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