GEOMAGNETISM: SHAKY GROUND BUT SOLID FACTS!

Copyright © Harold Aspden, 1998

Research Note: 10/98: December 20, 1998

I am writing this Research Note after reading an item of news in the British newspaper, THE TIMES, dated December 16, 1998. It was a Science Briefing by Nigel Hawkes and appeared at page 16.

It was entitled 'Solid Facts about Quake Waves'. It tells readers that:
"Scientists have finally found evidence that we do stand on solid ground, even if it lies a long way down. Geologists have for ages believed that the very centre of the Earth, which lies inside a core of molten iron, is solid because of the immense pressures. Now seismic waves generated by an earthquake in Indonesia in June 1996 have proved the case."

When I read this I could not understand what it was that had been proved. Is it that belief that a solid external shell stands on a liquid spherical shell which in turn has a solid spherical core that has been confirmed? If so then I see this as contradicting the following part of Nigel Hawkes' report, which reads:
"In Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Professor Emil Okal of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illiniois, says that after the quake, he and a French colleague, Dr. Yves Cansi, detected the kind of waves that can be propagated only by solids."

To verify that the Earth's central region is solid the waves would have to propagate through liquid if, in fact, molten iron does separate the central core from what underlies the solid crust on which we stand. So, to make sense, of this news item I have to assume that the evidence suggests a solid Earth with no molten interior.

I did try to inspect the relevant paper but my local library facility, Southampton University, does not stock that periodical. Also, I note the Nigel Hawkes did not give the page and volume reference. So, pending further enlightenment, I must assume Earth is solid right through to its core and am encouraged to explain why such a discovery would be, and hopefully is, very welcome news to me at least.

I quote next from page 26 of my book Modern Aether Science published in 1972 and still in print at year end 1998, the reason it is not sold out being that those who read scientific books have no interest in the 'aether'. Maybe the subject news item will stimulate that interest:
"Gilbert can be said to have discovered that the earth is a large magnet and it seems that this discovery will stand as firmly established as any ever made by man, but does the modern physicist understand why the earth is a magnet? He thinks he does because he has, in recent times, discovered that a thermally-agitated electrical medium can induce a magnetic field when rotating. We have what is called a theory of hydromagnetism. If the earth has a hot rotating fluid core it is natural to rely on this to account for the earth's magnetism. We do not apparently need any other explanation, even though there is no reasonably certain quantitative verification of the theory."

Now do, please, draw the necessary conclusion. If Earth is solid throughout then it cannot have a 'hot rotating fluid core' and the accepted theory for geomagnetism stands rejected. You are left, as you are with gravitation and its link with electromagnetism, with no viable physical theory, unless, that is, you come to accept my explanation in these web pages of the role of the aether in governing these phenomena.

You try explaining how something spinning inside a solid body can set up a magnetic field having north and south poles that precess around the axis of spin, unless that something is aether. We know that a solid body can move through the aether, so aether can move inside a solid body. If you say the aether does not exist then you cannot explain geomagnetism and the precession of the geomagnetic poles. However, if you can accept that the aether exists then I can show you how to calculate the strength of the Earth's magnetic field. That is a subject addressed in my earliest writings on the aether topic, as you can see by reading through my book The Theory of Gravitation published early in 1960 and, more particularly, its second edition published in 1966.

It is now some 40 and more years on from the time when I discovered how easy it was to explain geomagnetism using the same aether theory that gave me a physical account of the photon, with a precise quantitative theoretical derivation of the underlying quantum property expressed by the dimensionless fine structure constant. I am therefore delighted at the prospect that geophysicists have now run into this solid Earth problem. It gives a very great boost to my theory.

Looking back, and in case you are wondering what I did to draw attention to my discovery of the aether explanation of geomagnetism, I can only say that, being employed in industry and not academia, I had little opportunity to project my ideas. Had I been on the physics staff of a university I expect, however, that I would have not got very far in my career in advocating belief in the aether. However, being in industry, I was not slow to exploit opportunity when it appeared. I remember that shortly after I joined IBM in U.K. in a managerial position in which I reported directly to the CEO, the Managing Director, a new Director of high standing in the academic world was welcomed to IBM U.K.'s Board of Directors. His name was Professor Sir Edward Bullard, noted for his contribution to the understanding of geomagnetism. Thanks to the good auspices of the Managing Director, Sir Edward was invited to comment on my aether interpretation of that phenomenon. However, Sir Edward did not seek to discuss the subject with me but simply wrote a note explaining that the magnetic properties of planet Mars did not comply with what my theory indicated.

So, as with my earlier efforts to arouse the interest of the academic community, I was put in the position of having to have a theory which can explain everything before its explanation for something could warrant attention, even though rival theory that has been accepted has certainly not explained everything. On the contrary, it seems that the accepted theory for the Earth's magnetism was built on the unproven, but now seemingly rejected, assumption that Earth had a liquid core. Maybe one day cosmologists will also realize that they have made an unfounded assumption in their Big Bang theory in supposing that G, the constant of gravitation, applies unchanged for interactions between matter having extremely high densities, given that their laboratory experiments are based on the interaction of normal matter.

I await with interest to see how the physics community will reconcile their belief in the liquid core theory of geomagnetism with this discovery that Earth is a solid body.

Harold Aspden
December 20, 1998