating with the Earth. The result of the Blackett
Experiment imposes upon the analysis the need to regard the
induced charge within the Earth as compensated locally or
alternatively the need to regard the lattice as not concentrated
by local matter. In Blackett’s experiment the magnetic effect
of a dense body rotating with the Earth was under investigation,
in contrast with the Wilson experiment where the body under study
moved in the Earth frame.
This strengthens the concept that the origin of the
geomagnetic field is a uniform aether medium rotating with the
Earth frame. We have to recognize that the aether has some
uniformity, a lattice charge density, not affected by changes in
mass density within the Earth.

We now come to the real problem. The distributed charge and
the balancing boundary charge of the rotating aether have to be
cancelled by other charge to balance the electric field effects,
but this other charge must not cancel the magnetic field effects,
that is, it must not rotate with the Earth. The solution to this
problem is amazingly simple.
As the Earth moves in its orbit, its aether lattice will
come into collision with surrounding aether lattice. We have
shown that one constituent of the aether has the form of fluid
charge and the other constituent is the lattice system of
particles of charge e of opposite polarity, the aether as a whole
being electrically neutral. The fluid constituent cannot move
through itself. A spherical volume of it can rotate about its
own axis, but it cannot move laterally in the sense that an
element of the fluid moves laterally. The sphere housing fluid
which rotates can move laterally, however, provided the rotary
motion is transferred from fluid left behind by the sphere to new
fluid coming into the sphere. The particle constituent, on the
other hand, can move through itself.

Imagine now the well ordered particle lattice formed within
the Earth’s aether to move laterally and collide with surrounding
particles. This lateral movement of the whole particle lattice
in the Earth’s aether causes a deficiency of particles behind the
lattice and a surplus in front of it. Thus an electrical field
is set up along the line of travel of the whole lattice system.
this field is not strong enough to disrupt the lattice but is
strong enough to cause some of the particles in front of the
lattice to migrate through it to fill positions vacated in the
fluid behind the lattice. In short, the particle lattice can move without undue disturbance through similar surrounding particle
structure if surrounding particles in collision with it travel through it to fill vacant locations left behind. Thus, if we
regard the Earth’s aether to behave in this way, we see that
there is, traveling through the Earth, an abundance of free
lattice particles which are constrained to move in opposition to
the Earth’s motion in its orbit. The magnetic effect of these
particles cancels exactly the magnetic effect of the matrix
particles in their travel with the Earth in its orbit.
Consideration shows that there is also balance of linear momentum
in such a system. However, these free particles do not rotate
with the Earth. They are free to a limited degree to cancel the
electrostatic effects of the induced charge, but they do not
share the Earth’s rotation and therefore no cancellation of the
geomagnetic field occurs.

This albeit rather peculiar notion of particles moving in
formation, with other particles moving at higher speed traveling
freely in opposed directions and between the ranks of the ordered
particles, gives a very simple and direct account which overcomes
the Augenheister problem introduced above.
It introduces the requirement that the Earth must move
laterally and not just rotate to obtain this electrostatic
balance condition. The faster the Earth moves then the greater
the number of free particles in it to cancel the electrostatic
charge. Clearly, the particles are likely to fall out of harmony
with the general system and deploy their velocity in their small
orbits to travel at this velocity through the matrix. This
velocity is seemingly constant for all particles. Therefore, the
ratio of free particles to bound lattice particles in the Earth’s
aether lattice depends upon the ratio of the Earth’s orbital
velocity to the velocity of the particle in its small orbit.
It is suggested that if the Earth were to stop in its orbit,
then, apart from being drawn into the Sun by gravitation, there
would be nothing to balance the strong electric field induced by
its rotation and, since these fields are of the order of many
millions volts per cm, all matter in the Earth would become
ionized. The Earth would then lose its magnetic field.
It is suggested that if the same argument is applied to the
Sun there is cause, owing to the Sun’s relatively slow motion,
for understanding why its magnetic field is less constant than
that of the Earth.

MAGNETIC MOMENT OF THE SUN

The expression (6.12) for the magnetic moment can not really
by tested for other planets until we know their magnetic moments.
the magnetic moment is proportional to the square of the speed
of rotation. Thus, the Moon will hardly have any significant
magnetic field. Using (6.12) it is to be expected that the
magnetic moment of Mars will be about 3.2×10²⁴ emu.
We can, however, test (6.12) by applying it to the Sun. The
Sun rotates once every 25 days and has a radius 108 times that
of the Earth. Hence its magnetic moment should be
(108)⁵/(25)² that of the Earth, or 1.9×10³³ emu.

Estimates of the solar magnetic moment have to take into
account the sporadic magnetic fields produced in sunspots. Some
early estimates may therefore be unreliable. One recent analysis
by which the dipole moment of the sun has been estimated is that
of Sakurai [K. Sakurai, J. Geomagn. Geoelect., v. 11, pp. 21-33;
1959] who observed a value of 5×10³² emu.
This is somewhat less than that predicted by this theory but
the data is of the right order and the result adequately supports
this theory.
Furthermore, as has been stated, there is evidence that the
solar magnetic field has been decreasing over the past few years.
There is also evidence that in some stars the field reverses in
direction very frequently, in some cases every few days.

To account for this, let us regard the estimate of
1.9×10³³ emu to be the solar magnetic moment in the absence
of cancelling charge of the kind developed by ionization. Then,
considering the Sun to be in motion so as to provide the
constrained charge carriers able to prevent total magnetic field
cancellation owing to ionization. The magnetic field will then
be partially cancelled, perhaps in the ratio of the abundance of
ions to the abundance of the constrained migrating charge
carriers. Now, this relative abundance will be a function of the
speed of the Sun. The faster the Sun moves, the more abundance
in constrained carriers and the stronger the magnetic field.
Also, and of great interest to this account, the abundance
density of the constrained carriers will be uniform throughout
the Sun but the abundance density of free ions may be greater in
the outer regions of the Sun than in its core. It is seen,
therefore, that what will happen as the Sun changes from fast to
slow speed is that when moving rapidly it will have a fairly
normal dipole moment induced by its rotation, the constrained
aether constituent in its inner and outer regions being more
dense than the ions. Then, at a lower speed the abundance of
ions in the outer regions outweighs the effect of the unbound
lattice particle charge, thereby substantially cancelling the
magnetic action of the outer field-generating shell of displaced
lattice. The inner core field generation will not be affected in
such a significant way by the lower speed. As a result the double
strength magnetic moment of the shell is cancelled and the
opposed single strength magnetic moment of the core remains
unchanged. The total effect is a complete reversal of the dipole
magnetic moment of the Sun. This has not required any change in
rotational speed of the Sun. It merely requires that the Sun
should fluctuate in speed in its own orbit. The reversals of its
magnetic moment should appear in phase with the variation in
speed.
We predict, therefore, that the variation of the solar
magnetic moment must depend upon the motions of Jupiter and
Saturn.

There is perhaps insufficient data available at present to
check this account of the solar field reversals, though it does
appear that over the past few years the solar field has decreased
and indeed reversed, whilst the Sun has decreased in speed as
Jupiter and Saturn have moved into opposition.
The fact that some stars can reverse magnetic field in only
a few days indicates that their orbital speed changes at this
frequency. This is possible if a star has a satellite close to
it. [It may belong to a binary pair, with both stars orbiting
around one another every few days, as for DI Herculis mentioned
in the first of these lectures on cosmological questions.]

CONSERVED ANGULAR MOMENTUM IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM

We have seen how the motion of an astronomical body through
space provides a constrained aether constituent which prevents
ionization owing to the induced charge caused by aether rotation.
If a body such as the Sun did not move through space, then, apart
from any other source of ionization, its rotation alone would
induce electrical fields and cause ionization.
Motion at varying speed through space arises from the need
to be in balance with a satellite planet. Then ionization need
not occur as a consequence of rotation. If it does occur its
effects will moderate the induced magnetic field, but this
moderating effect will be weaker, the faster the Sun moves
through space.

The rotation of an astronomical body is accompanied by the
rotation of the aether it contains. For the planets the aether
rotation momentum about the centre of the solar system is
insignificant compared with their material orbital momentum.
However, for the Sun the contribution of the aether angular
momentum due to the Sun’s rotation is very substantial in
relation to the angular momentum of the solar system.
It has long been a difficult question to account for the
formation of the solar system in terms of a solar explosion which
somehow imparted substantial angular momentum to the planets but
left the sun with a balancing angular momentum of the order of
1% that imparted to the planets.

This is no problem in the case of the formation of secondary
satellite systems, where the satellites are assumed to form from
a mother planet (see work of Alfven [H. Alfven, Astrophys. Jour.,
v. 137, pp. 981-990; 1963]). Yet, while it is debatable whether
the Moon, for example, came from the Earth, it is less debatable
that the Earth came from the Sun and it is here that angular
momentum balance presents a baffling problem.
This theory may help in resolving this anomaly because the
value of aether lattice density m_o/d³ is of the order of 100
times the Sun’s density, showing that the aether angular momentum
of the solar system might well be in balance with the material
angular momentum. [Note that m_o denotes the mass of an aether
particle and that the value of m_o and d, the cubic lattice
spacing of the particles in the aether structure, were
theoretically determined in the earlier pages of the book from
which this text is quoted].

While this hypothesis will not be pursued here, it is of
interest to mention, in passing, that in discussing the origin
of the satellites and the planets, Alfven and Wilcox [H. Alfven
& J. M. Wilcox, Astrophys. Jour., v. 136, pp. 1016-22; 1962] have
proposed that this has come about from the interaction of a
neutral gas and a plasma. In contrast, the present theory, which
is concerned mainly with the magnetic and momentum properties of
such bodies, regards them to consist in reality of a neutral
material substance and an all-pervading plasma which we have
termed the ‘aether’.

It is appropriate to observe that the aether lattice moving
with the Earth through aether fluid not only gives us the account
of terrestrial magnetism presented but explains the experiment
of Michelson-Morley by confirming the words of Campbell [N.R.
Campbell, ‘Modern Electrical Theory’, 2nd. Ed., Cambridge
University Press, pp. 387-388; 1913]:

“If we speak of ‘aethers’
and not ‘the aether’ all our experiments prove is that the
particular aether with which we are concerned in any case is that
which is at rest relative to the source and may be regarded as
forming part of it. This is the simple way out of the
difficulties raised by the Michelson-Morley Experiment. If from
the beginning we had used a plural instead of a singular word to
denote the (aether) system….those difficulties would never have
appeared”.

Thus, the Earth and the Sun may each have their own
individual aethers as envisaged here and we need have no
inconsistency with the observations from the Michelson-Morley
Experiment.”

[The above is quoted from a book I wrote in 1966, more
than 30 years ago. About 10 years on from that time
I was actually able to derive the quantitative basis
for a theory explaining how the planets formed from
the mother body, the Sun. Moreover, I then found that
the Moon did, in fact, come from body Earth by the
same process. Without aether theory there is no way of
deriving this result. That theory appears in my 1980
book ‘Physics Unified’. I hope, however, to provide a
section later in these Web pages based on a lecture I
was once invited to deliver to the students and staff
of the Physics Department at the University in Cardiff
in Wales, with diagrams to illustrate my case.]