Having completed three years of experimental research on the loss anomalies in
ferromagnetic materials, I left Cambridge in June 1953 to write my thesis and earn my living
in the Patent Department of a corporate organization. My spare time hobby for the next six
years was to delve into the scientific mystery which underlies electromagnetic phenomena
and solve one particular problem that had troubled me as a Ph.D. research student. Simply
stated, it was the question of why a steady magnetic field can penetrate a lump of copper
without being virtually completely suppressed by the diamagnetic reaction set up by the
numerous free conduction electrons in that copper.

The solution to that problem providing the first stepping stone in a quest which was
later to lead me to a deep understanding of the nature of gravitation and its unifying link with
electromagnetism. There was enormous spin-off from my early endeavours, too much for me
to be able to express in a style compliant with the prevailing methods then being used in
physics. These were intolerant of the idea of an aether and subservient to the Einstein
philosophy, whilst the quantitative successes of early quantum-electrodynamics were flagged
before me as rival territory onto which I must not intrude.

I had my living to earn and my patent professional qualifying examinations to pass
and so that self-imposed extra-curricular research was really a labour I would have soon
abandoned, were it not for the incredibly exciting discoveries that were emerging.
My scientific papers offered for publication were no longer authored from an
academic address and they were systematically rejected. So, when, in September 1959, IBM
offered me the position of Patent Manager heading their U.K. Patent Department, I decided
to wrap up my hobby interest and publish myself a printed 48 page monograph. It was
completed on 22nd November 1959, before I took up my new position with IBM and promptly
published under the title: ‘The Theory of Gravitation’.

I shall in these lecture notes refer again to this first of my publications on my aether
theory, but for the moment I will just mention that its chapter 5 was entitled ‘The
Geomagnetic Field’. I had been able to calculate the geomagnetic moment in terms of
aether spin with the Earth and the result was in full quantitative agreement. I deduced on
page 32 that aether spin results in the induction of electric charge density of 4.781 esu per cc
per rad/sec of spin rate, subject to a reducing factor cosA, where A is the angle between the
spin axis of that aether spin and a preferred axial direction in space.
The preferred direction, incidentally, lies parallel with the axes associated with the
quantum spins of the aether particles at those lattice sites already mentioned.

Taking the angle A as being approximately 23.5 degrees for body Earth this told me,
as can be seen from page 32 of that 1959 monograph, that the Earth’s geomagnetic moment
should be (0.000319)(4/15)πwR⁵/c, where w is the Earth’s angular velocity, R
is the radius of the Earth’s aether and c is the speed of light, the conversion factor translating
electrostatic units of charge into electromagnetic units of charge.

The Earth’s measured geomagnetic moment was 8.06×10²⁵ emu so I
was able to estimate the mean height of the spherical boundary of the Earth’s aether as
being 140 miles above the Earth’s surface.

On page 33 I then addressed the question: “Will the above explanation account for
the dipole character of the geomagnetic field?” This is an important issue confronting any
would-be theorist who tries to understand the Earth’s magnetism. The shape of the Earth’s
magnetic field is somewhat similar to that applying if it were all due to a magnet placed at the
Earth’s centre, it resembling the field of a magnetic dipole. I then concluded that Chapter 5
by two paragraphs using the following words:

“It is found that the actual magnitude of the effective particle displacement in the
Earth’s aether matrix caused by the Earth’s rotation is very much less than the interparticle
spacing. On this basis it is clear that the charge effect caused by the rotation may merely
amount to the displacement of charge to the aether boundary. When this is interpreted in the
terms of magnetic moment it is found that the magnetic moment of the boundary charge is
exactly twice that of the distributed charge and acts in opposition. The result is a net
magnetic moment equal in magnitude to that already estimated, but the magnetic field
distribution becomes more nearly that of a dipole.”

“Although not related to gravitation the explanation of geomagnetism provided by
this theory lends extremely strong support to the theory upon which the understanding of
gravitation is founded, and its inclusion in this work is considered pertinent. This chapter will
also have proved of interest to those familiar with the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis.”

Now at this point I emphasize again that there is a difference between the theoretical
formulation for the magnetic moment of a planet, such as Earth, and that applicable to a star.
The above formula for induced charge density in body Earth was a function of w, the angular
speed of Earth rotation. In contrast, the applicable formula for a star is governed by the
mass density, 1.41 gm/cc and the connection with the constant of gravitation G.
In my earlier writings on this subject I was more concerned with the role played by
aether spin charge induction than the resolution of the charge density differences between
the non-ionized body and the ionized body. Therefore the reader may well see that I could, in
retrospect, have given a much more comprehensive account if I were now to rewrite the text
which appeared in my 1966 second edition of ‘The Theory of Gravitation’.

I had been with IBM for six years when I finally found time to work again at my hobby
interest, having been promoted in the meantime, in 1963, to a position where I was then in
charge of IBM’s Patent Departments throughout Europe. So, I wrote an enlarged 132 page
version of my earlier monograph and added the discovery I had by then made that gave the
mu-meson or muon a role in my aether theory. The mu-meson is a heavy version of an
electron and I had come to look at an even heavier version which played an essential role in
determining G, the constant of gravitation.

The graviton was found, theoretically, to have a mass-energy of 2587 Gev, nearly
5063 times the mass of the electron. Should the reader wonder how this relates to G, then
the formula, taken from page 80 of my 1966 book, is:

where (e/m) is the electron’s charge to mass ratio, then measured as being 5.27299 esu/gm.
From this G has the theoretical value of 6.67×10^-8 cgs units.

That theoretical derivation of G based on a deep understanding of the
electrodynamic interactions involved is fully in accordance with the measured value and it is
stressed that the 5063 quantity, which is the graviton mass measured in units of electron mass, i.e. 2.587 GeV, is itself theoretically derived from first principle analysis.
It was this achievement that motivated me to entitle my book ‘The Theory of Gravitation’, but
I wish here to proceed with my discussion of the magnetism of astronomical bodies.

Addressing the subject of geomagnetism I showed how the formula for the Earth’s
magnetic moment MM was derived by theory common to that used to deduce the value of G.
The formula without the cosA term is presented on page 93 of the book as equation (6.12)
[referred to below] and is:

where er is the Bohr magneton, 9.26×10^-21 esu-cm, R is the Earth’s
aether radius in cm, w is the Earth’s angular spin velocity, 7.26×10^-5 rad/s, d is
the spacing between aether particle lattice sites in the cubic structure, 6.37×10^–
11 cm and c is the speed of light, 3×10¹⁰ cm/s. The radius of the Earth
is 6.37×10⁸ cm but the aether boundary will no doubt be somewhere in the
ionosphere and I noted that if R were 6.45×10⁸ cm, this would give an estimate
of geomagnetic moment of 7.9×10²⁵ in the cgs system of units, compared with
the measured value of 8.06×10²⁵. If R were greater and located in the upper
ionosphere then that would give a greater value but one downwardly adjusted by the cosA
factor. There could be no question that the theory offered an excellent quantitative account
for the geomagnetic moment.

However, the modern physicists seem to be unimpressed by theory which is based
on an aether, whatever the numbers mean in comparison with the facts of observation. They
would rather rely on a vague theory which gives no numerical check, because they cannot
abide any thought that the aether may play a role in determining the values of the
fundamental physical constants.
So, I can but extend this review by reproducing the discussion section between
pages 94 and page 109 of my 1966 book in the hope that the modern physicist will see that
there has been no progress in understanding the source of geomagnetism and stellar
magnetism during the past 31 years and come to see in retrospect that my 1966 book gave a
valid basis for such understanding.

The following text, apart from notes in [..] is all directly quoted from the author’s 1966 book.

“It is important at this stage to pause to discuss this account of the geomagnetic
field. There is scope for much argument about the manifestation of the aether phenomenon
in the form of terrestrial magnetism and we must therefore deal with the main arguments
even though we digress from the main objective.
The topic will be introduced by a brief historical account of the Schuster-Wilson
Hypothesis.

The phenomena of terrestrial magnetism and gravitation present challenges of long
standing to the theoretical physicist. Effects governed by both phenomena have been
understood for centuries but the true nature of the phenomena has gone unexplained, even
though it is believed that they should be related to something more fundamental. Today,
while on the one hand we have the hydrodynamic theory of geomagnetism and on the other
we have a so-called gravitational theory in the form of General Relativity, neither theory is
able to bridge the gap and make connection with fundamentals common to both and neither
theory is wholly satisfactory in accounting for the prime phenomenon.

It is not, therefore, surprising that some excitement was aroused by the Schuster-
Wilson Hypothesis which purported to relate magnetism and gravitation and it is well to
introduce the problem under study, that of accounting for geomagnetism in terms related to
mass or momentum, by a review of that hypothesis.

Schuster [A. Schuster, Proc. Phys. Soc., v. 24, pp. 121-137; 1912] and Wilson [H.A.
Wilson, Proc. Roy. Soc. A., v. 104, pp. 451-455; 1923] have shown that the magnetic
moments and angular momenta of the sun and Earth are approximately related by a
common ratio. This has led to the hypothesis that a fundamental property exists which
causes any rotating body to have a magnetic moment. A particularly significant result
appears when the quantitative aspects of this hypothesis are considered. It was shown by
Wilson that the right order of magnitude for the magnetic fields of the Earth and the Sun is
obtained is obtained if it is assumed that a moving mass, measured in gravitational units, has
the same effect as a moving negative charge, measured in electrostatic units. Blackett
[P.M.S. Blackett, Nature, v. 159, pp. 658-666; 1947] has expressed the same result in the
following terms:

where β is a constant of the order of unity, c is the velocity of light in vacuo and G is the
Constant of Gravitation.

This possibly coincidental result suggests a link between geomagnetism and
gravitation. Unfortunately, however, the impact of the hypothesis was mitigated by a negative
result of a laboratory experiment carried out by Wilson. from magnetic tests on a swinging
iron bar, he was able to show that the magnetic field to be expected on the basis of the
hypothesis did not in fact exist. The hypothesis therefore stood refuted.

Interest revived when Babcock [H.W. Babcock, Publ. Astr. Soc. Pacif., v. 59, pp.
112-124; 1947] succeeded in measuring the magnetic field of the star 78 Virginis. It now
became possible to apply the hypothesis to three bodies instead of two. The hypothesis was
verified as being fully applicable to them all, the range of angular momenta being 10:1. The
hypothesis, now called the Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis, became the subject of more detailed
examination. Various anomalies were discovered. For example, Babcock [H.D. Babcock,
publ. Astr. Soc. Pacif., v. 60, pp. 244-245; 1948], Thiessen [G. Thiessen, observatory, v. 69,
p. 228; 1949] and Von Kluber [H. Von Kluber, Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc., v. 111, p.2; 1951]
have found that the solar magnetic field varies in a manner which is not consistent with the
simple conception afforded by the hypothesis. Attempts were made to test the hypothesis
again in the laboratory. Blackett [P.M.S. Blackett, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., v. 245A, pp. 309-
370; 1952/3] studied the magnetic effects of dense matter rotating with the Earth. His
experiments are conclusive in showing that no magnetic effect of the appropriate character
and magnitude exists as a general property of matter on Earth. Furthermore, Runcorn and
others [S.K. Runcorn et al, Phil Mag., v. 41, pp. 783-791; 1950] & [S.K. Runcorn et al, Phil.
Trans. Roy. Soc., v. 244A, p. 113; 1951/2] measured the variation of the Earth’s magnetic
field over a range of depths below the Earth’s surface and compared the results with those
predicted on the basis of a distributed theory and those applicable to a core theory. In the
core theory the Earth is assumed to have a field produced by a magnetic dipole. The
distributed theory involves the assumption that each element of a body gives rise to a
magnetic effect as if it had a charge proportional to its mass rotating with the Earth, as
required by the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis. The principal distinction between the results
predicted by the two theories is that on a core theory the horizontal component of the
geomagnetic field should increase with increasing depth below the Earth’s surface, but on the
distributed theory there should be a decrease. The measurements showed there to be an
increase. The result went against the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis. This was a great pity in
view of the seeming applicability of the hypothesis over such a wide range of
momentum.

Consideration shows that there is scope for reviving the substance of the hypothesis
at least over the results of Runcorn if we argue that not all of the geomagnetic field is
attributable to rotation of distributed charge. Gunn [R. Gunn, Phys. Rev., v. 33, pp. 614-620;
1929] has suggested a radial limitation of the Sun’s magnetic field by ionic moments in the
Sun’s atmosphere. Ions moving at their kinetic velocities in a magnetic field spiral about the
lines of force to oppose the fields present. Can it not, therefore, be that some reaction effect
in the ionosphere opposes the magnetic field produced by the distributed charge? it is a fact
that the Sun’s field is weaker than one would expect if beta had the value of unity as implied
above. According to Blackett’s data, the values of beta are, for the Earth 1.29, for the Sun
0.92, and for 78 Virginis 0.95. Allowing for such reaction effects, particularly for the Sun
and 78 Virginis, it seems that the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis could just as easily have
required the ratio of magnetic moment to angular momentum to be 2G^1/2/c, the
factor of 2 perhaps having analogy with the gyromagnetic ratio factor. It is well known that
the ratio of magnetic moment to angular momentum for changes in magnetism in iron is
about twice that predicted in terms of the motion of electron charge associated with electron
mass. Hence, if we can retain the simplicity of the Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis while
incorporating the factor of 2, we need to accept substantial field reaction effects in the Earth
to reduce the factor 2 to 1.29 and need even more substantial reaction in stellar bodies.

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.]