Modern Aether Science - Aspden, Harold

MODERN AETHER
SCIENCE
BY
HAROLD ASPDEN
Doctor of Philosophy of Trinity College
in the University of Cambridge
SABBERTON PUBLICATIQNS
P.O. Box 35, Southampton, England
© Harold Aspden, 1972
All rig/its res0r1'eu'
ISBN 0 85056 0039 (Cloth Edition)
ISBN 0 85056 0047 (Paper Edition)
First published March 1972
P/"irlml in G/‘cut Brimin /21'

T/It’ ('mm'/of [’r¢'.s1s" Ln/, Lam/nn um! Sim!/mmpmn
DEDICATION
To my wife. Wendy, for her
continued understanding
Contents
Introduction
Nature’s Unseen World

‘The Flight of Thunderbolts’
Discovering Gravitation
The Lodestone
The Origin of the Solar System
The Perturbation of Venus
Microcosmic Foundations
The Law of Force
Boundaries of Relativity
Dirac’s Electron
The Nature of Mass
The Aether in Evidence
Action at a Distance
The Nuclear Aether
The Earth’s Electricity
The Cosmic Aether
APPENDIXZ The Law of Electrodynamics
INDEX
Introduction
The old foundations of scientific thought are becoming unintel-
ligible. Time, space, matter, material. ether. electricity. mechanism,
organism, configuration, structure, pattern, function, all require
reinterpretation. What is the sense of talking about a mechanical
explanation when you do not know what you mean by mechanics?
The paradox is now fully established that the utmost abstractions are
the true weapons with which to control our thought of concrete fact.
So said the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead in his Science

and the Modern World, I925. But surely weapons are not needed
to control beliefin what is true in Nature. Abstraction can surely
have no lasting place in science. Physicists have had rather more
to assimilate than has been possible and have lapsed a little
into a world of abstraction. Whitehead must be wrong. The
old foundations of scientific thought were intelligible to their
creators. To say that they were becoming unintelligible merely
implies developing weaknesses in the minds of later generations
of scientists. There was impatience at the difficulties of fathom-
ing and charting that sea of energy permeating space—the
aether. And so, many pretended that the aether does not exist
and did so by abstract mathematical formulations. History will
one day show that they were wrong. In this work we will
explore the modern evidence proving that the aether is a
reality. We will proceed without mathematics and we will attack
abstraction. and. in particular, we will attack Whitehead’s
problem of understanding mechanics, by explaining the
nature of mass.
A mathematical analysis is provided in the author’s book
P/iy.s'ic.v nit/tour Ei'1isr<>i/1, but this new work goes beyond the
scope ofthat book by incorporating the results of further research
and exposing some weaknesses in existing theories. A solution
to the mysteries ofthe creation of the solar system is an impor-
tant original feature presented in this work. It is anticipated that
2 MODERN AETHER SCIENCE
the evidence provided will convince the reader that the ever-
present aether deserves his attention, but if the reader is left
with doubts it is hoped that this book will stimulate him to voice
them and to seek to resolve them constructively. The true
form of Nature is already set. It needs imagination and analysis
and a will to defend as well as criticize any theories put forward,
if we are to find a way to comprehend the sub-structure of
Nature. In this book the author has been ready to criticize and
has offered much that can be criticized, and if the reader is
left with doubts he did not have before, this book will have
served him well.
l
Nature’s Unseen World

There are innumerable niceties concerning notions, relations,
instants, formalities, quiddities and haecceities, which no one can pry
into, unless he has eyes that can penetrate the thickest darkness, and
there can see things that have no existence whatever.
ERASMUS, Moriae Eneomium, 1509
Erasmus preceded Galileo, Descartes and Newton, men who

founded new disciplines leading us to classical physics, the
physics of an era of unquestioned belief in the existence of an
aether. This era passed at the beginning ofthe twentieth century.
The ideas of Einstein, Heisenberg and Pauli have changed our
physics. We have reverted to principles, concepts which to
Erasmus would be notions, relations and formalities. Our
physics are now founded upon abstract philosophical dogma,
whereas physical phenomena are still governed by an all-
pervading environmental influence which, as it must have a
source, signifies the existence of an aether. Because his eyes can-
not penetrate the thickest darkness, the scientist of today cannot
see what exists in apparently empty space, but he feels its effect
and should be ever-conscious of its existence. The cosmos is
linked by space and so space must be examined to find the
links between the phenomena of our universe.
Understanding the cosmos provides an exacting challenge.
But it is easy to find a starting point. Let us review some words
quoted from the book by Lincoln Barnett entitled The Universe
and Dr. Ez'nstein:*
Today most newspaper readers know vaguely that Einstein had
something to do with the atomic bomb; beyond that his name is
simply a synonym for the abstruse. While his theories form part of
* Page 12 of second revised edition, Harper and Row, New York, 1957.
the body of modern science, many of them are not yet part of the
modern curriculum. It is not surprising therefore that many a college
graduate still thinks of Einstein as a kind of mathematical surrealist
rather than as the discoverer of certain cosmic laws of immense
importance in man's slow struggle to understand physical reality. He
may not realise that Relativity. over and above its scientific import,
comprises a major philosophical system which augments and
illumines the reflections of the great epistemologists—Locke,
Berkeley. and Hume. Consequently he has very little notion of the
vast, arcane. and mysteriously ordered universe in which he dwells.
Clearly. we must start with Einsteins Relativity. Yet,
where will this lead us? Will we follow like sheep into the
complexity of a philosophical system and be hopelessly lost
in a world of confusion ? Let us avoid indoctrination which may
cause us to make our scientific evaluations on the basis of
aesthetic appreciation. It is not uncommon for scientists to
describe Relativity by the use of the term ‘elegant’, but the
truths of Nature are all too often inelegant and if we are to be
objective we should favour simplicity rather than complexity.
Disorder may come from order. Complexity may come from
simplicity. The fundamental structure from which we are formed
may therefore be simple, and should be assumed so in our
initial enquiries. The world we experience is one of three dimen-
sions. It is, in its structural geometrical concept, rather simple.
It can be visualized. It is experienced and, in this sense, it must
be real. Yet, Relativity would have us believe in a different world,
a world of four space dimensions interlinked by time. Relativity
concerns ‘notions, relations, instants . . . which no one can pry
into, unless he . . . can see things that have no existence what-
ever.’ These may seem to be words of a heretic but, in the spirit
of Erasmus, we will forge ahead with this assertion as a challenge
to the existing disorder of things.
Do we have any allies in this pursuit‘? A recently published
book by Harald Nordenson has critized the fundamental
foundations of Einsteins theory.* In the final reflections in this
work Nordenson writes:
As I have criticized Einstein very heavily in this book I am anxious to
point out that my criticism applies to his philosophical reasonings
* Re/uI1'1"i'z_r Time mid Ruziliry, Allen and Unwin, London, I969.
NATURE‘S UNSEEN WORLI) 5
and especially those of epistemological character. On the other hand

I have the greatest respect for his eminent contributions in other
domains of mathematics and physics.
I have often met persons, especially outside Sweden, who have
expressed their astonishment that Einstein was not awarded the
Nobel Prize for his Theory of Relativity, which many people consider
as one of the most outstanding achievements of this century. As a
member of the Swedish Academy of Science which distributes the
Nobel Prizes of physics I am on the other hand very glad that this
was not done, since the Theory of Relativity is not physics but
philosophy and in my opinion poor philosophy.
Nordenson has attacked the logical foundations of Einstein’s
theory. He has presented persuasive reasons, which we need
not review here. Our object is to portray reality and replace the
abstract, a point which is singularly pertinent if we look at
the review which Nordenson’s book attracted from the British
Journal for I/ie Philosophy of Science (August 1970):
The author of the book under review is led to the drastic conclusion
that Relativity Theory is logically incoherent, contains incon-
sistencies and must be rejected, even though he admits we have
nothing to put in its place.
It seems appropriate to mention that in September 1970
the Review Editor of this very journal wrote to the publishers
of the present writer‘s book Plrysies irir/tour Einstein explaining
the dilficulty of finding a reviewer. About the book he wrote:
We noted its unusual interest and decided that we should like to
review it in our columns. Unfortunately we cannot do this if we
cannot find a reviewer, and so far all the five persons approached
have been unable to review the book for us.
It would seem that the modern physicist is so specialized

in the physics of today that he has lost the aptitude to adapt
to new ideas. Perhaps, however, we should be referring only
to the philosophers of science. Unable to adapt to new concepts
but unwilling to reject the old unless we have something to
substitute, the philosophers appears locked in a state of mental
stagnation. Relativity is sacrosanct.
The relativistic method is so entrenched that few writers are
able to secure publication for their alternative ideas. Few readers
can assimilate what is presented to them in texts on Relativity,

but the establishment has ordained that Relativity shall be the
accepted doctrine. To quote from a publisher’s summary of a
recent work on gravitation:
This book is a review of recent research developments pertaining
to the theory of gravitation. After consultation with many scientists
throughout the world working in relativity theory, the most impor-
tant topics being worked on today were selected for inclusion in the
book.’-*
Someone has decided, it seems, that only Relativity can lead
us to understanding gravitation.
Our challenge, therefore, is not merely presented by the
cosmos. Mankind has inertia just as does mass. The challenge
in the quest for ultimate truths is to confront this barrier
presented by man himself. Later in this work we will consider
the nature of gravitation. Leading professors have expressed
themselves on this subject. Hoyle (I964) wrotezj
There is no such thing as gravitation apart from geometry . . . the
geometrical relationship between different localities is the pheno-
menon of gravitation.
On the same subject, Bondi (1963) wrote:3,‘
Gravity is a peculiar force and thus rightly described in a very
special way.
Our starting point could be Relativity, but what prospect of
lasting success? Perhaps that path will lead us to dispose
of the cosmos as some mathematical concept devoid of real
form and essentially peculiar. It seems better to retrace some of
the ideas of antiquity and examine how our basic ideas of the
cosmos developed. We must look at the problem of the void
in which we are immersed. Either there is some physical sub-
stance filling all space or there is not. If there is, then it must
yield its secrets if we pry into this unseen world with enough
* Grarimrion: An Introduction to Current Research, \Viley.
1‘ ‘A New Theory ofGravitation’ by Hoyle, pp. 19-26 in 1964 BBC Publication
entitled A New Kim! ofPhy.ric.v.
1‘/\cccleration and Gravity’ by Bondi, pp. 5-12 in I963 BBC Publication
entitled Relmiri/v T0(/ill‘.
NATURE,S UNSEEN WORLD 7
imagination and conviction. Eventually, we must discover the

elements of its structure and have enough verification from the
methods of physical science. If the void has no substance, it
has no existence. It can provide no links, no metric structure,
nothing by which the coherent properties of physical science
can be related. We are left to philosophize. Mathematical
formulations are the creation of our minds. They cannot provide
an aether in themselves. They can describe an aether if one exists
in Nature. In this work, therefore, our starting point must be a
firm belief in the existence of a medium filling the heavenly
void. The aether has to be real. If we fail to succeed then we leave
the task to others in the future who may have more luck in
fathoming this vital secret of Nature. We can pacify ourselves
by diverting to philosophy. We can embark on the Relativity
journey and eventually be drugged by notions which cause us to
lose all sense of time. But let us see where we arrive in this pur-
suit.
Modern science has presented many facts to us which we can
understand in terms of our physics, but many of the problems
with which the ancients wrestled are unsolved to this day. It is
these problems which are important in any eflort to under-
stand the cosmic world.
2
‘The Flight of Thunderbolts’
This was the title of a book written just a few years ago by Sir
Basil Schonland.* It tells of the thunderbolts, a phenomenon
which is as much a part of our cosmic world today as it was
when our forebears saw it as a weapon oftheir Gods.
Ignorance of the scientific foundation of lightning did for a
period, it seems, enhance one‘s chances of death. Schonland
describes how in early times in Europe, man, aware that light-
ning was an act of God, sought to protect himself by prayer. It
was usual to supplement prayer by the violent ringing of church
bells and, accordingly, bell ringing became a practice during
thunderstorms. Lightning has such an affinity for church steeples
that this custom resulted in tragedy. Schonland quotes a book
published in Munich in I784 giving the data that in 33 years,
I03 bell-ringers had been killed in this way. This was, of course,
before the implementation of the remedy which Benjamin
Franklin had found for protecting buildings from the effects of
lightning. He discovered that lightning was merely a flash of
electricity which could be diverted harmlessly to ground by the
use of a lightning conductor.
Lack of true knowledge of the physical world can be a
source of unnecessary hardship to mankind. It is interesting to
quote from Schonland thus:
Between 1926 and 1930 three accusations against witch-doctors
concerning crimes . . . which involved the control of lightning as a
guided missile, were brought before the native courts of the Kgatta
tribe in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. One was a charge of actual
murder by lightning; the accused pleaded guilty and admitted that he
had successfully directed a lightning flash to kill another man. The
other two cases were charges of malicious damage to property, both
* The F/iglit of '1'/iuntlerhohr, Clarendon Press, 1964, p. 4.
‘rut; l<'l.IGIIT or THUNDERBOLTS‘ 9
of the accused having set huts alight by directed lightning. All were
found guilty and punished; the confessed lightning murderer (to
make the punishment fit the crime) was, by order of the presiding
chief, severely branded in the mouth with a piece of burning wood.
We can discount this as ignorance or lack of civilization, but
surely ignorance is relative and we too will be judged ignorant
by future generations. Our modern knowledge of these destruc-
tive phenomena of Nature is not as great as many may believe.
The subject ofthunderballs, an apparent by-product ofthunder-
bolts, has been under scrutiny in the journal Nulure* in I970:
In sortie parts of the world, earthquakes are often accompanied by
ball lightning, stroke lightning and sheet lightning. The only causal
connection that seems possible is that seismic strains of the earth-
quakes cause an electric field in the air, which in turn produces ball
lightning and stroke and sheet lightning.
It would seem that we do not yet understand the processes
by which the electric origins of lightning are explained. Light-
ning is electricity, but how is lightning generated‘? There are
conventional explanations, but it seems that they are inadequate
to explain what happens in earthquake conditions. More will
be said about this later, but here we are confronted with the
problem of ball lightning. and this may not simply be dismissed
as electricity.
We have several reports of ball lightning floating for several seconds
down the aisles of metallic passenger aircraft, as well as into homes.
This is quoted from a paper by Altschuler and his colleagues,
writing from the High Altitude Observatory, National Center
for Atmospheric Research, Boulder in USA.’T The authors also
mentioned observations of lightning balls which glow red, one
which measured about 60 cm in diameter. moved into the ground
and dug a trench, and another which moved into the water in a
rain barrel and dispersed itself heating the water. Analysis ot
data showed that the balls have a very large energy density which
defies explanation. Their energy is released non-explosively.
They can move into objects carrying their energy into the core
of the substance. They appear able to float without inducing
convection effects, as ifbuoyantly supported in space. They are
* Nature, Vol. 228, p. 759, 1970. ‘I’ Nlllllrt’, Vol. 228, p. 545, 1970.
B
I0 MODERN AETHER SCIENCE
stable and display certain electrical effects as well as generating

acoustic, visible, infrared and ultraviolet radiation. It is
evident that if they were to move into the human body there
could be fatal consequences, but what are they?
Seven years earlier, in I963, D. .I. Ritchie of the Bendix
Corporation in the United States wrote a paper* concluding:
No matter what may prove ultimately to be the proper explanation
ofthe phenomenon in nature, the manifold directions of research into
ball lightning are opening new possibilities for the service ofmankind.
His paper was prefaced with the statement:
As with unidentified flying objects, the origins as well as the existence
of ball lightning have, in the past, been extremely controversial, with
some authorities insisting that such a phenomenon did not exist.
However, not only has recent work corroborated the existence of ball
lightning, but many data, both analytical and experimental, have
been produced.
Ritchie was experimenting on the assumption that the
thunderball is an ionized sphere of gas energized by the induc-
tion of short-wave electromagnetic oscillations produced in a
thunderstorm.
In his I964 book Sir Basil Schonland commented:
A significant number of earlier reports on ball lightning has likened
their behaviour to that of soap bubbles.
Referring to theories advanced to explain them he says:
Some of these suppose that part of the highly ionized channel of a
flash is detached (for reasons not understood). But for this detached
portion to continue to glow for a few seconds is inexplicable unless
some other outside agency supplies it with energy and . . . there
is no evidence at all for any such source, which would have to be
prodigious.
After dismissing all prospective explanations, the 1970
Altschuler paper resorted to the suggestion that the energy
source might be nuclear in origin, but concluded also that there
were numerous and difficult theoretical objections to this
nuclear hypothesis.
Dare one suggest that they are nothing more than simply a
* Journal of the Institutio/1 of Electrical Engineers, I963, p. 202.
‘THE FLIGHT or THUNDERBOLTS‘ ll
phenomenon of the unseen aether medium? A rotating sphere
of aether would have all the properties evidenced by the
thunderball. The writer, having a firm belief in the aether,
showed that the energy content of the thunderball can also be
explained easily and in perfect relation with other theory he
has presented elsewhere.* However, thejournal Nature declined
to publish such an account for the reason that ‘it is not of
sufliciently wide significance.
It is curious to see what man does regard as significant. The
writer well remembers his flight from London to New York
on June I5, I970 (BOAC flight No. 591), when the pilot an-
nounced the sighting of ‘an unidentified flying object’ crossing
above our flightpath ahead—a spinning object. The passengers
were invited to view it. I heard no more of it after the flight.
Presumably this is not an unusual occurrence and therefore not
particularly significant, but I wonder what might have happened
had we flown into it. An event of some personal significance
may well have occurred. Would perhaps we have had a rather
large thunderball floating down the aisle of the aircraft?
Ifthe thunderball is to become a nuclear phenomenon instead
of simply a turbulence, eddy or whirlpool in the aether, this is
in line with history. We do not know what it is for certain. If
we like to believe it to be nuclear then that is our open choice.
It is probably the same with our understanding of the heat
source which sustains our lives, the sun. We have not known of
nuclear energy for that many years, but we are now assured that
the sun is one massive nuclear furnace. We do not know quite
why it does not blow up in one large bang. but, for want of a
better explanation, it keeps us content to imagine that the sun's
energy is of nuclear origin. At the risk of appearing cynical,
dare it be suggested that perhaps it is a very large thunderball,
or rather a very large ball of the kind we associate with the
thunder and lightning phenomena.
One might wonder if the men of ancient times ever perceived
these thunderballs as miniature suns, after noticing their
bouyancy in space and witnessing them dipping into water and
dispersing energy.
* I’/ij'sie.\" wit/tout Eitistei/t, Sabbcrton Publications, Southampton, I969.
12 f\l()DhRN Al;THl;R SCIENCE
In The Smry oft/zc Heavens. Sir Robert Stawell Ball* relates:
The old mythology asserted that after the sun had dipped in the
western ocean at sunset (the lberians, and other ancient nations,
actually imagined that they could hear the hissing ofthe waters when
the glowing globe was plunged therein), it was seized by Vulcan'l' and
placed in a golden goblet. This strange craft with its astonishing cargo
navigated the ocean by a northerly course so as to reach the east
again in time for sunrise the following morning. Among the more
sober physicists of old, as we are told by Aristotle, it was believed
that in some manner the sun was conveyed by night across northern
regions, and that the darkness was due to lofty mountains which
screened oll‘ the sunbeams during the voyage.
The object of these early ideas was to explain, not the nature,
but the apparent motion of the sun. Nevertheless, it was con-
ceived as a ball offire, the origins of which were beyond specula-
tion. lt is of interest to wonder how the physicist contrived to
explain the source of the sun’s heat before the advent of nuclear
theory. One viewpoint attributed to Sir William Herschel in a
book published in 18521‘ is expressed in the words:
In order to account for the various appearances of the spots (on the
sun), he supposed the sun to be surrounded by a transparent atmo-
sphere, in which are suspended two distinct strata of clouds at
different elevations. The upper stratum is composed of self-luminous
clouds which constitute the source of solar light. The lower stratum
1s composed of opaque clouds, which shine only by the reflexion of
the luminous regions above them.
The fact is that the centres of the sunspots expose lower
regions within the sun and, by the physics we accept, these
inner central regions are darker and therefore at lower tempera-
ture than the outer regions. Herschel's argument that the energy
source is a shell enveloping the sun can have some truth in it.
Furthermore, there are still some voices left to argue that the
sun‘s energy is not direct nuclear radiation. For many years a
scientist named Bruce has been urging a theory that the solar
radiation comes from continuous lightning discharges at the
* Published by Cassell. London, I897.

‘l' The Roman god of lire, son of Zeus.
I llix/m'_1' (If‘P/I_l'.\1'(‘(1//l.\I!‘()!I(H)I_l‘, by Robert (irant, Bohn, London. 1852.
‘THE FLIGHT or THLI,\1DIiRBOl.TS' 13
surface of the sun. Sir Basil Schonland mentioned this in the
last words of his book. He writes:
Many hot stars, including our own sun, emit radio waves of high
frequency which penetrate our ionosphere; their sources are hot
plasmas in stellar magnetic fields and hardly qualifying for descrip-
tion as thunderstorms. But whether any of the dying stars have
relatively cold atmospheres in which thunderstorms could be created
is an interesting speculation. Bruce has developed ingenious theories
to explain in this way the periodic bursts of light from the long-period
variable stars which make them on the average I00 times and some-
times 10,000 times brighter at maximum than at minimum. lt is too
early to form a judgment on his many remarkable proposals which
extend to lightning discharges in nebulae with channels 1,000,000
light years long.
To the writer, the idea ofa shell ofthe solar atmosphere being
the source of radiation by electric discharges has appeal. The
reason is that, as such, it would not be at a uniform temperature
and would appear hotter from observations assuming uniform
temperature. Thus, the inner parts of sunspots could be at the
same temperature, or nearly at the same temperature, and yet
appear darker. The problem envisaged by Schonland of the
sun being too hot to sustain the mechanism by which thunder-
storms are created can be swept aside, as we shall see in Chapter
5. We have reason to see that the cosmos provides a powerful
mechanism by which electric fields and consequent electric
discharges are produced. lfthe modern scientist cannot yet be sure
how breakdown level electrical charges can be produced in our
own atmosphere, then he should think seriously about Bruce’s
claims that this fundamental mechanism is at work at the surface
of our sun.
If progress can be made along :1 new track for explaining the
origins of solar radiation, we may yet explain the origin of the
solar system and the primordial energy source of our universe.
Taking note that rotating glowing spheres can be produced
from lightning discharges, the thunderballs seen on the earth,
is it not possible that Bruce"s theories about cosmic lightning
discharges might spell for us the origins of our own sun ?
The sun could be a rotating sphere of aether evidenced by its
electrical action in ionizing co-extensive gaseous matter. The
sceptical reader might say that it could equally be explained by

many other notional concepts. However, that is negative think-
ing and what is proposed here is constructive.
Let us risk a little speculation. If a spherical volume of the
unseen aether medium rotates, it may result in an electric
displacement effect radial from its axis of rotation. It is well
known frotn Maxwell's work that a vacuum exhibits electric
displacement properties so we are not making an unreasonable
proposition. Rotation ofa sphere of aether would then develop
a magnetic field. It is easy then to say that if such a sphere
housed an ionized plasma rotating with it, then both the radial
electric field and the magnetic field would be cancelled. How-
ever, we know that the sun has a magnetic field and we also
know that ‘lightning balls have been known highly to magnetize
metallic objects such as gun-barrels'.* Therefore, the cancella-
tion may only be partial and we can examine with justified
curiosity the properties of the rotating aether medium.
Furthermore, the association of earthquakes and lightning
implies a link between gravitation and lightning. The form ofthis
link may be the aether medium. The prospect that cosmic
electricity can produce tremendous electric discharges which
may induce aether rotation and the formation of bodies like
the sun is an exciting thought. The problem is how to proceed
with these ideas. In the next chapter we will follow the early
background of gravitational theory in the hope that this may
help us to forge the links we seek.
* Quoted from the Ritchie paper referenced on page 10. Also note that since
the Altschuler paper referenced on page 9 was published, A. A. Mills writing in
Nature Physical Science, October I8, 1971, p. 131, has questioned the nuclear
hypothesis. Mills tested a piece of church masonry known to be struck by ball
lightning, looking for radiation dosage. He concluded tentatively that ‘the
incident at St. George's provides no evidence to support a ball lightning mechan-
ism involving a strong source of radiation’.
3
Discovering Gravitation
The nature of gravitation was accounted for by Aristotle

(383—322 BC). Bodies comprised four elements: fire, air, water,
earth. These elements could interchange. one being transmuted
into the other. Each one sought an ‘end’. This accounted for its
tendency to move. Thus, fire moves upwards, whereas other
elements move downwards. Everything seeks an end and has a
final cause. Bodies gravitate because they seek to reach the
centre of the earth.
Aristot1e‘s philosophical notion about the nature of the
force of gravity prevailed for eighteen centuries. Then man’s
understanding of the behaviour of bodies under the action of
gravitation developed rapidly. The techniques of experimental
research began to develop. The concepts of vectors, both force
vectors and velocity vectors, and new mathematical skills
emerged alongside the discovery of the telescope. The motions
of heavenly bodies could be analysed in detail and found to be
subject to behaviour patterns indicating compliance with
Nature’s laws, the laws of physics.
A Dutch military engineer Stevinus (1548-1620) is credited
with the discovery that a uniform chain laid over a double
incline must rest in equilibrium if its ends are in the same hori-
zontal plane. What the long part gains in weight it loses in that
only a part or component of it is effective downwards. Hence
emerged the diffieult idea of what we call a vector component.
About the same time Galileo (1564-1642) discovered the
vector properties of velocity. The prevailing notion was that a
body could have but one velocity at once. Galileo established
that a body could have two separate components of velocity
which varied independently. Galileo also helped to correct the
idea that all bodies slowed down when not acted upon by force.
It was erroneously believed that a constant force on a body
would produce a constant motion. Hence the need to demon-
strate that bodies of different weight fall at the same rates.
Stevinus reports such an experiment:
. . . The experiment against Aristotle is this: let us take (as I have
done in company with the learned H. Jan Cornets de Groot, most
diligent investigator of Nature's mysteries) two leaden balls, one ten
times greater in weight than the other, which allow to fall together
from the height ofthirty feet upon a board or something from which
a sound is clearly given out. and it shall appear that the lightest
does not take ten times longer to fall than the heaviest, but that they
fall so equally upon the board that both noises appear as a single
sensation of sound. The same. in fact. also occurs with two bodies of
equal size, but in the ten-fold ratio of weight.
De Beg/iinselv/1 (lat H/£7/(’I‘lt'Ii(‘]li.§‘, Simon Stevin, 1586*
Galileo used a pendulum to show that the time of swing does
not depend upon the amplitude of the swing and then argued
mathematically that this implies that gravity is increasing the
speed ofthe bob by equal amounts in equal times, the discovery
of the acceleration of the earth"s gravity.
When some Dutchmen discovered the telescope, Galileo
quickly made a series of revolutionary discoveries in astronomy.
Then Kepler (1571-1630) formulated his laws of planetary
motion, demonstrating that their orbits are elliptical. To account
for the force acting on the planets governing their motion,
Kepler chose magnetism. 1t was Newton (1642-1727), several
years later, who was to introduce the concept of universal
gravitation. His idea was that there is a single universal force,
the force of gravity. Gravity acts between all elements of matter
in proportion to the product of their masses and in inverse
proportion to the square of the distance between them. This
relationship introduces the Constant of Gravitation G, a
universal constant, verified as such by Newton by comparisons
made for three systems:
(ii) The actions between the sun and a planet, treated mathe-
matically as two point bodies with the planet moving in
an elliptical orbit about the sun as focus,
* Quoted from .S'<~i¢'/it-i' Pm! um! I’/vrmr. hv. F. Sherwood Ta 5 '1or, Hcincmann,
London, 1945, p. 82.
DISCOVERING GRAVITATION 17
(vb) The actions between the moon and the earth, as two finite
spheres, and
(0) The actions between the earth and a small body close to
its surface, treated as a point body close to a large sphere.
Newton had to apply then-complex mathematical principles to

verify his law forthe general case, and his la\vofgravitation stands
as one of the cardinal achievements in the history of science.
Although Newton succeeded in relating the various effects
and associating them all with one phenomenon, he did not
explain the nature of this phenomenon. Newton did not claim
to understand the origins of the force of gravity. He studied
its effects on the motions of bodies. His discovery was the
Constant of Gravitation G and its universal character, but he
could not understand why G was a constant, nor. indeed, could
he evaluate G in his time. lts evaluation depended upon know-
ledge of both of the interacting mass quantities. Astronomical
masses could not be measured. They are estimated today from
our knowledge of G.
G was estimated in about 1740 by the mountain measurements
of Bouguer. 1n the experiment the deflection of a plumb-line
from the vertical due to the side-ways gravitational attraction of
the mountain was observed. The difficulty was to evaluate the
size and density of the mountain. Later, in 1797-8, Cavendish,
using the torsion balance, was able to measure the force of
attraction between two small bodies in the laboratory and there-
by determine G.
Still the nature of the force of gravity was not understood.
Then in 1836 Mossotti proposed a theory of sotne interest. He
suggested that there existed electrical charge which was mutually
repulsive and that mass was also mutually repulsive. Further,
mass and charge had an aflinity for one another. This attraction
etiect between mass and charge was assumed to be somewhat
greater than the repulsive force. giving an overall attraction
which represented gravity. Weber and Zollner later developed
this idea. They regarded molecules of mass as associations of
positive and negative electricity and imposed the condition that
the force of attraction between charge of opposite polarity
is somewhat greater than the force of repulsion between charge
of like polarity.
Such was the speculative state of man’s understanding of
gravitation, when things began to go wrong with the basic
law of gravity. The cosmos was withholding its secrets and the
laws governing the motions of heavenly bodies evidently had
some finer points which needed examining. This we will come
to presently in Chapter 6 when we discuss Einstein’s theory of
gravitation. For the moment, it is appropriate for us to take
stock of how physical science had really been developing since
the end of the sixteenth century. Gravitation had captured the
scene in the astronomical field, but essentially there are three
other important scientific topics to follow in our quest to under-
stand cosmology. The unseen aether medium is one of prime
importance. The development of electrical science is probably
even more important than the progress in mechanical science.
Then there is the question of the source of energy sustaining the
universe. Besides these, gravitation is merely a secondary issue,
and not a foundation on which to build an understanding of the
physical nature of the cosmos.
Descartes (1596-1650) published in 1644 his Principles of
Plzi/0.r0p/zy, which contained his expositions on mechanics,
on what he termed the ‘visible world‘, and also the subject ‘of
the Earth‘. Descartes advocated belief in an aether medium
of which all parts are in motion. He envisaged a plenum com-
posed of eddies, whirlpools or any kind of turbulent motion.
Gravitation was attributed to some special substance which
entered a body and had the property of seeking to reach the
centre of the earth. The sun‘s energy source posed a more
difiicult problem. He likened the sun to a flame but could not
understand how the sun was sustained in the absence of sur-
rounding air and a source of fuel. At the end of the 22nd section
of part 3 of his work he writes:
We do not see that the sun is dissipated by the surrounding sub-

stance; this is why we have no way ofjudging whether it needs
sustenance like the flame; and at all times I hope 1 may come to see
in the future that it is still similar in that constantly material enters it
in one form and leaves it in another form.
Given an aether medium one might wonder why Descartes
could not have looked to this for his source of solar energy.
This would have raised the difficulty that all astronomical bodies
might need to be fiery infernos as well, but answers to this dithe-
ulty may be there to be found if one accepts the aether medium.
Naturally, ideas about the aether were based on mechanical
analogies. Electricity, as the really fundamental property.
could not be countenanced. With the development of Newtonian
mechanics there was scope to analyse models of the aether
medium. The progress made in understanding optical phenom-
ena and the properties of solid and fluid substances was such
that the mechanical aether was to the fore. Therefore, as
electrical science developed and particularly as magnetic pheno-
mena were discovered, it seems that every effort was made to
explain the aether's electrical phenomena in terms ofmechanics.
At the end of the nineteenth century the concept of mass
stood alongside the concept of electric charge. They were used
jointly in explaining physical phenomena. The idea of Weber
and Zollner about the uneven interactions of charge and mass
as an account of gravitation is typical of this intermixing of
properties to explain fundamentals. Rather than explaining
gravitation, it would be more direct to explain mass itself in
terms of electric charge. Alternatively, the object should have
been to explain electric charge in terms of mass properties.
However, not knowing what either is in terms of the other, and
not knowing what gravitation is either, the undaunted physicist
goes on in his attempts to relate phenomena. He runs the risk
of explaining a cause in terms of its effect rather than solving
his problems the right way around. But to achieve any logical
relation is progress. This brings us to the work of Helmholtz,
who took note of the fact that gravitation itself could be a
source of energy. He propounded the theory that the contraction
of matter forming the sun releases energy and is the source of
the sun’s heat. This idea has now captured the imagination of the
astrophysicist. lt has taken on a different form in the concept
of ‘gravitational collapse’ and leads to the fantasies of ‘black
holes’ in space. We will come to this later. In the meantime,
we examine the beginnings on which this concept is founded.
20 MODERN‘ AFTHIZR SCIENCE
At this stage. the writer interjects the thought that at a time
when the aether was accepted by physicists the logical energy
source was the aether itself. Otherwise, we merely assume the
existence of matter, derive energy from its coalescence, and are
left with the ultimate problem of still explaining the origins of
matter and the energy needed to set it apart in the first place.
Also. it is appropriate to interject another observation
addressed to those readers who remain sceptical about the aether
medium and treasure their thoughts about four-dimensional
space. The point concerns the stability of motion under New-
ton‘s law of gravitation. I quote from the work of a science
historian:*
Laplace (1749-1827) was the supreme mathematician of Newton’s
planetary theory. The greatest single missing link---and a great one
it was-~which he supplied in Newton's work was his partial proof
that the system would be a stable one; but it was his prodigious
power in dealing with both the detail and the general features of the
subject which gave him his characteristic place in scientilic history.
Laplace died I00 years after Newton. Newton‘s theory, it
seems, needed confirmation on a point of stability and it took
so long a time before someone realized and resolved the difficulty.
Now, one may wonder whether anyone has bothered to check
the stability of the near-elliptical orbits of the planets in
Einstein's four-dimensional space using Einstein’s modification
of Newton's law of gravitation. The passage of time since the
inception of Einsteins Theory is no warranty that this point
has been checked. On the contrary, one can begin to wonder all
the more on reading the following:
Have you ever wondered why ordinary space is three-dimensional?
Although this may seem to be a ludicrous question, it has been the
subject of considerable thought by scientists and philosophers since
the time of Aristotle. . . . However, you do not need to worry that
space has been five dimensions without you knowing because general
physical arguments have revealed that three is the only combination
that works.
Dr. Ira Freeman has reeapitulated the reasoning in a translation of
W. Buchefs article ‘Warum hat der Raum drei Dimensionen?’
* Sr-ii'nr"<> .S‘i/icu I500, by T. Pledge. H.M. Stationery Otliee, London, 1939, p. 71.
DISCOVERING GRAVIT/\'l’l(,)N Zl
(American Journal of P/iysics, Vol. 37, p. l222). Dimensions larger

than three can be discounted if we accept that the gravitational force
varies as the inverse square of the distance between two masses. This
law, originally derived by Newton, will only allow for stable elliptical
planetary orbits if spatial dimensions are three or less.*
It is difficult to imagine ho\v Relativity’s very small change in
the law of gravitation from the form postulated by Newton
could permit the remarkable step of introducing a new fourth
space dimension. Perhaps a Laplace is needed to rescue Relativ-
ity.
Laplace proposed a nebular hypothesis in 1796. Quoting
from a 1835 edition of his work:
. . . the atmosphere ofthe Sun originally extended beyond the orbits
of all the planets, and . . . it has gradually contracted itself to its
present limits.'l'
Laplace was, of course, concerned with the formation of the
planets, but that is not our immediate interest here. lt is the
application of Laplace‘s idea by Helmholtz which is of concern.
Helmholtz’s work dates from 1854:
When the nebulous chaos first separated itself from other fixed star
masses . . . an immense dower was bestowed in the shape of the
general attraction of all the particles for each other. The force, which
on the earth exerts itself as gravity, acts in the heavenly spaces as
gravitation. As terrestrial gravity when it draws a weight downwards
performs work and generates kinetic energy so also the heavenly
bodies do the same when they draw two portions of matter from
distant regions of space towards each other. . . . When, through con-
densation of the masses, their particles came into collision and clung
to each other, the kinetic energy of their motion would be thereby
annihilated, and must reappear as heat. . . . Calculations show that,
assuming the thermal capacity of the sun to be the same as that of
water, the temperature might be raised to 28.000.000 of degrees, if
this quantity of heat could ever have been present in the sun at one
time. This cannot be assumed, for such an increase of temperature
would offer the greatest hindrance to condensation. lt is probable
rather that a great part of this heat, which was produced by con-
densation, began to radiate into space before the condensation was
complete. But the heat which the sun could have previously developed
* New Scientist, February I9, 1970, p. 343.
Quoted from S('ieri<'v Pris"! uml Prrnre/1/. by F. Sherwood Taylor. lleinemann,
London, I945, p. 195.
22 MODERN Al-QTHER SCIENCE
by its condensation, would have been sufficient to cover its present
expenditure for not less than 22,000,000 of years of the past.*
We well know. today, that the earth is older than this by a

factor measured in hundreds. Hence, Helmholtz’s theory has
no place in modern opinion. One may, nevertheless, wonder
what Descartes’ whirlpools in the aether would make of the
chaos of all this energy coming together to form the sun. Might,
perhaps, the aether contrive to form itself into a rotating unit,
a whirlpool, co-extensive with the form of the sun and absorb
some of the energy released by the gravitational compaction of
matter‘?
The Constant of Gravitation has only been measured on this
our earth. Newton has shown it to be a universal constant in this
our solar system. We assume that the self-same value of the
constant applies throughout the universe. We make this assump-
tion even though it leads us to believe that some stars are so
dense that tons per cubic inch are inadequate units for con-
venient expression. ln the solar system we are dealing with
bodies whose densities fall within the densities of the substances
used by Cavendish in his experiment to measure G. What if G
is different when the density becomes really high? Then, our
ideas about the white dwarf stars. for example, will need drastic
revision. We do not know exactly what gravitation is and so we
assume G to be a universal constant throughout the whole
universe and apply it to all matter concentrations however
dense. With a very dense star we are then led to realize a
problem. As the energy of the star is spent by radiation it will
eventually have to cool down. Then its matter must regain a
more normal density because the temperature will have origin-
ally stripped electrons from its atoms and permitted the tight
compaction and the recovery process must lead to its physical
expansion. As Eddington puts the problem:
An intolerable situation~the star could not stop losing heat, but it
would have insufiicient energy to be able to cool down!T
* Quoted from Sr'it'nct' Parr um! I’rcru/1/, by F. Sherwood Taylor, Heinemann,
London, 1945, p. I96.
i‘ T/it’ .\'ul1m' v/'//iv l’/ivvi'<-u/ llhr/i/_ by .~\_ S. lddington, ('ambridge University
Press, 192», p. 304.
Work has to be done against the force of gravity in the ex-
pansion process. It does seem so absurd that a star could find
itself in such a plight. Eddington said that the answer to the
difiiculty came from the development of new statistical mech-
anics. Another answer could be that the ever-present aether,
being an energy source itself, helps the star out of its difiiculty.
If there is an aether it seems likely that it will play a role in
communicating gravitational force. Force is measured in terms
of an energy gradient. lf there is no energy available, then there
can be no energy gradient and so no force. Gravitation is not
guaranteed by Newton‘s law. lf gravitation is a secondary
property of the aether medium, the lack of energy will rule out
the action of any force. The star will expand and the aether will
react to assert gravitation, drawing upon whatever energy sources
it has available to feed the energy requirements.
This may lead us to the thought that changes in the gravita-
tional compaction of matter and the deployment of the energy
involving the prospective aether may occur with earthquakes.
With the overall compaction of a large body of stellar dimen-
sions the energy density may become so great that the aether
may be able to absorb the energy. For the earth, however, we
may expect not so much an energy exchange, but an angular
momentum exchange. Conservation of angular momentum is a
consequence of a central law of force such as Newton’s Law
of Gravitation. Thus if the effect of the earthquake is to decrease
the effective radius ofthe earth and reduce its moment ofinertia,
the earth will begin to rotate faster. lf the earth is permeated by
an aether medium which rotates at the same angular velocity,
then this too will rotate faster.
This chapter has not taken us much further in our quest. It has
served its purpose in bringing us to wonder whether gravitation-
al potential energy has an exchange relationship of some kind
with energy stored in the aether medium and possibly with
energy associated with aether rotation.
This idea will be turned to good account in the next two chap-
ters.
4
The Lodestone
A true understanding of Nature can only come from the correct
interpretation of reliable facts. Experimental science is the
source of an ever-increasing number of facts, more or less
reliable, depending upon the degree of success of the experiment
and the assumptions implicit in the technique or the analysis
of the results. We have a vast amount of data but progress
towards certainty is still rather slow. One would think, how-
ever, that in modern times we can depend less upon imagination
and hypothesis than did our forebears. We should be living in an
age of empirical certainty coupled with a clear insight into the
reasons for Nature's mysteries as presented by Nature herself.
We should have real confidence in the certainty of our know-
ledge if we are to feel proud masters of mysteries of our physical
environment when we look back to the amusing ignorance of the
philosophers of the past. Unfortunately this is not true. Anyone
looking at physics as an outsider would think that everything
had been revealed to the discerning scientist of today. It is so
complex and it is founded upon careful research and enquiry
by so many workers all over the world. It must be founded well
and present a truthful picture of the inner workings of Nature.
Yet it does not. Nor do we see an elimination of hypothesis and
an account logically founded on factual beginnings. Sometimes
one cannot trace the facts which the mathematics are supposed
to be explaining. Most published accounts of the physical
features of Nature, except, of course, the elementary texts for
the school reader, tell their story as if the universe would not
exist were it not for certain hypotheses such as the Uncertainty
Principle of Heisenberg, the Exclusion Principle of Pauli and the
Principle of Relativity of Einstein. Hypothesis and theory
dominate all the experimental data. Is it really so different from
THE LODESTONE 25
four centuries ago? Man's ego is such that he has to explain his
knowledge with conviction. He is reluctant to appear weak and
insecure, even when he is trying to develop interest in that vast
environment in which we all exist and which will, as a matter
of mere logic, never yield to complete understanding by mere
mankind.
ln this book we are treading our path confident only that
there is uncertainty about many if not all ofour current scientific
beliefs. We stand ready to change our minds, and if someone
expresses certainty we will question. How otherwise can we be
any more knowledgeable than Aristotle‘? If we superimpose our
imagined convictions upon our quest to understand Nature,
we will have theorized about ourselves, rather than about
Nature alone. l believe that there is an aether. l cannot be certain
but l can show stronger reason for believing in the aether than
is afforded to the contrary by the counter-arguments in the
literature. l want to understand the portrayals of Nature
found in so many textbooks, but l am unhappy about their
foundations. They do not seem strong enough to support the
grand edifice built upon them. What is mass ‘P What is gravity ‘P
Why are all electrons alike‘? Why does light travel at a definite
speed? What is magnetism‘? If you appeal to a principle, have
you explained anything until you eventually explain the principle
itself‘? We know so much more today, but relate our know-
ledge in such a complicated way that one wonders if we really
understand any better.
Comparisons to judge man‘s progress in his intrinsic ability
to understand cannot be made by measuring our knowledge of
new experimental facts. Effective comparison can only be made
from a consideration of the progress of our knowledge in
understanding the results of the earliest scientific experiments.
It was towards the end ofthe sixteenth century that experimental
science began to develop as an accepted method of enquiry.
Much credit in this pioneer effort must go to William Gilbert
(1540-1603), who devoted his life to the study of the properties
of the magnet. His treatise De Magneto was published in 1600.
Gilbert’s contemporaries well knew of the magnetic properties
of the mineral iron oxide, called by the name lodestone. The
C
concept of poles and their properties of mutual attraction or
repulsion were also known. The tendency of the lodestone to set
itself in a preferred North—South direction was one of Nature’s
recognized mysteries usefully applied in compasses for naviga-
tion. Hypothesis had it that the lodestone tended to align itself
with some northerly star or that it was magnetically attracted
to point towards a large lodestone mountain in Arctic regions.
Experimental verification of such hypotheses was not an easy
task for Gilbert to undertake. He did contrive an experiment
to verify his own hypothesis that the earth was a very large
magnet and that this could account for the observed behaviour of
the compass. Using a lathe, he machined a sphere of lodestone
and by using tiny magnets at different positions on its surface
he demonstrated that the orientations of the compasses, includ-
ing their angles of dip, were analogous to the behaviour of
compasses reacting to the earth.
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 appar-
ently need any other explanation, even though there is no
reasonably certain quantitative verification of the theory.
The physicist constantly discovers new experimental facts.
The sun is also a magnet. Its magnetism can be measured by
examining the spectrum of solar radiation. But there is a prob-
lem here. The sun’s magnetism is changing and it appears that
it may reverse cyclically over a period of years. Indeed, evidence
has been afforded by some stars showing that their magnetic
poles exchange positions every few days. Even the earth is now
believed to reverse its magnetism every million years or so.
Writing about the rapid reversals of the stellar magnetic fields,
S. K. Runcorn said in The Times (London) of April 26, 1965:
This is one of the most stimulating challenges of cosmic magnetism.
THE LODESTONE 27
This is no understatement. The star itself, contrary to ob-
servation, would have to change its direction of rotation for the
existing theory to explain the magnetic reversals. We cannot
then assert any reasonably confident knowledge of the nature of
cosmic magnetic properties. Certainly, we must doubt the
current theory of the earth‘s magnetism.
Even the nature of the intrinsic ferromagnetism of the lode-
stone has remained one of the cardinal problems of theoretical
physics. There are so many alternative physical models side-
by-side in modern texts on magnetism, all purporting to explain
the same phenomenon, that no one can assert that we truly
understand today the fundamental magnetic nature of the
lodestone. Curious though it is, the earliest discoveries~light-
ning, magnetism. gravitation—are the ones which present the
greatest problems, no doubt because they are so fundamental.
There is really nothing sacrosanct about the physicist’s
present interpretation of Nature. We are all free to think things
out for ourselves and we can explore our own ideas without being
obliged to conform to the pattern already set by others. If we
are to fathom the basic structure of Nature we cannot be timid
in the approach we take. Let us explore here a hypothesis of
our own, boldly forging a link between gravitation and magnet-
ism. Take the idea of Weber and Zollner already presented and
develop it one step further. If gravitation were attributable to a
greater force of electrostatic attraction between charge than of
repulsion, then possibly charge of different polarity may dis-
play a similar inequality in producing a magnetic field. For
example, suppose that a small fixed proportion of all positive
charge, say, is ineffective in producing any mutual repulsion
with its counterpart in other positive charge and that it is
ineffective in inducing magnetism as well. Then, given the mass
of any element of neutral material, we can associate with it a
virtual negative charge, in electrostatic units, given by its mass
in grams multiplied by the square root of the Constant of
Gravitation G. This follows from the comparison of Coulomb’s
law of electrostatic interaction and Newton‘s law of gravitation.
If any body of material is rotated it then follows that it will
induce magnetism as if this virtual negative charge were set in
7
2b M()Dl.Rl\' AI-ITHl:R S(‘lIiN(‘lT
rotation. Analysis shows that for any such body the ratio ofthe
magnetic moment as expressed in electrostatic units to the
angular momentum is simply one half of the square root of G.
Hence our hypothesis has something to predict, both quali-
tatively and quantitatively. lt can be tested.
In fact, something very similar to this hypothesis emerged
historically and from empirical study, as the subject developed
over the years. Schuster (I912) and Wilson (1923) have shown
that the magnetic moments and angular momenta of the sun
and earth are approximately related by a common ratio. This
led to the hypothesis, the so-called Schuster-Wilson hypothesis,
that a fundamental property exists which causes any rotating
body to have a magnetic moment. A particularly significant
result emerged from the quantitative aspects of the hypothesis.
It was shown by Wilson that the right order of magnitude for the
magnetic fields of the earth and the sun 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. It was then realized that the possibly coinci-
dental result of the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis might develop
the long-sought link between magnetism and gravitation.
Wilson carried out laboratory experiments. He made magnetic
tests on a large swinging iron bar. The magnetic field predicted
by using the hypothesis did not exist. The hypothesis stood
refuted. Then. two decades later, there was a revival of interest.
Babcock (1947) succeeded in measuring the magnetic field of the
star 78 Virginis. lt now became possible to apply the hypothesis
to three bodies instead of two. Coincidental results might stem
from a comparison between two astronomical bodies. Co-
incidence was unlikely ifthe hypothesis worked on the only three
large bodies for which the parameters being compared had been
measured. The hypothesis was verified. It was fully applicable
to them all, notwithstanding the fact that angular momentum
involved in the comparison was for the star l0,000,000,000
times greater than for the earth. Blackett (1947) was quick to
draw this to attention.* Seemingly, if we accept Wilson’s
experiment. there is something special about large bodies. Their
* .\‘nIn/'4’, \'o|. I5‘), pp. (153416.
THE I.()Dl-lSTONE 29
ability to induce magnetic fields seems different from that of
simple iron bars. Blackett then set about the task of carrying
out a much more sophisticated experiment to check the hypo-
thesis in the laboratory. Meanwhile, in this period, unsettling
anomalies were being discovered. For example, Babcock (1948),
Thiessen (I949) and Von Kluber (I95 I) were discovering that the
solar magnetic field varies. Changing magnetic moment is not
consistent with the hypothesis. Blackett (l952) made tests on a
large gold cylinder fixed in position in a remote test location.
It rotated with the earth. lt was of very dense material and, by
the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis, this concentration of mass
rotating slowly with the earth should be the seat of a magnetic
moment. Very delicate and extremely sensitive magnetometer
measurements were made. The remote location minimized any
ambient interference from noise and vibration or other inan-
made causes. The instrument was sensitive enough to detect
the proverbial needle in a haystack, even at a distance measured
in hundreds of yards. But, there was no evidence substantiating
the hypothesis. The gold body exhibited no magnetic effects
attributable to its rotation with the earth. The hypothesis
again stood refuted.
Furthermore, Runcorn and others (1950 and 1951) made
measurements on the variation of the earth‘s magnetic field over
a range of depths below the earth’s surface and were able to
analyse the shape of the earth‘s field. The magnetism which
would arise if the implications of the Schuster-Wilson hypo-
thesis are given meaning has a different field form to that which
arises merely if there is, in effect, a large magnet at the centre
of the earth.
The principal and clear distinction to be drawn between
these two concepts is that for one the horizontal component of
the geomagnetic field should increase with increasing depth
below the earth’s surface, whereas for the other this component
should decrease with increasing depth. The result found experi-
mentally went against the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis. lt is
refuted and it stands refuted. So our own version of the hypo-
thesis is short-lived. We are left with the inevitable challenge
of still finding the real answer.
A little reflection here might help. Had the hypothesis been
verified, what would that have really told us? Would we not
then have confronted just another problem, one still more
elusive? What is virtual charge? Why should there be the non-
symmetrical behaviour of charge of opposite polarity? Surely,
it is just as well that the hypothesis failed. Nature should be
simple and never non-symmetrical in its endowment of proper-
ties to electric charge of different polarities. We should not
invent a pattern of scientific behaviour and expect Nature to
conform. We should perceive Nature’s own pattern. Our
examination of Nature's phenomena will lead us to the answer.
The clues to this great mystery are there if only we can see them.
Yet, as I write this, l am mindful of a private communication
I have just received from a young French scientist presently in
North America. Edouard Rocher‘s thesis is that space—time
has a metric composed of two four-dimensional systems inter-
acting in conjunction with an operator j, the symbol for the
square root of minus one, as used by the electrical theorist. It
symbolizes the act of half-reversing a vector, that is a phase
change through a right angle. By using it in conjunction with
field theory one can make attractive interactions repulsive and
vice versa. Rocher's eight-dimensional universe is his starting
point in an attempt to relate gravitation and magnetism, and
he takes encouragement from the Schuster—Wilson hypothesis,
notwithstanding its rejection. Rocher’s ideas may gain strength
if Einstein’s principles survive, but I believe they will collapse
alongside Einstein's. Nevertheless, Rocher is undaunted by the
rejection of the hypothesis under study. Therefore, let us keep
it in mind as we now look for the signs Nature is presenting to us
to help us in our quest.
Let us go back in time to that period following Benjamin
Franklin’s discovery of the electrical nature of lightning.
Some years thereafter, in 1774, Joseph Priestley (1733-1804)
wrote:
There is nothing in the history of philosophy more striking than the
rapid progress of electricity. Nothing ever appeared more trifling
than the first effects which were observed of this agent in nature, as
the attraction and repulsion of straws and other light substances. It
rm: LODESTONE 31
excited more attention by the flashes of light which it exhibited. We
were more seriously alarmed at the electrical shock, and the effects of
the electrical battery; and we were astonished to the highest degree by
the discovery of the similarity of electricity with lightning, and the
aurora borealis, with the connection it seems to have with water-
spouts, hurricanes, and earthquakes, and also with the part that is
probably assigned to it in the system of vegetation, and other the
most important processes in nature?“
As already noted, we read in Nature in 1970 that the light-
ning accompanying earthquakes is difficult to explain. There
seems no link between the two phenomena, and yet the relation
has been a feature demonstrated, it seems, for so long and
commented on in records two centuries ago. What is the use of
theories, such as Einsteins, when we cannot explain those
powers of destruction commanded by Nature and called light-
ning and earthquakes. Surely, we can explain each of them, but
it seems that something is lacking if there is a definite link
which we cannot explain. What does Einstein have to say about
lightning‘? He docs not explain lightning at all. Franklin did
that! To Einstein, lightning is merely a flash of light which is
signalled at the speed of light. He uses lightning to explain his
concept of time, in his discussion of what is and what is not
simultaneous.T Given two flashes of lightning Einstein argues
that they are simultaneous only if they are seen simultaneously
by the observer. Yet, his argument is based upon the acceptance
that it takes time for their light to travel to the observer at a
finite speed. Therefore, the observer may see them simultaneous-
ly and know that they are not simultaneous. The observer may
then well wonder why his time measure has to be modified to
suit Einstein. Do we really live in a world of makebelief‘?
Time is one ofthe most basic sense references we have for under-
standing our environment and as a basic reference its constancy
ought really to be taken as ‘timeless’. It is so fundamental. We
will proceed on this conviction. We will see whether we can
come to understand more about phenomena such as lightning,
on this foundation, rather than following Einstein and bringing
* Quoted from S('i(’II(‘(’ Pm! am] PI‘('\'(’IIf, by F. Sherwood Taylor, Heinemann,
London, I945, p. 129.
R0/aIii"i/_i', by A. Einstein, Crown Publishers, New York, l96l, p. 25.
lightning and other such physical experiences into account to
explain variations in the measure oftime while yet not explaining
the nature of time.
Nordenson (l969)* is highly critical of Einstein"s ideas on
simultaneity. He writes:
According to this declaration the concept of simultaneity does not
exist a pr/'0/'1'. lt is only by performing certain physical experiments
that the concept achieves any sense. This is a most remarkable philo-
sophical proclamation in any context.
However open-minded we are, surely we must believe that an
instant in time is universal. No apparition can shatter such
belief. It is necessary if only as a matter of definition. If we
appeal to definition we can, l suppose. adopt Einstein’s definition
instead. But why complicate things‘? Use the natural sense
conception oftime. lt must be right and Nature must be capable
of more straightforward interpretation if we stay with this
notion. lf, after checking the synchronous running of my wrist-
watch against a clock in my house, I went away on a one-day
trip and returned to find these chronometers disagreeing by
one hour, and could trace this to no normal cause, I would still
believe simultaneity had meaning divorced from signal propaga-
tion considerations. Time is fundamental. The chronometers
may behave in a queer fashion, evidencing some interesting
physical phenomenon, which hopefully would yield to eventual
explanation. But if time has to be redefined to provide an ex-
planation one might as well take, as scientific, observations
made in one’s dreams. To resort to abstract thinking merely to
satisfy one‘s ego that one can find explanation for Nature’s
elusive behaviour and then to project such ideas is to render
science a disservice. lt is the universality of time, the sharing of
the succession of instants in time by mankind which constitutes
the related existence about which man can usefully philosophize.
Time has to be fundamental.
Adherents to Einstein’s theory talk of ‘time dilation’. Some
elementary particles are unstable. They have a finite lifetime
before they decay into something else. Like man, they die after
* Rvlrilii-1'!,i' Time um! Rm/II)‘, by ll. Nordenson, Allen and Unwin, London,
I969, p. 45.
THE LODESTONE 33
their due lifespan. Experiment shows that the faster they travel,
the longer their expectancy of life. They do not share man’s
experience in this regard. Scientists attribute this increased
lifetime to Einstein’s ‘time dilation’. In a frame of reference
moving faster than ours time passes more quickly—or is it
more slowly? Then again, how fast are we moving in space?
No, it is the relative velocity which counts, and it is better not to
try to explain this in words. Mathematics can extricate us from
the confusion. Or do mathematics really obscure the problem?
The increase in stability with speed might have been explained
before the days of Relativity had the observation been presented.
Perhaps the elementary particle, being electrically charged and
having all its charge elements mutually repelling according to
statistical energy considerations, would find that at speed it has
a mutual magnetic attraction between its charge elements which
offsets the repulsion and delays the likelihood of disruption
to a degree depending upon speed. The experiment supports the
idea of time dilation, to be sure, if one merely seeks a meta-
physical explanation, but the physicist ought really to look first
for a truly physical explanation before abandoning his cause.
Time is measured by the pendulum because, thanks to gravity,
the pendulum has the property of relating displaced mass with a
restoring force proportional to displacement distance, and
because mass, force and distance are appropriately related by the
time parameter. Time may be measured by a spring controlled
device in which the restoring force is linearly related with dis-
placement by virtue of the elastic properties of the spring.
Clocks and watches are useful because they keep time and time
keeps constant itself. Since time and its constancy are inherent
to Nature as its prime universal property, Nature is not dis-
similar from the mechanism of the clock. Our unseen aether
medium, if this is the universal clock, has its own harmonious
oscillations. It must have a feature by which its distortion is
opposed by forces linearly proportional to displacement. If it
is a subtle electrical substance, we can imagine a negatively
charged system somehow swinging as a whole within a cancell-
ing positive charge. Ifthe unseen aether medium is a plenum of
electrical charge and there are, therefore, no voids, then the
motion is more likely to be a cyclic rotary motion, with the

whole system of negative charges rotating in harmony in balance
with the positive charge. Russell (l946)* tells us how the early
Greeks believed that there had to be a void as, otherwise, there
could be no motion. But Russell contests this by the words:
It will be seen that there was one point on which everybody so far
was agreed, namely that there could be no motion in a plenum. In
this, all alike were mistaken. There can be cyclic motion in a plenum,
provided it has always existed.
This is quoted not merely to support the argument that the
motion of charge in an electrical aether is likely to be cyclic,
but also to suggest that if we had to wait for Russell to correct
the thinking of the ancient Greeks, we cannot take as certain
the present state of rejection of aether ideas by the modern
cosmologists. Besides, the modern cosmologists are mere
disciples of great thinkers such as Einstein and Dirac, who have
both, in their own way, suggested the existence of an aether
having a universal harmonious motion. We will come to this
specifically later, when we also examine the ideas of a relatively
unknown French cosmologist, Véronnet. All three have pre-
sented the basis of the idea we are following here, but seem not
to have pursued the thought further.
The step forward we are taking is to examine how this aether
provides the universal time, and, if the reader has not forgotten,
how lightning and earthquakes have possible association.
Guided by the time requirement and the restoring force criteria,
we note that electric charge distributions are possible, by which
to explain the linear restoring force rate using Coulomb’s
law of electrostatic action. Furthermore, it works out that the
system of electric charge which satisfies this criterion, and
which is a plenum as well, happens to be the most simple kind
of electrical system imaginable. One merely has a uniform
continuum of positive charge in which discrete identical nega-
tive charges are arrayed in simple cubic formation. These
negative charges form a lattice which oscillates relative to the
positive continuum. Seemingly, we are immersed in speculation,
* Ilirmry of lVu.\"lr'rn P/if/use/1/1_i', by Bertrand Russell, Allen and Unwin,
London, l96l edition, p. St».
THE LODESTONE 35
but we are not lost with this idea, and it can now take us to a
new explanation of the earth’s magnetism.
All we have to ask is what happens if a large spherical section
of this universal aether medium has its own rotation. Remember,
time has to be universal in spite of rotation and our time measure
has to stay constant. In other words, the cyclic oscillations of
the system will retain their synchronism. Simple analysis
readily shows that the superimposed rotation will permit the
stable relative motion of the discrete negative charges provided
there is a small radial displacement of the mean position of the
charge. In effect, the rotation of the large sphere of aether
within surrounding aether will cause a radial electric field to be
established, as the sphere effectively acquires a uniform distribu-
tion of charge balanced by a shell of charge transferred to its
surface.
A mechanical analogy is seen if one imagines a boy standing
anywhere on a rotating turntable and swinging a weight at the
end of a spring around in a circle in a plane parallel with the
turntable. We presume an arrangement by which the spring
force is linearly proportional to the radius of this circle. The time
of rotation of this weight will not depend upon the speed of
rotation of the turntable, but the faster the turntable goes, the
more eccentric will the orbit of the weight become relative to
the end of the spring held by the boy. Time as measured by this
rotating weight will remain universal, but the disposition of
mass contained by the turntable system has changed. There has
been an outward displacement of mass from its centre if the
turntable rotates in the same direction as the weight in its orbit.
The first observation we make from this concept ofa rotation
of electrical aether is that a magnetic field should be established
which is attributable partly to a distributed charge and partly
to an opposing effect due to a charge at the outer surface of the
sphere. The magnetic field distribution for such a system will be
more like that of a magnetic dipole located at the centre of the
aether sphere. Hence the Runcorn mine experiments would
support rather than negate the theory for the earth’s magnetism
to be adduced from this. Secondly, the implication that the
magnetism of a body like the earth is due solely to the aether,
36 MODERN AETHIER SCIENCE
to a medium which is not affected in its concentration by the
density of matter, means that the gold cylinder tests of Blackett
would give a negative result, as was found. The magnetic
moment has become an aether property and, though the
Schuster—Wilson hypothesis is incorrect, some modification of
the hypothesis now looks feasible. Thirdly, there is charge dis-
placement if the aether changes its speed of rotation, as we
presume it would if the large astronomical body associated with
it were also to alter speed. Charge displacement is a flow of
current and could induce lightning. An alteration in speed of
rotation could come from a redeployment of the earth’s mass, as
in an earthquake. Hence, the possible linking of earthquakes
and lightning. All this comes from a willingness to recognize the
ever-present aether medium. lt is not a nothing that we see
only by following mere notions and principles. It is a reality we
perceive by taking note of Nature‘s own manifestations.
Of course, there is so much more to scientific theory than
might appear from this casual treatment. Nothing can be certain
about the conclusions just presented. Much more thought and
analysis are needed even to begin to have a viable theory. There
are still many problems to put on the list needing attention if we
are to take this effort seriously. One problem is that if the earth
developed a charge due to its rotation and sufficient to account
for the earth"s magnetic field, then the electric fields within the
earth would be so high that conduction effects would obliterate
them. This point was well recognized by Augenheister (l925).*
However, this is not a problem but a clue to the content of the
unseen aether medium. We know there is a magnetic field
associated with the earth’s rotation. We have been led to the
idea that the rotation of an aether enveloping the earth induces
this magnetic field. Consequently, we must look to this aether
to have properties which cancel the electric field set up by rota-
tion. If the cancellation does not affect the magnetic field, then
the charge giving the cancellation cannot be rotating with the
earth’s aether. It is a direct self-evident conclusion which we
have to accept. What does this mean? Simply, that there is free
charge beside that contained in the lattice system. Why should
* Augenheister, P/I_\‘.\‘_ Zeir., 26, p. 307, I925.
THE LODESTONE 37
there be such free charge? Well, the Earth moves linearly in
space as well as rotating on its own axis. It can hardly sweep
its aether through other aether and retain its harmony. There
would be all kinds of turbulence, drag and disturbance, not at
all consistent with the existence ofa medium which sets univer-
sal constants and puts order into the physical universe. No, the
sphere of positive aether continuum can rotate smoothly with the
earth, wherever the earth is located, but this charge cannot be
carried forward with the earth as it moves around the sun.
Consequently, the charge of the system of discrete negative
charges cannot do other than remain also effectively undis-
placed, save for rotation with the earth.
Now, since this system of negative charge tends to form into
a cubic array, what happens is that such an array is formed by
the vast majority of the discrete negative charges within the
earth’s aether but some very small proportion of them are free
and move in the direction opposite to the earth’s translational
motion. Thus the array itself can move forward with the earth
and, indeed, rotate with the earth, but the free charge does not
share this rotation with the earth. The result is the production
of a magnetic field but a compensation of the radial electric
field effects set up by the rotation of the aether enveloping the
earth. This compensation is possible because there will be a
uniform distribution of free charge within the earth as long as
the earth moves at a steady speed. The lattice displacement
develops a uniform displacement charge density determined by
its speed of rotation about its axis. There will also be charge
compensation at the boundaries of the aether because the total
bounded aether charge sums to zero and balance inside the
boundaries assures also a balance at the boundaries.
Nevertheless, should the angular speed of the earth change or
should its translational speed change, there will be transient
electrical field disturbances developed in the aether itself.
In earthquakes there is a rapid but small change in the angular
speed of the earth and an induction of lightning could well
occur as an aether phenomenon. Also, due to the ellipticity of
the earth’s orbit around the sun, we have a slow continuous
change in the earth's translational speed. This could well
explain other sporadic electrical disturbances in the earth’s
atmosphere.
What is being presented could also explain a concentrated
ionization effect at the spherical boundary of a rotating aether
sphere. The earth’s ionosphere may then evidence aether boun-
daries. Also, if the thunderball is, as suggested in Chapter 2,
nothing more than a rotating aether sphere, it would exhibit
similar ionization effects, explaining its glow. Presumably the
thunderball having little forward motion through the earth’s
aether and rotating at a very much higher speed could not
command any more free charge concentration than is available
in the earth‘s aether. Substantial ionization effects deriving
energy from the rotational inertia of the aether forming the
thunderball must then result.
In addition, the origins of the thunderball become easy to
explain. A lightning discharge will ionize the air and the dis-
charge current will be carried essentially by a filamentary core
of electrons subjected to an inward electromagnetic pinch
action. The positive ions, being relatively inert because of their
higher mass, will form a cylindrical plasma around this negatively
charged core. As a result there will be a radial electric field
developed about the axis of the lightning discharge. It seems
likely that the aether may be disturbed to react so as to oppose
this radial electric field. We have argued that rotating aether
develops a radial electric field provided, of course, the axis of
rotation is parallel to the axial direction about which the aether
charges are moving in their harmonious time-determining orbits.
Therefore, provided the lightning discharge has the right direc-
tion it may induce aether rotation which would outlive the dis-
charge itself and in some instances consolidate into a spherical
form optimizing its electric energy, to create the thunderball.
ls this outrageous speculation? Possibly it is. It seems rather
odd to predict that thunderballs formed from lightning dis-
charges will favour those flashes having a certain direction in
space. The earth's magnetism can be attributed to rotation of the
earth‘s aether about the preferred space direction. So we reach
the peculiar prediction that. roughly speaking, lightning dis-
charges parallel to the earth‘s axis will produce thunderballs and
THE LODESTONE 39
those at right-angles to the axis will not. Thus vertical lightning
to ground in equatorial regions will not induce the thunderball
phenomena. Horizontal lightning should produce thunderballs
in these regions but such lightning would be high in the atmos-
phere and the thunderballs would be dissipated before reaching
the ground.
In polar regions we have the inverse situation. Accordingly,
thunderballs should occur in thunderstorms in polar regions
where there happen to be few observers and thunderballs are
unlikely to occur in thunderstorms in equatorial regions where
there are many potential observers. It is no wonder then that the
existence of thunderballs has been doubted.
In mountainous regions midway between the equator and the
poles thunderballs should appear relatively prolifically because
of the higher incidence of ground flashes which can have the
optimum direction. But do we have any evidence?
Thunderballs are not just a ground phenomenon. Quoting
from Ritchie*
One large ball was observed to hang near the base of a cloud for
I5 minutes.
But more pertinent to the above analysis is the quotation
from Sir Basil Schonland’s book:T
There are no reliable reports of ball lightning from Africa, in spite of
the high frequency of occurrence of lightning to ground. The Ameri-
can meteorologist, Humphreys, has examined 280 specially collected
reports of ball lightning and found himself able to accept only two or
three at most as possible, but not necessarily authentic, fire-balls.
The residue of reports from the Alps, which alone must be taken
seriously, prompt one to enquire whether there are any circum-
stances peculiar to this region which could create such unusual effects.
We introduced this chapter by reference to the ferromagnetic
properties of the lodestone and have considered the earth’s
magnetism. The nature of ferromagnetism itself remains an
enigma in physical theory. Even the nature of magnetism is
problematic. What is apparent is the spontaneous tendency
possessed by a ferromagnetic material favouring the magnetic
* See footnote on page I0. if The Flight of Tlimiderbolrs, pp. 55 and 56.
state. It is as if some natural urge exists which ensures magnet-
ism unless accompanying constraints impose energy require-
ments which cannot be met. If the aether likes to adopt a
magnetic state and yields energy readily in adopting this state
we can imagine materials being ferromagnetic if only the strains
in them resulting from the condition do not require more elastic
energy than is available from magnetic sources. Similarly, the
aether itself might tend to be magnetized, as it can be if it
rotates. However, its own magnetic energy yielded thus will not.
it seems, sustain the other kinetic energy needed to permit
rotation. Rotation of aether, given a liberal source of energy,
can be expected. This now takes us to the problem of the
creation ofthe solar system, but we will return to ferromagnetism
in Chapter I2.
As a small addendum to this chapter reference is made to a
report in the December 24. I971, issue of Nature. At page 465
there is an analysis of experimental evidence showing that the
earth has a solid core. It is concluded that ‘solidity of the inner
core represents the only solution consistent with the observa-
tions'. Such a discovery invalidates the accepted theory of
geomagnetism and should enhance interest in the theory of an
aether-based geomagnetic field discussed above.
5
The Origin of the Solar System
Many treatises on physics present the same theories in the same
way and do not admit any of the weaknesses in the matter
which the student is thus required to accept. Seldom does one
see encouragement to compare the accepted theory with those
many theories which have neither become accepted nor have
really been rejected. We may read of the contributions of the
eminent physicists but we are not exposed to the many sound
ideas of those of lesser standing. If these lesser contributions
have been published they are there in the masses of scientific
literature to be found when we go searching. It has to be so,
but the modern textbook would have the reader believe that the
best has been sifted out and what is hidden is for the historian
rather than the forward thinker.
It is not unusual for a scientific theory to be developed over a
period of many years after its initial conception. The task is a
labour of love for the creator. Few physicists are ready to take
an incomplete theory and project it themselves. Thus, by the
nature of things there must be in the literature many sound ideas
which have been presented in their initial form only and which, for
some reason, their originator has been unable to develop in his
own remaining lifetime. There is no convincing physical explana-
tion of the creation of the solar system in any modern textbook.
The Bible is probably as authoritative as any account of the
subject. Therefore, there is all the more reason for exploring
the ideas of scientists of the past who had lesser standing than
those whose names appear in the textbooks.
In seeking to understand the origin of the solar system, we
will begin by extending some recognition to a French astronomer
named Véronnet. On December I6, 1929 the French Académie
des Sciences conferred the Henry Poincaré medal on Louis de
D
Broglie for his work on wave mechanics. On the same occasion
Alexandre Véronnet (astronome adjoint a l’Observatoire de
Strasbourg) was presented with the Prix Lalande for his works
in astronomy. Véronnet’s work is particularly interesting because
he did not turn away from the idea of the aether, and was ready
to call it into account in furthering his theories. He wrote
prolifically in C0/npres Rendus for several years but seems to
have had little published after the I929 period when he proposed
an electrical structure for the aether medium. His particular
concern was the question ofthe origins of the angular momenta
of stellar systems. Angular momentum is the key problem con-
fronting any theorist endeavouring to understand the creation
of the solar system.
We note here that one of the consequences of any central law
of force such as Coulomb's law of electrostatic interaction and
Newton’s law of gravitation is that if particles are in motion
subject only to their mutual action the sum of their moments of
rotation, termed angular momentum, is constant. The planets in
the solar system all travel around the sun in the same orbital
direction, which is also the direction in which the sun itself
rotates about its axis. Therefore, the solar system has quite
substantial angular momentum. One would expect that if the
planets were produced from substance ejected from the sun,
then the sun would rotate oppositely to the planets and their
angular momenta would compensate that of the sun, at least
partly if not exactly. The solar system has a net angular momen-
tum and it is an important cosmological question to know where
it came from.
There are really three primary aspects of the solar system
which need explanation. These are:
1. How was the sun itself created?
2. How did the sun acquire angular momentum?
3. What caused the formation of the planets?
Ideas on this are much as they were in 1929. In that year
Eddington’s book The Nature of the Physical World was
published. Here are some excerpts:*
* Published by Cambridge University Press, pp. 175-7.
THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 43
At least one star in three is double—a pair of self-luminous globes

both comparable in dimensions with the sun. . . We may probably
rule out the possibility of planets in double stars. . . . The most
obvious cause of division is excessive rotation. As the gaseous globe
contracts it spins faster and faster until a time may come when it can
no longer hold together, and some kind of relief must be found. . . .
We know of myriads of double stars and of only one planetary
system; but in any case it is beyond our power to detect other plane-
tary systems if they exist. We can only appeal to the results of theo-
retical study of rotating masses of gas; the work presents many com-
plications and the results may not be final; but the researches of Sir
J. H. Jeans lead to the conclusion that rotational break-up produces
a double star and never a system of planets. The solar system is not
the typical product of development of a star; it is not even a common
variety of development; it is a freak. By elimination of alternatives it
appears that a configuration resembling the solar system would only
be formed if at a certain stage of condensation an unusual accident
occurred. According to Jeans the accident was the close approach of
another star casually pursuing its way through space. . . . By tidal
distortion it raised big protuberances on the sun, and caused it to
spurt out filaments of matter which have condensed to form the
planets.
Eddington goes on to discuss how small the chances are of
this occurring. He says that perhaps not one in one hundred
million stars can have undergone this experience and then
argues that this makes Earth the privileged place in the universe
habited by mankind. He writes:
I do not think that the whole purpose of the Creation has been
staked on the one planet where we live; and in the long run we cannot
deem ourselves the only race that has been or will be gifted with the
mystery of consciousness. But I feel inclined to claim at the present
time our race is supreme; and not one of the profusion of stars in
their myriad clusters looks down on scenes comparable to those
which are passing beneath the rays of the sun.
Hence, we are told that the solar system is unique. Man on
earth has the privileged place in the universe today and life
as we know it cannot exist anywhere else in the whole of the
cosmos. Such are the questions at issue. Such are the answers if
we exist because of the chance close passage of another star.
At page 550 of the first semester issue of Compres Rendus in
I929, Véronnet presents a paper entitled: ‘On the origin of
planets and the formation of the earth’. On the origin of the
moment of rotation of the solar system he says:
Tous les auteurs de cosmogonie depuis Laplace ont pris ce moment
comme donne. Ils sont partis d’une nebuleuse qui tournait déja.
C’était supposer le probleme resolu.
Then he asserts a theorem according to which, the kinematic
moment of an isolated system, being invariable, the moment of
rotation of the solar system can only be explained by the per-
turbing action of exterior systems. External action of some kind
was the inevitable conclusion, whether in the form ofthe wander-
ing star or some other influence. The earlier ideas of Laplace
about the solar system being formed from the condensation ofa
swirling gaseous medium lacked something because we are left
to explain how this medium acquires its own angular momentum
in the first place.
Dauvillier* writing in I963 emphasized the same point. After
referring to the ideas of several contemporary writers he said:
Mais ces auteurs ont éludé l’une des principales diflicultés du prob-
leme, en se donnant, a l’avance, le moment orbital du systeme.
Considering all possible theories, there seemed no way of
avoiding the basic idea that the planets were formed by a stellar
approach. Dauvillier notes how Poincaré, Arrhenius and Jeans
all were aware of the very small likelihood of the stellar
approach. It seems that a stellar approach within the distance
of Mars is only likely in 1015 years, a chance which makes the
sun quasi-unique. Star collisions, the basis of rival theories,
seem even less likely. Several authors have used the notion ofthe
expanding universe to argue that collisions were much more
likely when the universe was more concentrated. The result is,
however, an impasse. There seems no satisfactory theory by which
to explain with some assurance the origins of our solar system.
Véronnet, in examining these questions appears to have
studied some of the dynamics of a dispersed medium. His
analysis led him to consider criteria of stability and appor-
tionment of energy in its different forms. At page 894 of the first
>l<
Les Hypotheses Cosmogoniques’, A. Dauvillier, Chapter 8, Collection
Erulu/ii>n der Srien<'e.~". Masson ct Cie., Paris. I963.
rm: ORIGIN or THE SOLAR SYSTEM 45
semester issue of Comptes Rendus he was writing about the
limited possibilities of forms of space, Euclidean, Riemann and
Cartesian. By page II43 he was commenting on the dynamics
of these spaces and dedtieing that the laws of physics have to
be expressed by tensors. Then, by page I380 he was presenting
an ‘Electronic Theory of Aether and Light‘. He sought to extend
electron theory to the aether with a view to explaining the aether,
not mechanically, but electrically. He spoke of an aether
composed of electrons or sub-electrons. which he called ‘ether-
ons’. He envisaged displacement against a restoring force
proportional to displacement, which we were led to in discussing
the universality of time. He pictures the ctherons moving in
synchronism. An electric field is their displacement; a magnetic
field their motion. He argues that these particles are in a tur-
bulent motion and that there is equipartition of energy and
conservation of moments. The common value of their moments
determines the Planck constant, which is also related to the
energy stored by these elements of the aether medium. In a
later paper at page I488 he goes on to say how he derives
Maxwell's laws and the law of Laplace. His ideas are essentially
the ones which we came to in Chapter 4. In the paper just
mentioned he writes:
Si notre charge électrique, un electron par exemple, se deplace, toutes
les particules d"ether environnantes décrivent des trajectoires
fermées, toutes en phase sur le mouvement de la charge. Ces tour-
billons des particules d'éther possedent chacun un moment mag-
nétique parfaitement defini par la surface décrite et la vitesse du
déplacement.
We have used such an aether to explain the earth’s magnetism,
but it seems that Veronnet saw the same model as an explanation
for magnetism generally. Hence we should be encouraged to
take our aether studies further. It is surprising that Véronnet
does not appear to have invoked this aether medium as the
external agency which could explain his problem of the angular
momentum of the solar system. It seems so obvious. Yet, that
is the way of things. We will embark upon this task here to see
whether the fundamental cosmological question about our
unique existence can be probed further.
We will start with the belief that the aether can be set in
rotation with an astronomical body, such as the sun, and that
this aether will then store angular momentum and absorb
kinetic energy. In the context of rotation both angular momen-
tum and energy can be exchanged with matter because the
rotary motion is superimposed on the motion of elements of
this aether. This difi"ers from the case where there is translational
motion of aether through surrounding aether. In this case the
kinetic energy and angular momentum of the aether itself is
merely redeployed and so there is no similar interaction between
aether and matter with translational motion.
Our aether is real and not at all like the aether which the
modern physicist occasionally mentions in a half-apologetic
way. We are not speaking ofthe aether Watson has in mind when
he writes :*
The aether is an imagined world of atomic connections between the
real things and processes that the physicist controls and observes.
Such an aether could hardly have played any role in the crea-
tion of our solar system. Our sun exists and did not come from
man"s imagination; it came before man.
When we come to ask how a star is created from an imagined
nothingness, the physicist is confronted with a problem. He has
no answer. But he can tell you how a star dies, assuming its
pre-existence. His theories enable him to speak about gravita-
tional collapse. The star goes suddenly into a never-ending
state of contraction. It shrinks in size into the tiniest point
imaginable and yet it retains much of its mass. It becomes a so-
called ‘black hole’, whatever that is. The physicist does not know
how a star gets its angular momentum when it is created, but
says he can work out that angular momentum can be dispersed.
Thus, when the star collapses he can investigate how it releases
its angular momentum. Silk and Wright (l969)T show that the
Newtonian angular momentum of a star is dissipated during
the final stages of collapse. Presumably, this dissipated angular
* Umlcrsramling PIi_v.ri'r.r Today, W. H. Watson, Cambridge University Press,
1967, p. 167.
T‘Gravitational Collapse of a Relativistic Star’, J. Silk and J. P. Wright,
Mon. N01‘. Roy. Asl. S00, l43, I969, p. 55.
momentum is transported away by the imagined aether. The

field medium we call the aether can transport energy and angular
momentum. If it can convey these away from a star surely it
can, by similar token, deliver them when the star is born, and
our theories should be adapted accordingly.
Ideally the solar system would have a total angular momen-
tum summing to zero. lfthis were the case we could be happy in
thinking that we do not live in a freak world. We could look
out at the millions of stars in the sky and feel reasonably con-
fident that many of them are solar systems like ours, possibly
having planets like the earth and, physics being universal,
people not too different from us. After all, physics leads us into
chemistry and so to biochemistry. If we assert that our ideal
self—contained solar system does exist we have to accept that
there is something in the solar system which has been ignored
in the angular momentum calculations. Newton’s laws of
mechanics work for complete systems, not partially complete
systems. There is rotating aether in the sun itself, and some, of
course, in each of the planets. But this is hypothesis and we seek
proof. Our task is not difficult, once having started with the
idea.
The stars may have condensed out of a uniform distribution
of dust-like substance or from a gas. Matter may be created
continuously throughout space, or may have been created once
when everything began. Matter may be being created from the
aether even today and the processes localized, say, at the sur-
faces of stars. None of this is of much concern provided we
accept the creation of matter which condenses to form stars,
thanks to the ever-present forces of gravitation. Given this
starting point, as propounded by the philosopher Kant who
proposed the accretion of cosmic dust, we are ready to explain
the solar system.
When this dust came together the gravitational energy
released by its compaction became available for deployment.
It did not all go into the thermal excitation of the substance.
Had it done so, the kinetic energy of the particles would have
been so high as to oppose the gravitational forces and the
system formed would have tended to remain a very dispersed
gaseous system. Instead, the aether, as we showed in Chapter 4,
is ever ready to rotate, and given a liberal source of energy,
does exactly that. The magnetic state favours rotation. There
has to be balance of angular momentum, and so a sphere of
aether rotates one way and a surrounding shell of aether rotates
the other way. For maximum acceptance of kinetic energy it
works out that the inner sphere and the outer shell must share
the kinetic energy equally. They must have equal and opposite
angular velocities. This is simple Newtonian dynamics. The
maximum kinetic energy condition is imposed by the recognition
ofminimum potential energy and the fact that one, gravitational
energy, is converting into the other. We assume that the inner
sphere of aether in rotation has an outer form co-extensive
with the matter which has condensed into a spherical form in
releasing its gravitational energy and rotates with it. This may
sound complicated but it leads directly to a very simple mathe-
matical relationship between the speed ofrotation, the Constant
of Gravitation, the mass density of the aether and the mass
density of the accreted matter, if the latter is assumed
uniform.
The mathematics are just a little more complicated if the
accreted matter remains gaseous. The physical size of the system
formed is not relevant to this relationship.
We know the density of the sun. It must have been about the
same before it ejected the planets, because it still contains nearly
99-9 3/; of the total mass in the solar system. We know the
Constant of Gravitation. If we know the density of the aether
we can then deduce the angular momentum which the matter
in the sun had when it was created. Conversely, since we do
know the total angular momentum ofthe solar system we can, by
accepting that this is that possessed by the matter form of the
sun when created, deduce the density of the aether. Such a
figure might seem to be useless except that the figure obtained
happens to check very nicely with a value deduced from other
considerations in a full analysis ofthe aether.* For our purposes
here, it is better not to invoke this aether density. An account
* P/i_r.ri'r.r wt"/[min E1‘/mm’/i. II. Aspden, Sabberton Publications, Southampton,
I969.
has been given showing that recognition of the aether medium

can explain the initial rotation of the sun when its gravitational
energy was absorbed by the aether. By taking the whole angular
momentum of the solar system and assuming that it was con-
centrated in the sun at the time of its creation we may show that
the sun probably rotated at one revolution every 12 hours.
Now, at the end of Chapter 2, it was argued that the rotation
of aether developed an electric charge displacement which
effectively developed a uniformly distributed charge within the
aether.
Ionization effects occur to cancel the resulting electric fields
but the fact remains that displacement or charge is a character-
istic of the rotating aether medium. The magnetic fields of
astronomical bodies afford an indication of the magnitude of
this displaced charge. The observations relating to the Schuster-
Wilson hypothesis mentioned in Chapter 4 tell us that the electric
charge for a body like the sun is roughly of the order of its
mass measured in gravitational units. Thus the sun would have
an electrostatic charge of the order of its mass of 2.1033 gm
multiplied by the square root of G. Since G is 6"66.lO—8, we
obtain a solar charge of about 52.10"” electrostatic units. Its
field is partially cancelled by ionization effects and partially by
free aether charge, of course, but the fact remains that an electric
charge of this magnitude is displaced in the sun to balance the
aether induction effects. For example, depending upon the
polarity we can imagine a concentration of protons in the body
of the sun and the grouping of the electrons they would norm-
ally pair with located at the surface ofthe sun.
Next, let us picture an occasional disruption on the sun which
is so energetic that it ejects vast quantities of charged particles
in the form we know as cosmic radiation, but the event contem-
plated is on a much more powerful scale. Heavy positive charges
and electrons will be ejected but probably a preponderance of
electrons because of the surplus electron form at the solar
surface. The sun is left with a positive charge for a period until
the electric and gravitational potential gradient can work on the
ejected particles to call them back.
The maximum possible residual charge from any such
disruption in the early life of the sun would be of the order of
52.1029 esu.
Now, following these occasional periods when the sun has its
residual charge we have a sun which is not stable. The highly
energetic ejected matter in the close vicinity of the sun will find
that a transiently stable state can develop by which this matter
rotates about the sun with the electrostatic restoring force being
in balance with centrifugal force. Collisions will be minimal for
plasma charge moving in the same sense.
This transiently stable atmosphere can accumulate angular
momentum from the sun during this process totalling to a value
of the order given by the relation
(solar charge)? 2 (angular momentum)2
(solar radius)2 (mass) (solar radius)3
This is merely the electrostatic attractive force set in balance
with centrifugal force corresponding to the angular momentum
of the related mass of the transiently stable atmosphere.
Now, this transiently stable state may be followed by a further
disruption. Although the ionized state of the atmosphere may
become less activated as electrons re-assert their more specific
positions to cancel the aether boundary charge, the atmosphere
may have by then acquired a much higher velocity than the
normal gravitational escape velocity. It will then be ejected from
the sun to move to an orbit position around the sun where it is
kept in balance by gravitation.
It follows then that the equation above tells us something
about the formation of the planets. For example, given the
initial solar charge of 52.1029 esu and the solar radius of
7.101° cm, we can relate the angular momentum and mass of
a planet ejected as a result of the maximum initial disturbance.
The quantity angular momentumz/mass would be 1-9.10"’.
The value ofthis quantity for Jupiter, the largest planet in the
solar system, is, in fact, l~95.l0’°.
It may seem remarkable that this result should come out so
well. It is all the more surprising to the author because the
electric charge induced in rotating aether should, according to
his theory, be dependent upon the angular velocity of rotation
THE ORIGIN or THE SOLAR SYSTEM 51
and the charge envisaged by the Schuster—Wilson hypothesis
does not take due account of the higher rotational speed when
the sun was formed.
However, it is important to note that if a charge could develop
in matter, in excess of that predicted by the above application
of the Schuster—Wilson hypothesis, the mutual repulsive effect
of the charge would have an action greater than the mutual
attractive effect of gravity. This assumes that the density of
matter is uniform. Clearly, then, the maximum effective charge
which can be developed to act in disrupting matter is that given
by the Schuster-Wilson notation and it is most enlightening
to see this operate to give with near exactitude the situation
in which we find Jupiter in our solar system.
Of course, we should not be misled by the numbers. The
angular momentum of the solar atmosphere during the tran-
siently stable period is not all effective in producing the
planetary motion. Not all of the motion is at the maximum
solar radius. At other positions of solar latitude the angular
momentum comes out somewhat higher in relation to the
solar electric charge. This is just as well because it seems
probable that the planets were created in pairs as atmospheric
bulges developed on opposite sides of the sun.
Thus we could expect Saturn to be formed with Jupiter.
Thereafter the sun would rotate at a much slower speed. Note
that Nature first determined the mass which would come to-
gether to form the sun. Then as this mass came together under
gravity there came a time when it was possible for the gravita-
tional energy to deploy to cause aether rotation. The basic sun
would continue forming in this way until it reached the physical
size governed by its gaseous state. In this condition it was little
different than it is today save that it rotated rapidly about once
every 12 hours. Then at some time thereafter it ejected Jupiter
and Saturn, accounting, as indicated above, for the maximum
angular momentum it could shed. This was followed at the
next eruption by the ejection of very nearly the rest of its angular
momentum in forming two planets Uranus and Neptune.
Note that in earth units the total angular momentum of the
solar system is about 1200. Jupiter accounts for 722 units and
Saturn for 293, leaving 185 units. Uranus at 64 and Neptune
at 94 took 158 units of the whole, leaving 27 units. Note that
just as Jupiter and Saturn are of similar physical size (about 10
times the diameter of the earth), Uranus and Neptune are also
of similar physical size (about 4 times the diameter of the
earth). Then it would seem that the sun, as a creator of planets,
was effectively a spent force. Earth and Venus were ejected
accounting for l unit and 0'7 respectively. Venus has a diameter
0'95 that of Earth. Pluto and Mars probably catne next and then
Mercury and the moon. Today the sun is left with some 23
earth angular momentum units. This does not take account
of the very small planets, the thousands of tiny planets of
relatively negligible angular momentum in the system known
as the asteroids. Estimations indicate that probably 50,000
such minor planets exist.
Enough has been said to show that the accepted problem
of the angular momentum of the solar system can be overcome
if only we recognize the existence of the aether. However, we
are left with the question of whether the small planets are being
created even today. The asteroids move generally in orbits
located between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Accordingly,
the angular momentum about the sun per unit mass is probably
about 1'5 times that of the earth for the average asteroid. Thus
at the solar surface the asteroid would form from an atmospheric
disturbance rotating at a frequency measured on a per year
basis as 1'5 times the square of the ratio of the earth’s orbital
radius and the sun’s radius. This is about 70,000 revolutions
per year or 8 revolutions per hour. We may therefore expect
some kind of solar pulsation at this frequency to be seen if the
sun is generating a new planet which will eventually be ejected
to add to the collection of asteroids. Then we may read from
the February 4, 1971 issue of New ScienI1'st and Science Journal
at page 231 :
According to a large body of evidence amassed over the past ten
years, it is now established that the solar photosphere has a steady
vertical oscillation with a period of 300 seconds.
This may well be evidence supporting the theory offered here
for the creation of the solar system. Furthermore, when we come
to explain why the earth’s magnetism reverses in Chapter 16,

it may be evident that the electrostatic balance of the solar
atmosphere will be disturbed for the same reason. Possibly,
therefore, the events of reversing the earth’s magnetic field are
linked with the creation of a pair of asteroids. Numerically,
if the earth’s magnetism reverses, say, every 200,000 years, then
a solar system dating back 4,000,000,000 years would have
produced 40,000 such planets.
6
The Perturbation of Venus
In Chapter 3 it was mentioned that Einstein had proposed a
small modification to Newton’s law of gravitation. There were
problems confrontingthe simple law ofgravitation which Newton
bequeathed to science. Close study of the motions of the planets
had indicated that whilst they were moving approximately in
elliptical orbits, their orbits as a whole were moving very slowly
themselves. On Newtonian theory such progression will arise
from the perturbing effects of other planets. Indeed, it was by
using Newton’s law that Leverrier (1811-1877) predicted the
existence of the planet Neptune from observations of perturba-
tions of the planet Uranus. J. G. Galle at Berlin then discovered
the planet Neptune within one degree of the place Leverrier
predicted (1846). From observations on the orbit of the planet
Mercury, Leverrier also predicted the existence of another
perturbing body. It was named Vulcan. Sir Robert Stawell
Ball writing in his The Story of the Heavens, 1897, calls it ‘the
planet of romance’. He comments:*
The existence of a planet much closer to the sun than those hitherto
known has been asserted by competent authority. The question is
still unsettled, and the planet cannot with certainty be pointed out.
For Mercury there is an unaccountable rate of advance of
the perihelion. The discrepancy is as little as an advance of
43 seconds of are per century, but it exists and cannot be traced
to inaccuracies in observation. Now, the laws of planetary
motion under perturbation conditions depend upon the assumed
equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. Eotvos in 1891
sought to check this assumption. It was established that at least
in the laboratory inertial mass and gravitational mass were
* Page 122, book published by Cassell.
THE PERTURBATION OF VENUS 55
exactly equal. Thus it was indicated that the gravitational

properties of a body are essentially of the same nature as its
inertial properties. At the end of the nineteenth century it was
then evident that unless Vulcan could be found we needed a
new law of gravitation.
But let us examine the problem more closely. In calculating
the perturbation effects it was necessary to know exactly the
masses of the various bodies involved, excepting that whose
perturbation was under study. Since its inertial mass is the
same as its gravitational mass the accelerating forces acting on
it develop forces in proportion to its mass and the orbit is
therefore substantially independent. The sun is such a large
central body as to be effectively fixed for the purpose of these
perturbation studies. If a planet has a visible satellite its mass
can be calculated. Neither Mercury nor Venus have satellites.
Therefore, to find their masses we work backwards from a study
of their perturbing effects on other bodies, assuming, of course,
that Newton’s law is valid. Since there are more orbits to ob-
serve than planets with unknown masses this process provides
an effective check on the theory. It is the discrepancies which
suggest unknown planets as needing recognition.
Let us next examine some of the results of Doolittle (l925)*
calculated for the planet Venus. Calculation on Newtonian law
gives the following perturbation components of perihelion
motion. The assumed masses of the disturbing bodies are
tabulated as reciprocal fractions of the solar mass.
Planet Secs arc/century Solar mass/Planet mass

Mercury — 1189242 7,500,000
Earth + Moon -564-1755 327,000
Mars + 745865 3,093,500
Jupiter + 65606924 l,047'879
Saturn + 792070 3,501-6
Uranus + 0-277671 22,800
Neptune + 0~ll0304 19,700
+ 5586460
* Trans. AIm>rir'un P/zil. S011, 22, p. 37, 1925.

In theory, therefore, the perihelion should be advancing by
55'86 seconds of arc per century, provided our masses are
correct. Experimental observation, however, shows an advance
of 43-055 seconds of are per century, according to Doolittle.*
Note that these data were calculated before the later discovery
of the planet Pluto in 1930. Pluto is more remote than Neptune
and has a mass smaller than that of the earth. Its effect on
Doolittle‘s figures can, therefore, be ignored.
At that time the mass of Venus was known with more assur-
ance than was the mass of Mercury. Also, because Mercury
has a highly elliptical orbit and describes its orbit more fre-
quently, being the closest planet to the sun, it provides a better
test for Newton's theory than does Venus. For Mercury it was
found that the perihelion advanced by 43 seconds of are per
century faster than was calculated. There is an anomalous
advance of perihelion. For Venus, Doolittle’s data show an
anomalous retardation of nearly I3 seconds of arc per century.
These anomalies were, of course, already well known by the
men who began to question Newton’s laws in the early years
of this century. Planck (1907) asserted that all energy must
gravitate. Einstein (1911) followed this by contending that
since light is a form of energy light must gravitate. Thus a
ray of light passing the sun must be curved and the velocity
of light must depend upon the gravitational field. Einstein
(1915) then presented a new gravitational theory incorporating
his concept of a space—time metric in four dimensions. It
incorporated a modification of Newton’s law. From Einstein’s
new law of gravitation the planet Mercury would have an added
perihelion advance of 43 seconds of are per century, a remark-
able agreement with the observed value. For Venus, Einstein’s
theory gives about 8 seconds of are per century as an additional
perihelion advance rate to that given by Newton.
Unfortunately, however, Einsteitfs theory is as inflexible
as Newton’s. The perihelion advance of Mercury has to be 43
seconds of are per century plus whatever Newton’s theory says
it is. The values calculated depend upon the masses of the
* It is merely coincidental that this observed advance for Venus is almost the
same as the anomalous advance for Mercury.
THE PERTURBATION or VENUS 57
perturbing bodies. It is now believed that the oblateness of the
sun, not accounted for in these early calculations, can reduce
the theoretical perihelion advance by 3 seconds of arc per century.
This makes Einstein's result less remarkable. Furthermore,
there has been progress in working out the mass of Mercury
and the test by Venus looks possible. By analysis of the motion
of the minor planet Eros, one ofthe asteroids which approaches
the earth very closely at perihelion and can afford more accurate
data, Rabe (I95!) has found the mass of Mercury to be one
6,120,000 part of that of the sun. This changes the figure of
~ ll8'9242 in the Doolittle data to one more likely to be
— l45"5. The anomalous retardation of l3 seconds of arc per
century on Newton's theory becomes an advance of l4 seconds of
arc per century instead. This is closer to Einstein’s value of 8. But
there are diiliculties posed by our knowledge of the mass of the
earth and moon system relative to that of the sun. Astronomers
accept that there are discrepancies in the data they use. Indeed,
they use different values for dilTerent purposes in order not to
add confusion before resolving it. Nevertheless, the sun’s mass
appears to be about 333,430 times that of the earth, as far as we
can judge from the earth's motion about the sun. This is the
figure usually seen in most reference works. The mass of the
earth is well known to be 81 '53 times that of the moon. There-
fore, the earth—moon system should be smaller than that of
the sun by the factor 329,380. Doolittle’s value was only 327,000.
Also, many reference works suggest a value of the order of
328,400 as best for some purposes.*
This is not very assuring. If Doolittle's calculations are based
on the value of 329,380 a further 4~l seconds of arc per century
have to be added to the theoretical advance, and this cuts the
anomaly to 9 seconds of arc, which looks close to Einstein’s
value. But, did Rabe use Einstein’s law in analysing the orbit
of Eros? lf he used Newton’s law he has the wrong mass if
Einstein’s law is the correct one. Such are the problems!
Einstein’s theory reduces gravitation to a geometrical condi-
tion; what has been called the curvature of space—time produced
by the presence of matter. This compares with a pre-Einstein
* Sc1'0nrv Journal, H. Aspdcn, August 1965, p. 28.
E
concept of Fitzgerald (1894) that gravity is due to a change
in the structure of the aether produced by the presence of
matter. This question of whether there is or is not an aether
has importance even to Einstein's theory. The motion of a
planet according to Einstein is not an ellipse even when other
perturbing bodies are absent. lt is an ellipse modified by
progressive rotation as if the radial oscillations of the planet
from the sun as centre are at different frequency to that of the
planet about the orbit. lt is as ifthe momentum properties of the
planet are dilferent for radial motion and the orbital motion.
Of course, if we imagine a pendulum with a fixed spherical bob
we have exactly this. The momentum properties are different
for linear motion and swinging motion. The mass of the bob
governs the linear momentum but the physical size of the fixed
bob is involved as well, increasing effective momentum, for the
swinging action. The planet can be likened to a system with a
pivotally mounted bob, since it rotates independently of its
orbital motion. The planet should, therefore, have the same
efiective mass for the two types of motion. But what if there is
an aether medium ‘? If the aether in the planet rotates with the
planet, then this will not cause any discrepancy. But what about
the aether surrounding the planet? We have to add the effect
of moving a spherical hole through a fixed medium. This sounds
absurd but it has sound physical basis, since we are dividing an
argument into two parts. A hole can move through a medium if
the medium can transfer itself across the void. Such a hole
would have a negative linear momentum exactly balancing that
due to the planetary aether. But such a hole could not be moved
around in an orbit without changing its effective negative mass,
because a hole can be said to move in a line but cannot be said
to turn. This means that ifthere is an aether medium there will
be an angular momentum effect to take into account. The angu-
lar velocity of the planet in an elliptical orbit changes as the
planet traverses the orbit. Thus, the angular momentum of the
aether will change as well. This angular momentum will be
drawn from the orbital motion of the planet so modifying its
orbit. lt is then to be expected that the existence of an aether
will cause anomalies in the motions of planets. The calculations
THE PERTURBATION OF VENUS 59
are straightforward, as the author has shown* elsewhere, and the

quantitative results support the thesis in this work that an
astronomical body is enveloped in an aether which rotates
with it.
* See footnote ref. on page ll.
7
Microcosmic Foundations
All the properties of electron spin, including the proper amount of
angular momentum, relativistic fine structure and even the gyro-
magnetic ratio, flow out ofthe Dirac formalism in an almost miracu-
lous fashion suggestive ofa magician’s extraction of rabbits from a
silk hat.
E/myc/opaerlia Britannica, Vol. 18, p. 930, 1970 edition
Modern techniques for understanding the behaviour of the

cosmos appear to have rather abstract foundations. The
large-scale phenomena of our universe have become the realm
of Relativity. The small-scale world of the atom, is the world
of wave mechanics. I-{ere we find the physicist using terms such
as electron spin, angular momentum, relativistic fine structure
and gyromagnetic ratio to portray the properties he can observe
by his experiments. Some of these terms are common to the
language of the greater world around the atom, suggestive of
true unification of our theories across the whole spectrum of our
experience. However, in view ofthe above quotation, suggesting
that some of these properties have their origins in the occult
magic of Dirac, we need to exercise care before accepting all
that modern physics has to teach us. We must be suspicious of
mathematical formalism.
An occult-sounding term used by engineers is the word
entropy. It is a measure of the thermal energy in a system
which is unavailable for turning to good account and perform-
ing useful work in man's machines. The concept of entropy is
the engineer‘s contribution to philosophy. Referring to this
contribution, and speaking of the philosophy of science in the
nineteenth century, Eddington wrote:*
* The Na/are aft/iv P/zysical War/1/, A. S. Eddington, Cambridge University

Press, 1929, p. 104.
MICROCOSMIC FOUNDATIONS 61
It was in great favour with the engineers. Their sponsorship was the
highest testimonial to its good character; because at that time it was
the general assumption that the Creation was the work of an engineer
(not ofa mathematician, as is the fashion nowadays).
Then, later on page 209 of his book Eddington wrote:
Nowadays we do not encourage the engineer to build the world for
us out of his material, but we turn to the mathematician to build it
out of his material. Doubtless the mathematician is a loftier being
than the engineer. but perhaps even he ought not to be entrusted
with the Creation unreservedly. We are dealing in physics with a
symbolic world, and we can scarcely avoid employing the mathe-
matician who is the professional wielder of symbols.
All this, of course, has given the philosopher food for thought.
Dana Scott* writing under the title: ‘Existence and Description
in Formal Logic‘, says:
It is curious that in ordinary mathematical practice having undefined
functional values, a situation close to using improper description,
does not seem to trouble people. A mathematician will often formu-
late conditionals of the form
iff(.\‘) exists for all .\"<a, then. . . .
and will not give a moment's thought to the problem of the meaning
offta). More careful authors never use a description or a function
unless it has been previously proved that its value exists. . . . More
serious is the fact that it is quite natural to employ descriptions before
they have been proved to be proper.
Scott then goes on to prove something in eighteen pages of
mathematical symbology. I could not follow the analysis; it
seemed too complicated, though it is surely undoubtedly valid.
Jumping to his conclusions I quote one of his results from his
page 197:
The operator 0 is eliminable in a theory T if and only if whenever
two models of Tare weakly isomorphic by a certain one-one function
they are also strongly isomorphic by the same function.
As applied to the physics of crystals, isomorphism is the
property of forming in the same or closely related geometrical
* The l6th essay in Bertrand RIISSI’//.’ Philosopher of the Century, edited by
R. Schoenman, Allen and Unwin, 1967, p. 181.
configurations. In the logical derivation of this result, the opera-
tor 0 is something which has replaced the ‘abstraction operator’.
I do not confess the slightest understanding of the above
conclusion. Nor am I encouraged by the final conclusion on
page 199:
This result on eliminability is not very satisfactory. . . . The author
has no idea what kind of model-theoretic conditions would corre-
spond to this uniform eliminability that we have when operators are
introduced by contextual definitions. It seems like an interesting
problem.
Perhaps an abstraction operator is involved in linking the
three-dimensional world of our experience with the four-
dimensional world of Relativity. Perhaps then it is difficult for
the logician to satisfy himself that the method of Relativity is a
valid method by which to reason an understanding of Nature.
Or perhaps the logician isjust confused by Relativity.
At this stage I wish to give my view that the mathematical
theories of our universe, highlighted by Einstein‘s Relativity,
have given too much rein to the mathematician. His skills in
providing one of the tools needed by the physicist have been set
aside and he has tried to become a philosopher in his own right.
His apparent success has so afi"ected the would-be general
philosopher that mathematics appear nearly everywhere,
superimposing a man-made vision of Nature and confusing us
rather than recounting Nature’s ordered structure with clear
language.
Max Born* in his essay ‘Reflections of a Physicist’ writes:
All our instruments consist of ordinary bodies and cannot be dis-
cussed but by ordinary language with the help of concepts of Eucli-
dean geometry. It is of course left to the philosopher to analyse this
macroscopic domain. But the physicist has enlarged it enormously by
using magnifying apparatus: telescopes, microscopes, amplifiers,
multipliers, etc. These produce data which, though consisting
primarily of ordinary sense perceptions, cannot be conceived as
meaningful structures with the help of the experience collected and
the language learned in childhood. One has to apply abstract think-
ing. This is the domain of Russell‘s theory of empirical knowledge.
* The llth essay in Bartram] Russell: Plzi/o.s'opl10r of the Centur_1‘, edited by
R. Schoenman, Allen and Unwin, I967, p. I24.
For the physical world revealed here is a construction of the mind,
armed with mathematics, from raw material obtained by the senses,
armed by the magnifying tools of science.
Evidently, Born sees both the physicist and the mathematician
as mere helpers who carry the brushes and paint to the great
philosopher artist, busy at work transforming the visions of his
mind on to a canvas which will portray Nature and Creation.
But surely, this canvas has already been painted by Nature her-
self. lt only needs the physicist to clean ofi‘ the paint added for
centuries by these many philosopher artists and then to examine,
under his microscope of course, the fine detail and true beauty
and majesty of what is there to be revealed.
When Eddington referred to the Creation being the province
of the mathematician he had in mind the name of Dirac. Dirac
graduated Ph.D. at Cambridge in 1926 in mathematics. Six
years later in 1932 he was awarded a Nobel Prize along with
Schroedinger for ‘the discovery of new productive forms of
atomic theory’. Yet. Dirac was an engineer turned mathematic-
ian. He graduated as a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineer-
ing at Bristol in 1921, and his engineering spirit may well account
for his frank and objective way of expressing his ideas, thus
making his work an easy target for our enquiry. Dirac’s
contribution to modern scientific outlook on the workings of the
cosmic world is so great that he provides the focal point for
study in this chapter and also in Chapter 10. Following the
theme of our introduction, it will be the objective to question
and criticize the reputed ‘wizardry’ of Dirac. But this attack
has broader address. The viewpoints projected here can be
levied against the works of numerous less-eminent contributors
to the mathematical theories of physics. It is just that Dirac’s
work provides an exciting stimulus to critical and constructive
review and adds to rather than detracts from the magnitude of
his great contribution to the scientific thought of this century.
Dirac‘s main contribution concerns the properties of the
electron, that fundamental entity of electric charge which is
almost the sole performer in the practical applications of elec-
tricity. The history of science is well coloured by the early
recognition of the existence of the electron and its eventual
discovery when, near the end of the nineteenth century, it

became possible to measure its charge/mass ratio, and then its
singular charge. After this there seemed little further to be said
about the electron. How it kept itself intact, restraining itself
from exploding under the action of the mutual repulsive force
of its charge, was the real problem. How it behaved in atoms
and could be created or annihilated were to become problems.
A concept known as ‘electron spin’ was to be invented by 1925.*
Nevertheless, the electron had been discovered by the end of the
last century and, thereafter, its properties were merely a matter
for experimental investigation to allord the clues as to its origins.
But when Dirac came to discover the properties of the electron
he was not examining the electron at all. His interest focused
upon certain mathematical equations characterizing the new
concepts of wave mechanics which were at that time being
projected in Continental Europe by de Broglie and others.
It will be remembered that at the beginning of Chapter 5
we mentioned de Brog1ie's award of the Henry Poincaré medal
by the French Académie des Sciences on December 16, 1929,
and the honour on the same occasion conferred upon Véronnet.
Months previously Véronnet proposed his aether to the
Academy, an aether containing ‘etherons’ whose motion
determines the Planck constant. Four days previously, on
December 12, 1929, de Broglie had been presented with the
Nobel prize ‘for his discovery of the wave nature of electrons’.
In his Nobel lecture he had said:"_‘
A purely corpuscular theory does not contain any element permitting
the definition ofa frequency. . . I thus arrive at the following overall
concept . . . for both matter and radiations, light in particular, it is
necessary to introduce the corpuscle concept and the wave concept at
the same time. In other words the existence of corpuscles accom-
panied by waves has to be assumed in all cases.
Centuries before, in the time of Newton, it had been recog-
nized that light had a corpuscular nature, and yet that light
* Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit, Nnturwi.s-.v, 13, 1925, p. 953.

T The quotations from the Nobel lectures presented here and elsewhere in this
book are taken from Nobel Lccturav (P/I_l‘Sl(‘.S‘) 1922-194], Elsevicr Publishing
Co., 1965.
was transmitted by waves in the aether. It was a real step
forward to discover that corpuscles had an associated wave
nature. The inevitable physical constant of such an association
is Planck’s constant, the quantity relating energy and frequency
of light quanta. Ve'ronnet's aether was, therefore, very much
in evidence from dc Broglie‘s discoveries. For de Broglie to
say that ‘a purely corpuscular theory does not contain any
element permitting the definition of frequency" and then go on
to endow it with its own wave properties is to ignore the aether.
Or it may be a way of recognizing the electron and the aether
as a co-operative whole. It is a question of one"s viewpoint.
Three years later on December 12, 1932, Dirac delivered his
Nobel prize lecture under the title ‘The Theory of Electrons
and Positrons’ including the words:
It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving slowly,
must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of small
amplitude superimposed on the regular motion which appears to us.
As a result of this oscillatory motion. the velocity of the electron at
any time equals the velocity of light. This is a prediction which can-
not be directly verified by experiment. since the frequency of the
oscillatory motion is so high and its amplitude so small.
Dirac attributed this viewpoint to Schroedinger but Einstein
also had proposed an explanation of de Broglie’s wave formula-
tions in 1925.* Einstein imagined the electron as belonging to a
Galilean reference frame oscillating at a frequency determined
from the electron rest mass energy and the Planck relationship,
and being everywhere synchronous. Thus Dirac, Schroedinger
and Einstein all seem prepared to recognize that particles of
matter may have a superimposed cyclic motion, as if belonging
to some unseen reference frame which is oscillating at a very
high freq ueney, which for electrons happens to be the frequency
at which they are annihilated or created.
One is tempted to argue from this that the aether which we
spoke about in Chapter 4 as having a system of negative particles
oscillating in harmony in a continuum of opposite charge is
exactly in keeping with these wave mechanical ideas. If an
* Paper at p. 3 of Berlin Sit:.. 1925, but see also reference by Sir Edmund
Whittaker in lli.rtor,1' oft/to T/n'or1't'.s' Of/l(’IlI('/‘tllll1Ell'(‘lI'll'lIvl', l9()()—I9_76, Nelson,
London, 1953, p. 215.
electron is swept into the negatively charged system and shares

its oscillations it can well display wave properties. Certainly,
the ideas proposed for the origins ofthe earth’s magnetism must
gain support from this link with de Broglie’s wave mechanical
theories.
However, we must return to the mathematical techniques
which led to the bold discoveries of Dirac. We will omit the
mathematics in the following quotation from his Nobel prize
lecture and capture those words (paraphrasing some) which will
show how his argument is developed:
We begin with the equation connecting kinetic energy and momen-

tum of a particle in relativistic classical mechanics. . . . From
this we get a wave equation of quantum mechanics, by letting the
left-hand side operate on the wave function. . . . With this under-
standing the wave equation reads . . . but a wave equation must be
linear in certain terms and this is not. . . Let us try a new equation. . .
this involves four new variables which we use as operators . . . now
assume certain relationships between these variables . . . this is linear
and it makes the equations equivalent to a certain extent . . . the new
variables which we have to introduce to get a relativistic wave equa-
tion linear in . . .. give rise to the spin ofthe electron . . . the variables
also give rise to some rather unexpected phenomena concerning the
motion ofthe electron. These have been fttlly worked out by Schroe-
dinger. lt is found. . .
Here the quotation develops into the one already presented.

Dirac invented a mathematical equation, found it could be
adapted to fit the observations and then concluded that the
terms in his equation actually give rise to physical phenomena.
He has provided the mathematics needed to fit the facts. All that
remains is for someone to provide the physics which will fit
this mathematics. All we need is enough understanding of the
aether and we might find what is needed. But, oddly enough,
the modern physicist thinks the work is already finished. He is
not interested in the physics and is quite content with his
mathematics.
Dirac himself had more to say. His eye for symmetry allowed
him to extract more from his mathematics. Continuing from
his lecture:
We now make the assumptions that in the world as we know it,
nearly all the states of negative energy are occupied, with just one
electron in each state, and that a uniform filling of all the negative
energy states is completely unobservable to us. Further, any un-
occupied negative-energy state, being a departure from conformity,
is observable and isjust a positron.
The positive electron or positron had just been discovered
earlier that year by Anderson and Millikan, working in Cali-
fornia analysing cosmic radiation. Dirac"s mathematical
scheme thus explained the positron as well. One might wonder
how a physicist or an engineer can come to terms with the idea
of negative energy, particularly when it is attributed to the
fundamental sub-stratum of our universe and is not merely a
change in energy due to displacement from an arbitrary position.
However, be that as it may, Dirac‘s theory commanded atten-
tion and was taken as meaningful by those best able to judge.
Dirac did, however, not claim that his mathematics could
explain the neutral particle, the neutron of the atomic nucleus,
which had been discovered by Chadwick that very same year,
1932. It is interesting to note that when Chadwick received his
Nobel prize for this very discovery in 1935 he said about the
neutron:
A structure of this kind cannot be fitted into the scheme of the
quantum mechanics, in which the hydrogen atom represents the only
possible combination of the proton and the electron.
This was in spite ofthe fact that Fermi had been at work suggest-
ing in 1934 that the neutron and the proton were the same
particle in two different quantum states. But we have more to
quote from Dirac's lecture, and it is particularly important in
view of our account of the creation of the solar system as
presented in Chapter 5.
If we accept the view of complete symmetry between positive and
negative electric charge so far as concerns the fundamental laws of
Nature, we mtist regard it rather as an accident that the earth (and
presumably the \vhole solar system). contains a preponderance of
negative electrons and positive protons. lt is quite possible that for
some of the stars it is the other way about, these stars being built up
mainly of positrons and negative protons. ln fact. there may be half
the stars of each kind. The two kinds of stars would both show
exactly the same spectra, and there would be no way of distinguishing
them by present astronomical methods.
Now, this is only speculation. Symmetry has meaning in
mathematics but we have to be cautious in physics. Dirac’s
mathematics pertain to an aether as much as they do to the
systems of matter we can see. If the aether had regions with
polarity of charge inverted. would the boundaries between these
regions be stable? Boundary conditions are of vital importance
to the physicist. The mathematician can examine his ideal
regions, his singularities, and forget the practical boundary
problems. This is where Relativity Fails, as we shall presently
see. The chances are that with the aether of mixed polarity there
would be an over-riding tendency towards uniformity rather
than symmetry. Aether in which positrons and anti-protons
predominate might be squeezed out of existence as the boundar-
ies move to convert it to aether pervaded by electrons and
protons. We are speculating, of course, but we are thinking in
physical terms, not mere mathematical notions of symmetry.
Perhaps, then, it is in the sun and all the other stars that this
fight between the aethers is raging. The polarity inversion may be
occurring at the spherical boundaries between aether at the solar
surface and hence energy may be unleashed from the aether
itself as by-products ofthe basic particles of charge are produced
to create and illuminate the universe. It is not our task to pursue
this here. We have examined how Dirac approached the problem
of explaining the properties of electrons. What he discovered
may, or may not, be an answer. lt may only beitselfa philosophi-
cal problem. In any event, Dirac became the man most com-
petent to speak about the origins and the nature of the electron.
It is, therefore, of particular interest to see what he has to say
about the electron a little later in 1938 when he is examining
electron radiation properties. lt is the question of energy
radiation which is attracting attention at the present time.
Hence the importance ofthis question. But we will come to that
in Chapter 10. First, we will digress a little to philosophize
about physics. This diversion seems appropriate because ideas
of the cosmos have been our prime concern in the previous
chapters. Now we are turning away from these grand matters

of our direct experience and what we can observe in astro-
nomical telescopes to the uncertain realm of the microcosmos,
the physics of what we cannot see. We want neither occult
techniques nor fiction, but, instead, experimental techniques
and fact. We must be able to distinguish fact from fiction to
make certain progress in our endeavour.
For those equipped to understand the language in which the
physical nature of our environment is currently portrayed,
physics is a most fascinating subject. The secrets of our origins
and destiny are undoubtedly contained in the ultimate solution
ofthe fundamental problems of physics. Concepts such as space,
time, energy, matter and electric charge all play a prime role in
the physicists’ world, but the secrets of the reality contained
in these concepts will not be discovered merely by thought
processes. Man must examine and re-examine the system of
Nature which has revealed them and reach his conclusions
without adding unnecessary complexities contributed only by
his mind. The fundamental nature of things is likely to be simple,
just as complex products result from random or selective
aggregations of simple constituents. However, although it is
said that truth is stranger than fiction, one can but wonder at
both the strangeness and the truth of modern physical theory.
If the reader who is well versed in physical theory can honestly
say that he understands the accepted explanations for the physi-
cal nature of phenomena then he will have little interest in this
book. But few physicists can really be wholly satisfied with the
representative works of modern physical theory. Doubt and
uncertainty must confront the majority and this book may
provide some appeasement if not inspiration to those interested
in thinking about physics.
Perhaps the real measure of our understanding of physics
is our ability to convey such understanding to the younger
generation. Let us then consider what is perhaps the first physical
phenomenon to be introduced to the child without the backup of
assured knowledge about its nature and cause. Magnetism
should arouse tremendous curiosity, both in our childhood and
in later years, if we really care about Nature“s properties. The
magnet has aethereal powers. It attracts iron and exerts its
influence across empty space or even through material bodies.
Yet how do we explain magnetism to a child ‘.7 We cannot. We
only demonstrate it. How do we explain magnetism to an adult?
If he is conversant with the terminology of physics and he
researches in the textbooks on the subject he will find it hard to
discover an explanation that can evoke understanding. He will
find it has some dependence upon what is termed an ‘Exclusion
Principle‘ for which we are indebted to a scientist named Pauli.
This principle in its turn can be demonstrated in its application
in physical theory. lts use can, therefore, be understood, but
how can one understand the physical reason for the applicability
of the principle without going deeper into the problem ? We
must be careful not to translate one problem into another and
then think we have explained something. Progress results if
we translate two problems into one common one, and then only
if the common problem is one of physics and not merely one of
mathematics. So-called principles do tend to be more mathe-
matical than physical, and one can hardly explain mathematics
by physics.
Looking through one of the most significant treatises on
magnetism (dated 1966) we find the following statement:*
About a generation has elapsed since it became recognized that the
major agency responsible for ferro- and antiferromagnetic behaviour
of materials is the Pauli exclusion principle, which makes the spatial
and momentum distributions of a group of electrons dependent on
the relative orientations of their spins.
This statement will undoubtedly be endorsed by physicists
working in this particular field. They can even explain what it
means. but they are unlikely to say more than is said in the rest
of this treatise on magnetism. One can understand what they
say, but does this mean that one understands magnetism itself?
Many words and ideas are used in the explanation and they
have no direct connection with what is observed in Nature.
By some mental exercise one can forge links between Nature
and certain principles and notions of man’s own and then
apply these to explain something else. But how do we know the
* Page l, \'ol. -l, .\Iugm'l1'.sni, Rado and Suhl, Academic Press, New York, 1966.
links thus forged are sound ‘? Are these links founded in fact or
fiction‘? Perhaps it does not matter, except that man has
developed some linking concepts which are, to say the least,
rather weird and complex. The nature of magnetism is, hope-
fully, not as complicated as the above-mentioned treatise
suggests. Physics has become so complicated that the future
must see attempts to scrap much ofthe presently accepted work
and try again to find something less complex. In the meantime
the newcomer to the subject should try to adapt his viewpoint
to extract what is of value in recorded physics. The facts of
experiment unadulterated by theoretical correction have to be
sifted from the data available. Theoretical introductions to
the facts of the subject are to be viewed with special
caution.
The ultimate understanding of Nature \\ill have to be one
which relates natural phenomena to a minimum number of
physical concepts. ln the days before the discrete particle nature
of electric charge it was the object of natural philosophy to
portray phenomena in terms of mechanical principles. Before
Newton’s time there was a more direct reference to basic
features of experienced phenomena. Fire, earth, water were
typical elements on which physical theory was founded. With
the discovery of the electron we could advance to efforts to
relate all physics to fundamental electric charges and their
mutual interactions. Yet, surprisingly, there has been little of
lasting acceptance to emerge from these attempts at physical
unification. The object remains as a challenge but inspiration has
not matched the task. And yet, Nature should be simple and it
should not be difficult to understand its fundamental
structure.
In this book we shall forge ahead in this enquiry to the point
where we even find a way of explaining mass itself in terms of
electrical action. We will arrive there by asking questions and
finding simple answers, by not accepting too readily what others
have accepted too readily. We will move first to an explanation
of the nature of the physical force interaction between two
bodies, taking note of some words in Newton's 1’i"1'/icipia
(1687):
That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, . . . is to me so great an
absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty for thinking, can ever fall into.
The reader may be sceptical about what has been said in this
chapter. We have criticized the abstract methods of Dirac,
made reference to de Broglie‘s endowment of electrons with a
wave property and come to Newton for support in advocating
the existence of a real aether. Progress in physics may, indeed,
require the physicist to backtrack in his ideas. As recently as
March 1971, de Broglie wrote at page 149 of P/1ys1'cs Bulletin:
Everything becomes clear if the idea that particles always have a
position in space through time is brought back. . . . The movement
of the particle is assumed to be the superposition of a regular move-
ment . . . and of a Brownian movement due to random energy
exchanges which take place between the wave and a hidden medium,
which acts as a subquantum thermostat.
Now, if de Broglie has to appeal to a hidden medium which
exchanges energy with matter, and this in 1971, is not there
purpose in reviving the aether with real fervour? We are now
half way through this text on Modern Aether Science. The role
of the aether in large-scale, cosmic phenomena has been
presented. More will be said about this in Chapter 16. Now,
however, whether prompted by de Broglie or Newton, the role
of the aether on the microcosmic scale has been introduced and
we are ready to see where this takes us.
8
The Law of Force
In this modern age of science we really should be able to say
that we know how to work out the force which one electric
particle exerts on another. But can we? We know that like
charges repel and that unlike charges attract according to the
law named after Coulomb. The force of interaction between
charges at rest varies inversely as the square of their distance
apart. Do we know the law of interaction for discrete charges
which are both in motion ‘P We can hardly explain the physics of
diverse phenomena in terms of a common relation with a
particle system of electric charge unless we can answer this
question with a firm ‘yes’. Explaining Nature in terms of electric
charge behaviour is physics. The mathematician knows how his
symbols interact so he has no problem creating his theories ofthe
universe. The physicist has problems finding the facts and even
finding how to express the facts, because we are not quite sure
any more what we mean when we talk of a particle in motion.
Motion is a relative quantity and requires a reference frame.
Do we have to specify a reference frame to develop physics?
The answer to this is afiirmative for the problem with our two
electric charges, unless we expect to find that the interaction
force is the same whichever frame we choose. In Nature it
might be that the force does not depend upon our choice of
reference frame and then we need not confuse our basic question
by digressing in this way. Experiment should provide the answer.
Early in the twentieth century Trouton and Noble (1903)
relied upon accepted electrodynamic theory in performing a
relevant experiment. They found that the interaction forces
between opposite charges on the plates of a moving capacitor
did not depend, as was expected, upon the orientation of the
capacitor in space. The capacitor was carried through space
F
with the earth at a speed which could have resulted in electro-
magnetic interaction permitting detection but it was evident
that the earth’s speed did not figure in the electrodynamic
interaction. It was as if the reference frame was not important.
However, this is like proving experimentally that two plus two
is not four. There must have been error in the logic of our
deduction. If the reference frame does not matter we can
examine a law of electrodynamic interaction between two
charges moving at different velocities and choose one which is
at rest relative to one of the interacting charges. Then we
would have concluded that the force between a charge at rest
and one in motion is the same as that between the two charges
if an equal velocity component is added to both. Since the inter-
action force can be divided into components by pairing oil‘ the
interactions between the original and additional velocity
quantities, we see that three interactions have been added to the
basic one and that these three must together sum to Zero. Since
this has to apply for any possible basic system so that there are
numerous parameter combinations in the various sets of three
interactions, it must be that each ofthese interaction components
is zero. In short, we can argue that only the basic Coulomb
interaction force can exist from the findings of the Trouton—
Noble experiment. On this argument we deny the existence of
electromagnetic interaction between discrete charge and have
experimental evidence on which to rely. However, we now have
it that two zeros plus two zeros sum to more than four zeros, in
effect, and the experiment thus interpreted proves nothing.
On this basis we assert that there is electromagnetic inter-
action between charges in motion and that this action varies
with the velocities ofthe charges relative to a common reference
frame. Did Trouton and Noble check the effect of moving the
capacitor at different velocities relative to this common frame‘?
They did not. In fact. taking the earth itselfas a frame they did
not move the capacitor at all. They merely assumed that the
earth must be moving in space due to its motion with and
about the sun. Their experiment showed that two discrete
electric charges moving together with the same velocity must
have an interaction force acting directly along the line joining
THE LAW or FORCE 75
the charges, as does the Coulomb force. Trouton and Noble
must have used an incorrect law of electrodynamics. Alterna-
tively, we admit but one reference frame to the experiment, the
earth frame, and contend that we have proved nothing about
electromagnetic interaction save that it adapts to a local refer-
ence frame.
Yet, although this is the logical outcome of a study of a
famous and accepted experiment in physics. we find that neither
of these alternatives is admitted by orthodox teaching. How,
then. has history disposed of Trouton and Noble's findings?
Perhaps the best answer to this question is to be found in Sir
Edmund Whittakei”s H/'.vror_t' of llic T/zeories Q/'Ae!/10/' and
E/ccr/"/'c1'I_i'. He notes that shortly before his death in February
I901, Fitzgerald commenced to examine the phenomena
exhibited by a charged electrical condenser, as it is carried
through space by terrestrial motion. Magnetic theory prevailing
at that time indicated the prospect of detecting the earth’s
motion through space from changes in torque on the condenser
resulting from variations of its state of charge. Fitzgerald’s
pupil Trouton followed through with the experimental work
but no effect of any kind could be detected. Whittaker then
dismisses the subject by saying that the explanation of the
result ‘was rightly surmised by P. Langevin to belong to the
same order of ideas as Fitzgerald's hypothesis of contraction’.
The impossibility ofdetermining the motion ofthe earth relative
to the so-called aether then emerges as a principle of physics.
Whittaker reports that Poincare, lecturing in St. Louis, USA
in September 1904 named this principle ‘The Principle of Rela-
tivity’. Applying this principle, one has to override one's expecta-
tions of results from the Trouton and Noble experiment. No
torque can occur, as a matter of ‘principle'. We need not, it
seems, worry about our conclusions concerning the interaction
of electric charges in motion.
Thus history shows us that this important experiment was
swept aside with daring abandon as the theory of physics suc-
cumbed to invasion by Relativity. Sterile physical principles
became the foundation stones for a new kind of physics. which,
being Man’s own fabrication rather than a replica discovered
from Nature’s own structure, is subject to erosion with the

passage of time.
The Trouton—Noble experiment reappears from time to time
in the scientific literature. Writing in 1970, Strnad* demon-
strates how there are difiiculties in applying the Special Theory
of Relativity to explain the null result of the experiment, and
how it may be necessary to accept the added complication of a
principle of virtual work suggested recently by Fremlin (l969).l
It seems that there are doubts in applying the Principle of
Relativity to a system at rest in our earth frame. Nothing
happens by which we can detect our motion, so why should there
be a problem to answer‘? Yet, those versed in Relativity do
not seem ready to accept the basic principle. They go into all
kinds of mathematics to explain their difficulties in working
with Relativity. Page and Adams (l945)3,“ dealt with the paradox
ofthe Trouton- Noble experiment rather diffei'cntly. They merely
asserted that according to Relativity there should be no torque,
consistent with the experimental result. Hence, without analysis,
they were led to assert that the dielectric structure holding the
charged capacitor plates apart must transmit some balancing
torque.
The writer here submits the proposal that we really do not
know what force exists between two electric charges due to their
magnetic interaction. Physicists are lost. They need to take a
fresh look at the problems and work out a new law of electro-
dynamics.
Where do we stand in our effort to unify physics in terms of
interaction between electric charge‘? We still have not reached
an answer to our question: do we know the law of interaction
force for discrete charges which are both in motion? The
Trouton—Noble experiment should have at least suggested
action along the line of separation for charges in parallel
motion, but this prospect went adrift since the purpose of the
experiment was not to pronounce on electrodynamic law but to
* J. Strnad, C'0!irmnp0mr_v PIi_i".ri¢-.\", p. 59, 1970.

J. H. Fremlin, (Io/ilcniporury PI1_r.tic\', p. I79, 1969.
1 L. Page and N. I. Adams, Elm-I/1>i[niruiiirs', Dover, p. Z78, in 1965 version of
1945 edition.
THE LAW or FORCE 77
detect motion in the aether. What is curious is that the theory
leading to the experiment was never questioned to its classical
foundations as a result of the null findings. The theory should
have been rechecked. Even more curious is the fact that the
accepted versions of electrodynamic interaction laws between
discrete charges in motion all give answers contrary to the
findings of the Trouton-Noble experiment. Rather than
modifications in the basic equations we have seen attempts to
distort the experimental apparatus by the mystic action of the
all-important principle.
Let us look back at the origins of electrodynamic theory.
We see that discrete charges are not isolated in experimental
work to facilitate measurement between two and only two such
charges. In fact, we are not even interested in this ourselves
since all we need to know is the effective interaction force
between pairs of charges in a populated system of charge. This
is the additive component of the interaction. But, what we need
to know is the interaction where charge in one part ofthe system
is all moving with one velocity and charge in the other part
of the system moves with another velocity. Our problem is that
the classical law is deduced from experiments in which charge in
one ofthe interacting systems moves in closed circuits and there-
fore does not possess a unique velocity common to the system.
Classical theorists, therefore, made assumptions about the
direction of the force interaction between two isolated charges.
They formulated many alternative laws of electrodynamics
any one of which can explain the observed electrodynamic inter-
action between electric charge in motion, provided one of the
interacting charge systems is effectively a closed circuital current.
The most famous of these laws was that of Ampere, but it is
seldom used. Today we have turned to the intermediary use of
the notion ofa magnetic field, and usually combine two electro-
magnetic rules, the left-hand rule and the right-hand rule, to
work out the electrodynamic interaction between separate
charges. However, even here we rely on one of the charges
being effectively a closed loop of current. Had Ampere, or the
others who had to make assumptions to formulate their laws,
used the empirical fact later to emerge from the Trouton-
78 .\lODERN AI-ITHER SCIENCE
Noble experiment. then they would have obtained a different
law of electrodynamics. Necessarily, this law would give
electromagnetic interaction along the line joining the interact-
ing charges when both have the same velocity, that is, move
parallel relative to the appropriate frame of electro-magnetic
reference. The author has presented this law in several pub-
lications* but popular attention has not yet been turned to the
problem, even though unified physical theory is so much
dependent upon knowledge of the interaction between electric
charge.
It is startlingly easy to show where the opinions of the past
went adrift. What we have to do is to take note of the fact that
our two electrons can never exist in isolation. Whittaker seems
very briefly to come close to this when he explains how Edding-
ton used Mach's principle to approach the problem of gravita-
tionzi
Eddington applied Maclfs general principle to the interaction
between two electric charges. If they are of opposite sign, all their
lines of force run from one to the other. and the two together may be
regarded as a self-contained system which is independent of the rest
of the universe: but if the two charges are of the same sign, then the
lines of force from each of them must terminate on other bodies in
the universe. and it is natural to expect that these other bodies will
have some influence on the nature of the interaction between the
charges.
As we shall see in Chapter ll, where Mach’s principle is
discussed, it is really wrong to try to explain gravitation without
first explaining the nature of mass. Our prime concern has to
be electric interaction eflects. Then, when we understand these
we can hope to discover an understanding ofthe force ofgravita-
tion. It is permissible, nevertheless, to use the mathematical
techniques developed for gravitational theory in our study
of the effects of inverse square la\v actions between electric
charge.
* The T/I£‘()!‘_\' ofGrm-ilminn, H. Aspden, Sabberton Publications,Southampton,
1960; ‘The Law of Electrodynaniics’, H. Aspden, Juimiulu/"I/10 Fran/t/i/i ln.\'1i1uIc',
287, p. 179, I969; Pli_i'.i-iz~.i- ii-Ir/rum L_fI!.\’IL’fIl, ll. Aspden, Sabberton Publications,
Southampton, 1969.
if 1Ii.vrvry of the Tlieoriux of Aurlicr am! E/<'<'Iri¢'iI_v, l‘)()()-1926, E. Whittaker,
Nelson, London, 1953. p. 151.
THE LAW or FORCE 79
It is a well known and easily-proved fact of particle dynamics
that external forces will act on a system of two particles as a
single force through the common centre of gravity and that any
motion of the particles relative to this centre of gravity is
completely independent of these external forces. Therefore,
we have to be open to the possibility that, in analysing a two
electron system in isolation. we can have a force communicated
by the environment so as not to exert any turning moment on
the system.
This is the simple. logical and straightforward starting point
to an analysis of the problem. lt has apparently eluded recogni-
tion in the past. Indeed. some theorists have gone out of their
way to make it an absolute condition that no external out-of-
balance force should act on the system as a whole. They have
lived with Newtoifs maxim that action should balance reaction
but forgotten the rider that this only applies to a complete
system. They have assessed an incomplete system and found that
their results do not have utility in explaining the behaviour of
Nature. which evidently will not let itself be fragmented to
suit the theoretical whims of the physicist.
The Force communicated by the field environment will divide
into two equal components X acting separately on each electron,
as depicted in Fig. l. The centre of gravity of the system is
midway between the two electrons because of their equal
charges and masses and so the force components need to be
equal to provide no turning action and need to sum to the total
force exerted from outside.
X
X
F F
U
Fig. |
Next, note that electrodynamic theory concerns actions
additional to the Coulomb effects between charges. Usually we
are dealing with current elements, that is charge moving in
association with other local charge which provides an electro-
static field cancellation. The result is that there can be Coulomb
forces on the electrons in these circumstances, as when they are
flowing in a conductor. but they must be embraced exclusively
by the two vector forces X depicted in Fig. l.
We are then left to consider the mutual magnetic effects of
the two electrons. By working out the interaction of their
magnetic fields and analysing how the interaction energy com-
ponent changes with separation distance between the charges,
we find that a direct force acts between them. This is denoted F
in Fig. l. The history books show that some workers, notably
Helmholtz. worked along these lines and proposed F as the
complete law of electrodynamics.* lt was inadequate, of course,
because it took no account of the forces X. To find X is quite
simple. We merely consider energy deployment at each particle.
The force components, the energy supplied and the energy ab-
sorbed by the electrons must be compatible. The result presented
in the Appendix at page l6l is a new general law of electrody-
namics which differs from those derived historically and based
on other assumptions. But it is a law which not only gives all the
right answers when adapted for use for studying interaction
involving a closed eircuital current; it additionally reduces to a
form for which the forces X are zero when the current elements
represented by the electrons move in parallel directions. The
two velocities u and v in Fig. l then are parallel. The result of
the Trouton—Noble experiment clearly conforms. Hence, in
electrodynamic terms we arrive at a law of attraction conform-
ing exactly with the form of Newton‘s law of gravitation for a
common condition of all interacting elements. This condition is
satisfied if all mass is associated with a related electric charge
moving harmoniously in synchronous circular orbit. Charge
in such motion was the key to Véronnet's aether, as presented
in Chapter 4 to explain the earth’s magnetism. Hence, we have
* F alone is inadequate to explain the eircuital laws but Helmholtz's formula-
tion would have explained the null result ofthe Trouton~Noble experiment.
rm; LAW or FORCE 81
our clue to understanding gravitation. It is beyond the scope
ofthis work, but it is possible to derive the Constant of Gravita-
tion in terms of the charge/mass ratio of the electron and thus
provide convincing evidence in support of such a theory of
gravitation. This is presented in detail in the author’s recent
book P/i_rs1'e\‘ wit/zoul Em.m>m.
A concluding remark. perhaps needed to dispel some doubts,
is that the above views are not refuted because an electrical
current will turn a coil in a magnetic field. To develop the
turning moment here there are at least three current interactions,
two current elements in the coil and one developing the field.
No two alone will develop a torque between them. The coil will
never turn itself. Nor will the whole system including the source
of the field ever turn itself due to its own interactions.
9
B011/r2a’aries of Relativity
ln the concluding pages of the previous chapter we escaped
losing ourselves in the abstract world we entered earlier. We
arrived at a conclusion about the law of electrodynamic inter-
action between electric charge in motion without even defining
what we meant by motion. lt was a natural result of being
satisfied that our theory fitted what we saw. Electrons in motion
can be measured. Their velocity is determined from a knowledge
oftheir mass. their charge and their centrifugal behaviour when
deflected by an electric or magnetic field. Velocity is measured
relative to the earth frame. the frame from which we make most
of measurements in physics. lt is the frame we have in mind
when we speak of motion. Philosophieally we may wonder ifthe
same laws of physics would apply ifmeasureinents were made on
the surface of the moon. It seems quite probable because test
apparatus sent to the moon appears to function there much as it
does on earth. Therefore, philosophically, we can accept the
Principle of Relativity or we can say that both the moon and the
earth have their own aether moving with them and all physics
are the same relative to this aether medium. Motion of electric
charge really means motion relative to a frame of reference in
the aether. if our interest centres on magnetic effects. This is
hypothesis. but it is a good working hypothesis and it suits the
ideas presented in Chapter 4. Nevertheless. we must admit that
other ideas can have closer claim on the truth, until there is con-
clusive evidence determining which is right. So we will be
tolerant of Relativity and explore that subject further now.
Let us stay with the problem of the force between two electric
charges in motion. The reader may glance at the reference works
available to him to find the textbook formulae for the inter-
action force. But. search as he may, he will not find anything to
BOUNDARIES or RELATIVITY 83
prove that a formula has been verified by experiment. Therefore,
the reader must keep a critical eye on the way the formulae are
derived.
It will be found that there is an empirical formula for the
force on an electric charge in motion in an electric and in a
magnetic field. lt is known as the Lorentz force equation. Being
empirical. the equation has to be believed. having due regard for
the restrictions imposed by the experimental techniques used.
For example. we must remember that the magnetic field on
which the empirical facts are established is not produced by a
single electron but by electric currents in closed circuits or by
whatever it is that generates magnetic field inside a fcrromagnet.
Writing about this empirical equation. Dingle* said:
This is not deducible from the general equations of the field accord-
ing to classical theory. and has therefore to be ranked as an additional
postulate. The modifications introduced by Relativity. however.
remove the necessity for this. since. when the proper transformation
equations are used. the force appears as a consequence ofthe change
of the co-ordinate system.
Now, this is a very powerful statement. To say that an empiri-
cal equation of classical physics cannot be deduced from
classical field theory is itself a challenging remark, and it cer-
tainly is not true today. The force on an electric charge due to an
electric field can be derived from classical field energy analysis.
The force on the charge due to a magnetic field can also be
derived by classical techniques. as was shown at the end of the
previous chapter. provided. of course. we know the origins of
the magnetic field or assume that it is produced by a eircuital
current. But, for Dingle to say that the force on an electron can
be understood in the mere transformation of a co-ordinate
system is unduly provocative. We should be in rebellion at this
blatant suggestion that magnetism is an electric field viewed
from a difierent reference system. But how can we rebel without
weapons‘? Words and philosophy are no help against an estab-
lished doctrine. Well. we do have weapons. We have our experi-
mental facts. and we can disprove what Dingle says. First. note
that if we can develop a magnetic field merely by transforming a
* The S/><'('ial T/wt»/'_\' ufR</luli'ri!_v. H. Dingle. Methuen. l950, p. 79.
co-ordinate system, we have contrived to do what Nature her-
self cannot do. We have produced a field which is not character-
istically dependent upon a source. We have assumed that all
magnetic fields are generated, not by a discrete electric charge,
but by some system defined by co-ordinates. We have invoked
some kind of infinite electric fluid. It is, of course, the electric
charge continuum introduced by Maxwell to explain his dis-
placement currents. Maxwelfs equations are the basis of the
transformations used in Relativity to derive a magnetic field
from an electric field and vice versa. But, of course, if you do
this. you are no longer talking of magnetic fields produced by
electrons or discrete charges in a system under analysis. You are
assuming that all magnetic fields are in effect the same as those
developed by a uniform electric charge in the aether medium.
Well, they are not the same. To assume that they are the same
will merely lead to a result which is correct only for those
situations where the magnetic field is developed by a current
which is a closed circuit one. The infinite current filaments of
the notional charge continuum invoked by transforming
Maxwell's equations are, mathematically. closed circuits.
Evidently, Relativity denies the possibility that a magnetic
field could develop a force on an electric charge along the direc-
tion in which the charge is moving. Lorentz’s formula says the
magnetic force has to act at right angles to the motion. Yet, ifthe
magnetic efi"ect is produced by a charge following in line behind
the first charge, there is no magnetic field along points in this
line but there is an electrodynamic force between the charges.
Many authors have provided experimental evidence of these
forces. They appear as anomalous cathode reaction forces
where electric discharges are under study. Furthermore, our
understanding of the energy in a magnetic field should tell us
that the interaction energy between two electric current elements
when aligned is dependent upon their separation distance. lf
they comprise two electrons moving forward in the same line,
they will have an electrodynamic force set against their mutual
repulsive force. Also. if gravitation is an electrodynamic force
action, as Einstein tried to show without success, we would
expect gravitation to act between particles even though they are
BOUNDARIES OF RELATIVITY 85
moving along a common line. All sense points to this result.

Therefore, we must, indeed, be careful before accepting the
Lorentz formulation. Since Relativity leads to the formula
without any reservation, it shows the ineffectiveness of the
relativistic method.
Still, there is more criticism to come. If we follow Dingle, we
should take the basic force on electric charge as the product of
the strength of the charge and the electric field intensity. The
transformations come after we have made this assumption.
What experiment has ever shown that the force on a unit charge
is simply the electric field intensity? The answer is ‘none’, so
we have another questionable assumption on which relativistic
argument is founded. The electric field intensity is actually
defined as the measure of the force exerted on unit charge. The
field is the imaginary connection between two interacting electric
charges, themselves defined in terms of force. The definition of
force in terms of field-charge interaction must seem valid. lt is
used so extensively in electrical theory. Yet it is not universally
valid. There are hidden implications in the fundamental notions
of classical field theory which will not permit the use of this
simple basic fact without some reservation. Curiously, the
reservations only seem to impact Relativity, because classical
theory tends to start out with charge as the source of electric
fields, whereas Relativity pulls field out from nowhere by the
magic of abstract transformations of reference frames.
The reader who is interested should trace through classical
theory to find how the ideas ofa field and field energy are recon-
ciled with the forces acting between electric charges. He will find
that inevitably the charges involved have to be specified and
that inevitably there are boundary conditions to take into
account. This is seen immediately if we consider a uniform
electric field. An electric particle in this field will have its own
symmetrical field and the interaction field energy cannot be
calculated without specifying the boundaries. If the boundaries
are put at infinity, then the interaction energy is infinite. The
force is determined by the change of energy when the particle is
displaced. Hence, it is measured by the difference between two
infinities, an indeterminate quantity. On the other hand. by
86 MODERN AETHLR scttztsce
symmetry, we see that the particle will not know where it is
relative to the field and so cannot be under any force. Now, our
problem has come about because we have invented afield. lf we
specify where the charge producing the field is located, then we
have no problem. We can even develop a uniform electric field
between two capacitor plates and work through the field energy
analysis to find that there is the expected force on a particle of
charge located between the plates. In fact, the usual formula for
the force only applies because the boundary conditions permit
the realization of an actual system of charge. The charge loca-
tion or equivalent boundary conditions have to be capable of
specification.
With Relativity. an electric field can be produced from a
magnetic field by transforming co-ordinates. What this means in
terms of redistribution of electric charge and charges in boun-
dary conditions defies interpretation. Possibly a planar charge
distribution suddenly appears as if we all live between the
remote parallel plates of an imaginary capacitor. Possibly this
problem is not important. Relativity may only be a convenient
symbology by which to relate physical concepts. But it should
not then be used to explain the nature of physical phenomena.
Boundary conditions cannot be ignored in applying Relativity.
For those readers who remain sceptical and think Einstein’s
theory inviolate. it is appropriate to note that Einstein himself
alerted us to the boundary difliculties. Einstein died in 1955 but,
in an appendix he added to the fifth edition of his Meaning of
Re/am.-iI_r (1956 with preface dated December 1954), he wrote
in his concluding remarks at page I64:
A field theory is not yet completely determined by the system of field
equations. . . . Should one postulate boundary conditions? . . . With-
out such a postulate. the theory is much too vague. ln my opinion the
answer to the question is that postulation of boundary conditions is
indispensable.
He goes on to give support for this argument and thereby
points to the need for further research.
lt must be accepted that the relativistic derivation of the
Lorentz equation is on an inadequatefoundation. The empirical
law of electrodynamics. as developed by the author with logical
BOUNDARIES OF RELATIVITY 87
theoretical foundations, seems to be the correct law for dealing

with interaction between isolated charges in motion. The
reader is, therefore, warned to be cautious about believing the
theoretical ramifications thrust at him in the textbooks on
Relativity. So much of physics depends upon the interaction of
electric charge that you just have no way of founding physical
theories of Nature if you set out with the wrong law of electro-
dynamics.
Care is needed because physicists are human and they make
mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. and it is particularly easy
in theoretical research. The researcher is setting off on ajourney
in the dark along an uncharted road. If he gets lost, he has no
one to put him back on the right track until someone else comes
down the same road, goes back. finds a better road and bothers
to come back again to collect the lost soul. All this takes time,
centuries of time, and with so many people rushing around, all
lost at once, the chances ofsorting things out are reducing rather
than increasing. But there is an added ditliculty. There are
those who go along the right road and come back to invite
others to follow. Yet they will not follow because someone
already out of reach has assured everyone that he has explored
that same path and found nothing. There is imperfect recollec-
tion of what he really reported but it still daunts the willingness
to believe the more favourable reports. Such is the world of the
physicist unless he is a recognized explorer of thejungle and can
take a large following with him wherever he may go.
l am, incidentally, thinking of certain characters and experi-
ences of my own in putting together the above observations.
The man now out of reach is the Reverend Samuel Earnshaw
(1805-1888). He left behind him an interesting proposition,
generally referred to as Earnsha\\"s theorem. According to this
theorem. an isolated electric charge cannot remain in stable
equilibrium under the action of electrostatic forces only. l found
my papers being rejected because my discoveries were in conflict
with Earnshaw‘s law. Hence, the question, ‘Who was Earn-
shaw?’ Well, this same question had troubled someone else.
W. T. Scott had undertaken the task of tracing Earnshaw’s
work to find the source of this great theorem. He describes his
difficulties and his eventual success in a paper published in the
American Journal 0fPlzysics in 1959 under the title ‘Who Was
Earnshaw ?’*
He found a treatise published by Cambridge University Press
in 1879 which made reference to the reading of a paper before
the Cambridge Philosophical Society in 1839, and later pub-
lished in their Transactions at pp. 97-l l4 in volume 7 of 1842.
Earnshaw‘s paper was entitled: ‘On the Nature ofthe Molecular
Forces which regulate the Constitution of the Luminiferous
Ether‘. Earnshaw proved that the aether could not constitute
electric charges retained in relatively stable configuration, if the
forces acting between them are ofthe usual inverse square form,
obeying Coulomb's law. For stability, the law of interaction
force between the mutually attracted elements has to differ from
that between mutually repelled elements. An inverse square law
of gravitation will not hold a particle system stable against
electrostatic forces of repulsion also according to the inverse
square law. He concluded:
lt is therefore certain that the medium in which luminiferous waves
are transmitted to our eyes is not constituted of such particles (acted
on by purely inverse-square forces). The coincidence of numerical
results, derived from a medium of such particles, with experiment,
only shows that numerical results are no certain test ofa theory, when
limited to a few cases only.
This is quoted to show that over a century ago the basic
problems of the aether were being studied with vigour. Con-
clusions were reached and their effects have echoed along the
corridors of science and influenced the development of modern
physics. We find that Jeans“-" has taken up Earnshaw's theorem
by arguing that it denies the possibility of a stable union of
discrete charge such as protons and electrons to form atomic
nuclei. This is interesting, particularly because it is a modern
quest to seek the discrete constituent charges deemed to form
stieh nuclei. The search for quarks seems to be an effort mounted
in ignorance or defiance of the great work of the Reverend
Samuel Earnshaw.
* Volume 27, p. 418.
'["Sir James Jeans, The Mallienialiml T}l(’()!‘_\‘ of Electricity and Magnetism,
Cambridge University Press, 5th edition, p. I68.
BOUNDARIES OF REL/\TlVlTY 89
Now, l wish to explain where the physicist has gone wrong in

applying Earnshaw‘s theorem. Firstly, Earnshaw himself was
interested in an aether composed of particles of charge. The
inverse square law of force was, logically, his only force relation.
He proved that a system of particles could not be stable. Yet
stability was a desirable aether property. But then he should
have decided that the aether was not exclusively composed of
particles. The aether we envisaged in Chapter 4 is a uniform
charge continuum which is positive permeated by a system of
identical electric charged particles, all negative. The positive
charge is dispersed like a gas or lluid and, using the inverse
square law, the mutual effects between this positive charge and
the negative particles develops a restoring force on each such
negative particle proportional to its displacement from a
neutral position of stability in the continuum. Therefore, if the
negative particles all move harmoniously about their respective
neutral positions, we do have a stable system configured to
explain the numerical values of the universal physical constants.
Centrifugal force is in balance with the restoring force. The
cycle time of the particle orbit is constant independent of dis-
turbance, because the system is effectively a linear oscillator.
Earnshaw's theorem is not violated because we have force
relationships present which vary linearly with separation
distance. We have a dynamic aether, but a stable one.
The basis of Earnshaw's theorem seems to be an earlier
theorem according to Gauss, and the use of some ideas em-
bodied in what is termed Poisson’s equation. Essentially, the
argument is that we imagine an isolated electric charge held in
stability at a point where we know no charge resides. Then we
say that the slightest displacement would be resisted because the
potential gradient would be directed away from this point and
this means that the electric field has to be directed towards the
point. But, since stability implies resistance to movement in any
direction, the field acting on the charge has to converge on this
point from all directions. This it can only do if there is an
external charge at the point itself. which is impossible because
that is where our supposedly stable charge is located. Hence the
theorem about instability.
G
The basis of the theorem is that the charge is isolated in free
space. lf the charge is surrounded by a sea of other charge, then
the theorem fails. This has also been noticed by Scott, the man
who traced Earnshaw's work. ln a book dated 1966 he writes:*
ln a region of continuous charge distribution, a maximum or mini-
mum could exist, but a continuous distribution is an idealization. We
have to consider each electron or proton as an isolated charge, so
that pure electrostatic equilibrium is impossible.
We live in an age of abstraction but not one of idealizationl
Why should not the very space substance which permeates us
and holds us together be an idealization‘? The aether should be
as near to the ideal substance as our imagination can ever take
us. Earnshaw's theorem tells us that if pure electrostatic equili-
brium is possible, then space must comprise a plenum of electric
charge. Earnshaw's theorem also tells us that if ever we find that
an atomic nucleus is a simple stable aggregation of electric
charges, then space must comprise a plenum of electric charge
and we must believe the real aether exists. We cannot wish
away our very existence because of erroneous interpretation of
mathematical results. Earnshaw’s work did not destroy the
aether. It provided another means for recognizing this great
medium.
The physicist has tried to build his physics upon the inter-
action of electric charge but he got himself muddled when he
drifted into mathematical arguments without following each
stage carefully by physics. The physics can become muddled too
if the physicist does not step back regularly to think what he is
trying to do. For example, he expected that when the electron
finally allowed us to measure its properties it would have an
electric charge and a certain mass. Hopefully, all electrons
would be the same. if they were not the same then, provided
they could be grouped together in some logical order, they
would have been given names in some kind of electron family.
When success came, the satisfaction centred on the fact that the
charge and mass of the electron could be measured and the
degree of accuracy attained by the experiments. There should
* W. T. Scott, The Physics of Electricity and A/Iagizetisni, Wiley, p. 43.
BOUNDARIES or RELATIVITY 91
have been satisfaction in greater measure at the discovery that,
in fact, the electron was universally the same. This equality of
all electrons is itself a physical phenomenon warranting explana-
tion. Electrons can be created and annihilated, coming from
and going into the void of space, absorbing or leaving mere
energy in this exchange process. They come into being or die in
company with the positron. They share their roles equally in
this great vanishing trick which Nature performs to tantalize
us. But why are they all the same, whether they are those
performing in a laboratory in England or those performing in
the United States? The simple answer is that there must be
something shared by the environment in all the laboratories.
This ‘something must be uniform in order that the parameters
of the electrons created at different localities should be uniform.
The origin of the electron must be a medium which is electrical
in character and no amount of abstract thinking can avoid this
conclusion. Relativity does not have the power to cross these
boundaries either. The language of the aether is not Relativity.
It is the physics of the electron, the properties of electric charge,
which can reveal the secrets of the aether medium.
We will, therefore, move closer to the problems of charge,
mass and energy ofthe electron. We will ask ourselves why, if all
electrons are alike, they contrive to stay alike when our theories
tell us that they are radiating their energy all the time they are
accelerated. How can they do this when we know they travel
through superconductive metals without using any energy at
all? Has the phenomenon of the apparently infinite conductivity
of certain materials at certain low temperatures been explained
by abstraction too ? Or can we be naive enough to suggest that it
is atoms which radiate energy, not electrons, so that only when
the thermal conditions of the atom allow it to be triggered into
radiation by electron impact will we see any generation of the
heat which manifests the property of electrical resistance? Let us
proceed with the suspicious thought that electrons do not
radiate energy and that those who say that mathematics prove
otherwise have jumped to the wrong conclusions.
l0
Dirac’s Electron
Dirac's electron is an abstract product of his mathematical
enterprise. The electron 1 have in mind is a sphere filled by
electric charge. lt is an electron which Dirac, the authority on
electrons. was able to dismiss in 1938* with the words:
The Lorentz model of the electron as a small sphere charged with
electricity, possessing mass on account of the energy of the electric
lield around it. has pro\ ed very valuable in accounting for the motion
and radiation ofelectrons in a certain domain of problems, in which
the electromagnetic field does not vary too rapidly and the accelera-
tions are not too great. Beyond this domain it will not go unless
supplemented by further assumptions about the forces that hold the
charge of an electron together. No natural way of introducing such
further asstiinptions has been discovered and it seems that the Lorentz
model has reached the limit of its usefulness and must be abandoned
before we can make further progress.
Dirac's criticism is the problem of the forces that hold the
electron together. This is an extremely basic question in physics.
It defies explanation, until you have seen the very simplicity of
the answer. Force and pressure are not primary phenomena.
Force does not act instantaneously between electric charge.
Force occurs only \\ hen energy changes and energy changes only
when it can. The primordial parameters are taken here as space
and electric charge. Given a volume ofspace occupied by electric
charge. we can say that the mutual repulsion ‘forces‘ in the
charge will cause it to adopt spherical form. Yet, the volume
and the charge jointly determine the energy and energy deter-
mines the form. To explain this, imagine a definite volume of
space bounded by fixed walls. as depicted in Fig. 2. Within these
walls we presume there to be a medium filling the space except
* ‘Classical Theory of Radiating Electrons’. P. A. M. Dirac, Prue. Roy. S011,
rm, p. 14s. toss.
DIR/\ClS ELECTRON 93
for a sphere occupied by a definite quantity of electric charge.
Instead of regarding the charge as self-repulsive, assume that it
develops energy in the surrounding field. If this field energy can
Fig. 2
change, then the charge can redeploy. Reduction of the field

energy by transfer of energy to some other form can result in the
charge expanding. as we understand by the notion ofa repulsive
force action. But there has to be reason for energy change. We
take it that the charge has the character of preserving itself, of
moving to conserve its energy if subject to extraneous influence.
This is the subject of the next chapter. However, here we make
the point that the charge cannot expand unless the space it
occupies, the sphere bounding it. expands first. lt‘ it did expand
without such assistance, its energy would disperse and there
would be no discrete electric charges in the whole of our
universe. We must take note of the fact that electrons and many
other elementary charged particles are stable. Force arises only
when energy changes and this is only when motion can occur to
permit the change.
Now, if the walls of the system depicted in Fig. 2 move out-
wards, it is a difierent story. The particle of charge will become
unstable. lt will expand and release energy. Ofcourse, in Nature,
the imaginary space is full of charges. They can interact without
change of volume. They occupy the same volume whether they
are close together or far apart. Hence their interaction energy
can change to develop forces between the charges which we
measure and from which we reduce Coulomb's law. ll‘ the walls
of space expand, first one and then another of the charges will
expand by a statistical process. As soon as the first one starts to
expand it will act to fill the space by displacing the filling medium
and so restrain other particles of charge from expanding at the
same instant. We are here envisaging a process of expansion of
the universe by which more space is constantly created as the
plenum of electric charge constantly, but statistically with its
transiently stable states, expands to keep voids from forming.
Returning to Dirac, we can say that Nature keeps the electron
charge tightly together for our purposes and, while it is useful to
have an explanation even coupled with assumptions, the fact
does remain that the Lorentz model of the electron can survive
as a viable idea. Quoting further from Dirac’s paper:
One ofthe most attractive ideas in the Lorentz model ofthe electron,
the idea that all mass is of electromagnetic origin, appears at the
present time to be wrong, for two separate reasons. First, the dis-
covery ofthe neutron has provided us with a form of mass which it is
very hard to believe could be of electromagnetic nature. Secondly,
we have the theory of the positron—a theory in agreement with
experiment so far as is known—in which positive and negative values
for the mass of an electron play symmetrical roles. This cannot be
fitted in with the electromagnetic idea of mass. which insists on all
mass being positive. even in abstract theory.
Neutrons are believed by some authorities to be electrically

neutral aggregations of discrete electric charges of opposite
polarities. This is the basis of what has come to be called quark
theory, but we do not have to believe all about quarks to accept
this aggregation idea. Furthermore, as we observed in Chapter
9, the current belief was that Earnshaw's theorem denied the
possibility of stable aggregations of this kind and this belief is
ill-founded. Also, since Dirac wrote the above words it has been
discovered that a neutron can be diffracted by a magnetic field
and this does suggest that it has an electrical form. Certainly, it
is not by any means reasonable to argue today that the mass of
the neutron is not characteristic of its electrical nature. Dirac"s
second point, that the theory of the positron implies an electron
of negative mass, is hardly pertinent. lt merely sets his theory
against the logical and physically founded concepts of the ever-
DIRACQS ELECTRON 95
positive mass efi”ect of electromagnetic field energy. It is like
saying that his theory conflicts with the other one and is correct
solely for this reason.
Then Dirac, whose object is covered by the title of his paper,
‘Classical Theory of Radiating Electrons’ goes on to say how it
is desirable to assume a point model for the electron to avoid the
unnecessary complication of not having the field equations he
uses ‘holding all the way up to the electron's centre".
At this stage we must pause for reflection. We are examining
Dirac's thoughts on the question of energy radiation by the
accelerated electron. Dirac wants to use a point charge electron
whose mathematical portrayal invokes field equations applicable
throughout space. That is, boundary problems are to be put
aside. The reader, if he is tuned into the author‘s viewpoint,
may wish to retain the electron as a sphere of electric charge, if
only because it is easier to imagine a finite object than a mere
point surrounded by mathematical equations. These dilferences
are important if we are to end up with something meaningful.
Dirac then runs into the obvious problem that the energy of
the electron would become infinite if Maxwell's theory is to
hold. The self-energy of an electric charge is inversely propor-
tional to the spacing between its charge elements. The spacing is
zero if the charge is concentrated at a point. So Dirac declares
that he does not want to reject Maxwell's theory and that he
will try to overcome the difficulty by mathematics. He writes:
Our aim will be not so much to get a model of the electron as to get a
simple scheme of equations which can be used to calculate all the
results that can be obtained from experiment.
This seems an appropriate objective, but we are looking at a

paper about energy radiation by electrons and it is a fact that no
one has ever, even to this day. measured experimentally energy
radiated by discrete electrons. Energy transfer associated with
radiation, which in its turn is associated with the excitation of
electrons in test apparatus, has been observed, but when Dirac
speaks of calculation it is not merely energy transfer which has
to result from his equations. lt is quantitative data of energy
transfer which permits \erification by experiment and theory on
96 MODERN AI-ITHER SCIENCE
this is an idle pursuit if we have no way of relating this to the

specific number of electrons present and contributing.*
Dirac then brings us to the following statement:
A great deal of work has been done in the past in examining the
general implications of Maxwell's theory. but it was nearly all done
before the disco\ery of quantum mechanics in 1925, when people
ga\e all their attention to the question of how an electron could
remain in an atomic orbit without radiating --a question we now
know can be answered only by going outside classical theory—and
were thus not interested in simply looking for the most natural
interpretation their equations would allow.
This, indeed. is a statement which evokes comment. If every-

one faced the question of how an electron could remain in an
atomic orbit without radiating. why is it that this was not taken
as the clue to one of the most fundamental questions in physics,
the question about the very nature of mass? The mass of the
electron could well be that property it exhibits in moving to
conserve its intrinsic electric field energy and so its charge. Why
go outside classical theory to couple with quantum theory an
over-riding restraint on energy radiation ? Why bother inter-
preting equations? lf an electron in an atomic orbit does not
radiate energy then an electron need not radiate energy whether
accelerating by moving steadily in a circular orbit or accelerating
in a straight line. This is the simple interpretation and, if
equations indicate otherwise, we must question whether they are
built upon erroneous assumptions.
However. Dirac did not do this. He was writing about the
radiation of energy by electrons according to classical theory
and if atomic electrons did not radiate energy quantum radia-
tion assumptions were too easy a way of avoiding the problem.
Dirac wanted to stay with the mathematical equations and draw
meaning from them. He even added strength to the classical
theory by using relativistic principles to derive the usual expres-
sion for energy radiation according to Lorentz’s theory, and he
wrote:
" Sec discussions of Cerenkov radiation in Chapter 12.

DIRACQS ELECTRON 97
Whereas these equations, as derived from the Lorentz theory, are
only approximate. we now see that there is good reason for believing
them to be exact, within the limits of classical theory.
Then, on the next page of his paper:
As an interesting special case. let us suppose there is no incident field,
so that we have the equations of motion . . In general the electron
will not now be moving with constant velocity, as it would according
to ordinary ideas, since we may suppose it to be started off with
a non-zero acceleration and it cannot then suddenly lose its
acceleration.
This is a fantastic result to anyone accustomed to Newtonian
mechanics. Dirac realizes this when he then writes:
To study the rather unexpected results of the preceding section more
closely. . . . It would appear that we have a contradiction with
elementary ideas of causality. The electron seems to know about the
pulse before it arrives and to get up an acceleration (as the equations
of motion allow it to do), just sutficient to balance the effect of the
pulse when it does arrive.
Surely this just cannot be believed. Dirac was basing his
analysis upon acceptance of an idea presented by Schott in the
Plzilosoplzical Magazine in 19l5.T Schott had analysed the
problem of the incident electric field and wrote:
This equation shows that the whole of the work done by the external
field is converted into kinetic energy ofthe electronjust as ifthere had
been no radiation at all. None of it is radiated. . . . Thus we see that
the energy radiated by the electron is derived entirely from its
acceleration energy.
Schott’s idea was to provide the electron with an energy
component he called ‘acceleration energy’ of which he said:
Its existence is a direct consequence of a mechanical theory of the
aether.
So convinced were the physicists involved in these studies that
the electrons must radiate energy ifaccelerated that they had to
look to the physical force exerted by a mechanical, as opposed to
* These equations contained acceleration terms even though Dirac specifies no
incident field able to exert force on the electron.
T Vol. 29, pp. 49-62.
an electrical, aether to call into account the sources of the energy
radiated.
So, here was Dirac in I938, adopting the notion ofan accelera-
tion energy necessitating aether able to exert mechanically the
forces needed to feed the energy being radiated and. apparently,
missing the obvious fact that the easy way out of all the diffi-
culties is to see that the electron does not radiate energy at all.
Dirac was addressing a problem which did not exist, and now
see where he was guided by his conclusions:
The behaviour of our electron can be interpreted in a natural way,
however, if we suppose the electron to have a finite size. There is then
no need for the pulse to reach the centre ofthe electron before it starts
to accelerate.
Yet he started his paper by saying that the electron should be
deemed to be a point charge! Then he wrote:
Mathematically, the electron has no sharp boundary and must be
considered as extending to infinity.
This is puzzling. lt depends whether we have charge or energy

in mind. If we have stayed with the model of the electron as a
sphere of charge, we can see a finite electron, meaning the
charge, and also see a field extending to infinity.
Finally, Dirac concluded:
In this way a signal can be sent from A to B faster than light. This
is a fundamental departure frOm_l]1P_r1r.rl_in:1r.x_5 trip.-tt~./=i‘.1;2.~Jtuen1rty mat
is to be interpreted by saying that it is possible for a signal to be
transmitted faster than light through the interior ofthe electron. The
finite size of the electron now reappears in a new sense, the interior
of the electron being a region of failure, not of the field equations
of electromagnetic theory, but of some elementary properties of
space-time.
Space-time has failed. What does this mean ‘? How can space-
time fail‘? lf the space-time according to Relativity fails, then
Relativity fails. But how can anyone accept the argument
presented here by Dirac‘? lt is submitted that the question of the
radiation of energy by an electron was clarified by Dirac's
paper to the extent that the paper demonstrated the impossible
situation into which mathematical formalism can lead the
DIRACQS ELECTRON 99
physicist. Modern physical theory has become abstract. The
starting points of the original papers on the subject are mathe-
matical, the treatment is mathematical and the conclusions are
mathematical. ln many instances there seems to be no relation
whatsoever to the phenomena which make up the world of
experimental physics. Dirac has been bold enough to translate
his findings into language which can be interpreted in the context
of a true understanding of Nature. He has revealed a maze in
which so many physicists seem to be wandering. following one
another, without having any clear direction in which to go. It is
due time that this was realized. This realization is the key to
further progress, as we see in the next part of this work.
Whereas Dirac, incidentally, declares that space—time fails
within the electron but Maxwell‘s equations operate, Einstein,
in his book The Meaning of Rt’/uririry, first published in 1922,
writes:
We do know, indeed. that electricity consists of elementary particles
(electrons, positive nuclei). but from a theoretical point of view we
cannot comprehend this. We do not know the energy factors which
determine the distribution of electricity in particles of definite size
and charge, and all attempts have failed. If then we can build upon
Maxwellis equations at all, the energy tensor of the electromagnetic
field is known only outside the charged particles. lt has been
attempted to remedy this lack of knowledge by considering the
charged particles as proper singularities. But in my opinion this
means giving up a real understanding of the structure of matter. It
seems to me much better to admit our present inability rather than to
be satisfied by a solution that is only apparent.
It should be mentioned that Dirac himself wrote in Scientific
Ame/'ican in May, 1963:
I might mention a third picture with which I have been dealing lately.
It involves departing from the picture of the electron as a point and
thinking ofit as a kind ofsphere with a finite size . . . the muon should
be looked on as an excited electron. If the electron is a point, pictur-
ing how it can be excited becomes quite awkward.
ll
The Nature of Mass
The Einstein enthusiasts are very patronizing about the ‘classical’
electromagnetics and its ether, which they have abolished. But they
will come back to it by and by. Though it leaves gravity out in the
cold. as l remarked about l90l (I think), gravity may be brought in
by changes in the eircuital laws, of practically no significance save in
some very minute etfects of doubtful interpretation (so far). But you
must work fairly with the Ether, and Forces, and Momentum, etc.
T/icy are the realities, without Einstein‘s distorted nothingness.
Unpublished notes of Heaviside. March 1920"‘
The modern idea ofthe nature of mass dates back to I904, when
Mach put forward the principle now named after him. It is still
only an idea. The nature of mass, like its great property gravita-
tion, is still a mystery to the physicist, the philosopher and the
mathematician.
Let us examine a few authorities on the subject. First, what is
Mach's principle ‘? Sir Edmund Whittaker explains it thuszl
According to Mach“s principle as adopted by Einstein, the curvature
of space is governed by physical phenomena, and we have to ask
whether the metric of space—time may not be determined wholly by
the masses and energy present in the universe, so that space—time
cannot exist at all except in so far as it is due to the existence of
matter.
Whittaker was writing in April 1953. Mass, space—time and
energy stand or fall together as the basic elements of this fabric
* The author is indebted to H. J. Josephs for his kindness in providing the
above quotation from Heaviside’s unpublished work as kept in the archives of
the library of the Institution of Electrical Engineers in London. Mr. Josephs
wrote about Heaviside's manuscripts in ‘Postscript to the work of Heaviside’, at
p. 5ll of the December 1963 issue of the Journal ofthe Institution of Electrical
Erigirzecrr.
"l' Ili.\'r0r_\* Of r/it’ T/1vm'[r'r r{f.40l/ivr and E/r’€Irir'iI_\', I900-I926, E. Whittaker,
Nelson, 1953, p. 168.
THE NATURE 0E MASS l0l
which is us and our environment. The inertia of mass is due to
the interaction of mass with all other mass in the universe. At
about this time Sciama was writing his Ph.D. thesis at Cam-
bridge ‘On the Origin of Inertia’:*
Einstein's work . . . shows that inertia is connected with gravitation.
However, as Einstein himself was the first to point out, general
relativity does not fully account for inertia. Thus a new theory of
gravitation is needed.
Ten years later. in 1963. we find Bondi writingfi
What is gravity‘? . . . We are more familiar with its effects than with
perhaps the effects of any other force. Nevertheless. science finds it
rather difficult to digest gravity, and our best modern theory of
gravitation. Einstein's theory. is a very cotnplete and beautiful theory
that yet does not quite tit in with the rest of physics . . . we do hope to
gain much more insight once this great difficulty, this gap between
the theory of gravitation and the rest of physics. has been closed.
This was followed in 1964 by Hoylezi
Einstein’s mathematics has always been a complete unit in itself. It
has remained an isolated corner of physics which nobody has stic-
ceeded in relating in a really fruitful w'ay to the rest of physics.
Is this progress‘? Surely we should heed Heaviside. We must
come back to the aether. to classical ideas, to the eircuital laws
of electromagnetism. We must cast Einstein's ‘distorted nothing-
ness’ aside, and our prejudice as well, and think again. We must
heed Dirac’s conclusions in I938 that the boundaries of the
electron extend to infinity and that space—time fails in the
‘interior’ of the electron. We must think again about the nature
of this electron, and stop talking about signals travelling faster
than light and particles being accelerated without accompanying
force.
At the Kelvin lecture of the Institution of Electrical Engin-
eers delivered by Hoyle in 1970 he spoke of signals from the
future. In a report published by the Institution we read:§
* Af).S‘fI'(I('I.Y 0/" l)f.\'S(’!'!(IIf0!l.\‘, 19534954, Cambridge University Press, 1956,

p. 276.
‘l" See footnote reference on page 6.
I See footnote reference on page 6.
§IEE /\"cw.\', p. 16, May ll, I970.
102 MODERN AETHER scrENcE
Such signals would affect the form of the laws of physics, whereas
signals from the past merely give information. The basis of such
speculation is an analogy with the familiar ‘action and reaction’ con-
cept in classical mechanics. To be able to ‘signal‘ to a distant object,
something must be propagating from the object to the signallerfia
signal from the future. The backwards propagation has never been
observed because it is impossible to ‘waggle’ a charge in isolation;
the rest ofthe universe is always present. In 1945 Wheeler and Feyn-
man calculated that the effects of all ‘backwards' signals from all the
particles in the universe cancel exactly. Conversely the future com-
pletely absorbs electromagnetic radiation.
I cannot understand all this. I know that we still read about
the difficulties of explaining how an electron sustains the energy
it is supposed to radiate when accelerated. I suppose the distant
universe has to feed in, by some kind of signalling system, the
energy needed by the electron to sustain radiation. But is this not
just another way of saying that the electron interacts with the
aether so as not to radiate its energy '? Why go about in such a
roundabout fashion to say this simple thing‘?
We should not explain gravitation without first finding the
explanation for mass itself. We should not try to explain mass
in terms of interaction with other mass, because that is to probe
gravitation before we understand mass. We should, instead,
explain mass in terms of electric charge, discarding Mach’s
principle for a new one. the principle we see in such clear
evidence, the principle that an electric charge will move to
preserve itself. It will react to electric disturbances in just such a
way as to conserve its charge and its intrinsic energy. That is the
principle revealed to us by Nature herself. All we have to do is to
show that it accounts for the properties of inertia. It is easy to
prove by mathematics* but, in view of the strong criticism
levied against the mathematical approach in the previous
chapters, we will proceed using pure physics.
Surrounding an electric charge there is supposed to be what
we call an electric field. Electric energy of the charge is deter-
mined by multiplying the strength of this field by itself at every
point and summing the resulting quantity over all surrounding
* P/i_i'.vir.r wi!/mm 1fiii.\-rm‘/1, H. Aspden, Sabberton Publications, Southampton,
I969, pp. ll—-I3.
rm: NATURE or .\1Ass 103
space. Energy and charge are the fundamental quantities, not
field, but it does appear that the energy associated with electric
charge has a spatial distribution which fits the above concept
when taken with a vector field radiating uniformly from the
charge. Also, the field apparently moves as an integral system
with the charge when the latter is not accelerating. The system is
depicted in Fig. 3. The field idea is useful when the interaction
between two charges separated by a fixed distance is analysed.
Then, by combining the field components of both charges before
squaring and summing, the change of energy with separation
distance can be calculated. Coulomb‘s law can be derived in this
way.
When the charge in Fig. 3 is accelerated a disturbance in the
field is propagated outwards. We assume that the propagation
is at the fixed speed of light. This is logical because we have
specified charge and energy and need a third dimensional con-
stant involving time. All physics can be linked by the use of
three dimensional quantities. Mass, length and time are the
familiar dimensions used, but, fundamentally, we can take
electric charge, energy and a velocity parameter, if we prefer.
The algebra of physics will take us from one system to the other,
but given energy, the universal character of the velocity of light
and the fundamental role of electric charge, it seems best not to
stay with mass, length and time in an endeavour to explain the
nature of mass.
Fig. 4 shows how the field of the charge in Fig. 3 is dis-
torted by an infinitesimal pulse of acceleration in the direction
V. The field depicted shows the position of the radiated field
disturbance as it speeds outwards to its infinite destiny. When an
electric charge is accelerated it emits field disturbances which
set up waves in space. There are two imaginary spheres bounding
the disturbance zone. The outer one is centred on a position the
charge had immediately before receiving the acceleration pulse.
The inner one is centred on a new related position to which the
charge had moved at the incremental velocity during the period
taken for the disturbance to spread to the zone under study. The
radial distance between the two imaginary spheres is equal to
the distance travelled at the propagation speed in the small
IO4 MODERN AETHER SCIENCE
/-~_
’ ,- _
// \\\ \
/ / \\
a_*___
——>\/
\\ I, \
/
/ \\
\. //
/'/ ‘ Q Z: ,\\ \
Fig. 3 Fig. 4
interval during which the acceleration occurs. We can ignore the

non-concentricity of the spheres because the acceleration pulse
would have to increase the velocity of the charge by an amount
equal to the propagation velocity itself to make the eccentricity
distance equal to the radial separation of the spheres. We are
dealing with the effect ofa small acceleration pulse, productive
of small changes in velocity as we experience in Newtonian
mechanics.
The field lines in Fig. 4 radiate from the centres of the two
spheres and are accordingly distorted, as shown, in the dis-
turbance zone. Now, in effect we can separate the field into two
systems, one ofthe form of Fig. 5 and another ofthe forn1 shown
in Fig. 6. The field directions of these two systems are ortho-
gonal at all points. Thus, considering energy, we can square
and add components separately using Pythagoras’ Theorem. We
then see how the disturbance has its own added energy in a
wave zone. The total field energy of Fig. 5 must be the same as
that of the non-accelerated charge, by comparison with Fig. 3.
We have the added field components of Fig. 6 to consider, and
these must, it would seem, add energy which is radiated out-
wards as the zone goes off to infinity.
Since we are portraying the process of energy radiation, we
can easily see that deceleration will still send energy outwards.
The radiation process is irreversible. Using mathematics this
model can also yield the accepted formula for energy radiation.
The method presented here has been attributed to J. J. Thom-
THE NATURE or MASS 105
I
(\\ \ -~~R\
\\ \\
»-— -\ \\
\ / _.- _ \ \ \
/// \\ \\
/ / \ 1‘
0
’ I I "_*V
4’-_*
\
“a\1;
~T, / It’-_//'/_:\\\\
;\ § I \ _ \ \\~
4/
, ;/,/
r
\ \\ /
/ /
I
\‘E\<:>/
\\ _ /’ /
Fig. 5 Fig. 6
son. Hence, the reader may ask how we can retain the assertion
that the electric charge does not radiate energy. Well, the answer
is so obvious once you see it. The business of squaring and
adding only works to give energy correctly if there are no other
electric fields present. We really can never say that our charge
exists in complete isolation in a universe devoid of other electric
field-producing charge, particularly if we wish to give it a little
pulse of acceleration.
Let us assume that our charge has decided to move in the
direction of the ambient electric field, seeking to conserve itself
and being unwilling to radiate its energy as we have described.
There is then an electric field in the direction V. This field is in
the direction V because like charges repel and there is repulsion
of the charge in the V direction. This ambient field itself does
not move with the field disturbance radiating from the acceler-
ated charge. Now, as is known, where we have two field com-
ponents which act in opposition and which are not orthogonal
but are directly opposed, we obtain three energy density com-
ponents when we square the result. We have two quantities
found by squaring each component independently and we have
a negative energy density component due to the interaction of
the components. The self combination of the components of the
ambient field adds nothing to our energy radiation problem
because the field itself is not moving. The energy radiation terms
deduced from Fig. 6 do remain as positive radiation. However,
the interaction with the field in Fig. 6 will introduce negative
energy radiation as well. Now, the overall field energy at any
H
point can never be negative. A component can be negative if we
have another component which is adequately positive. The
negative energy component under review will appear in the
wave zone as the disturbance travels outwards to infinity. This
negative quantity can cancel the zone energy exactly. This is seen
if we resolve the ambient field at each point in the zone into a
component in line with the disturbance field components of
Fig. 6 and other components in orthogonal directions. The
component in opposition with the disturbance field component
increases from zero to a maximum around the wave zone
exactly as does the disturbance component. Now, if two terms
separated by a minus sign are squared and added so that the
interaction component cancels the square of one of the terms
alone, this term is exactly double the other term. It follows,
therefore, that for zero energy in the disturbance zone due to the
acceleration pulse the ambient field must be exactly half of the
maximum field component shown in the disturbance zone in
Fig. 6.
Hence, if we have an electric charge in an electric field and it
reacts to avoid energy radiation it will move so that it produces
a distorted field satisfying this criterion. The field which pro-
duces the acceleration actually prevents energy radiation. An
accelerated charge does not radiate its energy and thereby it
derives its property of inertia.
Why has this been missed by the great thinkers ofthe classical
period in physics? Probably because they were convinced that
light conveyed its energy by waves in the aether. The discovery
of the photon and the quantum features of energy transfer had
not daunted their belief in wave theory and the clear mathe-
matics of energy radiation by accelerated charge. They could
take the disturbance zone of Fig. 6 out beyond the range of the
local field producing the acceleration. Radio waves travel far
from the electric circuits producing the electron oscillations in
the transmitter. However, this is assuming that the energy ever
gets away from the electron in the first place.* If there is an
aether a wave might come along and merely ripple the energy
already present in the aether itself. Field energy cannot be con-
* See later discussion in Chapter 12.
THE NATURE 0E MASS 107
veyed by waves, as is so clearly evident from quantum behaviour
in energy transfer. It is also evident from our illustrated analysis,
because as the disturbance field components are propagated
away from the charge they become weaker. The related com-
ponents of the ambient electric field do not weaken in this way.
Therefore, the passage of the wave causes a ripple of negative
energy in the field-permeated surrounding space. This only
means that the local energy is deployed into other forms, but it
tells us something very important about the electric charge
emitting the disturbance. The zero net energy condition has to
apply at the surface of this charge.
If the charge is contained, say, in a hollow spherical shell
containing a void and surrounded by the aether medium, there
is nothing inside it to store any energy. lt, the charge, is a mere
spherical shell. It moves so as not to radiate any energy or even
deploy any of its energy at the location of its charge. Hence, the
condition for the half field response applies exactly at its outer
surface. This means that given a unit strength ambient field
acting on a unit strength charge, the charge will accelerate to
develop a double unit field at its surface at positions lateral to
the acceleration direction. The field which is developed here is
found as the radial field of the charge as distorted by a deflection
equivalent to multiplying it by the ratio of the eccentricity
distance of the spheres already mentioned to the radial distance
between the spheres. This ratio works out to be the acceleration
times the time it takes for the disturbance to develop at the
surface divided by the propagation velocity of the disturbance.
This is simply the acceleration times the radius of the charge
divided by the square of the propagation velocity. The radial
electric field is simply the unit strength charge divided by the
square of the radius, using the simple inverse square law of
field. Thus, the disturbance field developed is the acceleration
divided by the charge radius and by the square of the propaga-
tion velocity. For unit spherical charge, the charge radius is one
half of the reciprocal of the energy stored by the charge. The
disturbance field then becomes double the acceleration times
the energy divided by the square of the propagation velocity,
and we know that the acceleration is such that this field is two
units in strength. It follows that unit force developed by unit
ambient field on unit charge will produce an acceleration
inversely proportional to the energy divided by the propagation
velocity squared. In other words, the electric charge, in respond-
ing so as not to radiate its energy, will display the property we
term mass. lts mass will be equal to its energy divided by the
square of the velocity of propagation of the aether medium.
Thus, its energy will equal its mass multiplied by the square of
the velocity of light.
We have now accomplished our task. Mass is explained as
the property of an electric charge in contriving to avoid energy
exchanges at its surface. It emits waves when it is accelerated by
an electric field. lt causes oscillations in the aether when it is
oscillated itself. The energy in the aether is disturbed, but at the
very boundary surface of the electric charge there is no dis-
turbance. The charge has found a way of moving which brings a
calm unrufiied field condition to its surface form. Meanwhile
the accelerating electric field puts some of its energy into another
form in recognition of the acceleration imparted to the charge.
This is the kinetic energy of the charge. It is stored in the field
without disturbing the field remote from the surface of the
charge and this can only be true if in fact the charge sphere
shrinks a little to create more space for field energy. Kinetic
energy is stored by the charge reducing its radius.
In explaining the nature of mass we have come to the well-
known relationship between energy and mass, on which much of
Einstein’s recognition is founded. We do not see inertia as a
property dependent upon gravitation. Mass is a mere property
of electricity. Inertia is synonymous with mass. One implies the
other.
It is to be noted that the above argument has been applied to
a spherical shell of charge. It applies equally to a solid sphere of
charge. The latter is merely an aggregation of spherical charge
shells. There is no energy transfer at the surface of each shell due
to acceleration of its own charge. Further, if we consider inter-
action field effects between any two such shells, since there is no
interaction energy within the outermost shell, we can have no
energy transfer in this regard at the surface of the outermost
THE NATURE or MASS 109
shell. It works out that the mass property is linked to energy by
the same relationship.
It remains to ask what happens if the electric charge moves
at a very high speed approaching the speed of light itself.
Increase in mass with speed has been observed. The answer is
given already. The charge does not change but in shrinking to
store the kinetic energy the electric field energy has increased.
Thus, since mass is proportional to this energy for a constant
speed oflight, mass increases. As speed increases with increasing
mass the elfect is compounded and, mathematically, it may be
shown that the speed oflight is limiting. Mass would be infinite
at this speed.
12
The Aether in Evidence
In the previous chapter we were able to explain mass as a
property of electric charge in motion through space. The nature
of kinetic energy was explained in terms of the physical contrac-
tion of the charge in reacting in an electric field to prevent
radiation of field energy. Thus, the history of the motion of an
electric charge from its instant of creation is partially recorded
in terms of its physical size. lts state of motion relative to a basic
reference frame is implicit. There must be some kind of reference
frame in which matter is created. Furthermore, an electric
charge in motion induces certain effects. It acquires kinetic
energy, but it is also known to develop magnetic fields. One may
wonder then if the reference frame for matter creation is the
frame of reference for electromagnetism. This means that we are
considering something other than the charge, its energy and its
so-called field. A frame implies the existence of something else,
an orderly structure interacting with electric charge in motion.
We are considering the aether.
The fundamental ingredients of our study are electric charge,
energy and a time parameter. Logically, our aether will be
composed of an orderly array of electric charges in an organized
state of motion. Such charges will react to the electric field of a
moving electric particle. We will depict the action in the field
vector diagram in Fig. 7. Consider a charge at Q moving with
a velocity proportional to OQ. Imagine an element of aether
charge normally at P but having a new home position at R
because of the direct electric field of our charge at Q. This
aether element is, however, reacting to our charge as if it were
at O, because it has taken time for the action to be propagated.
In fact, the vector OP represents the propagation velocity.
Therefore the aether charge will not be at R. It will be displaced
THE AETHER IN EVIDENCE lll
from R and somehow reacting to the propagated effect from O.
The diagram assumes that the displacement vector RS is a
minimum, making RSP a right angle. As was suggested in
S
P
O Q
Fig. 7
Chapter 4, aether charge will tend to move in harmony in

circular orbits. Any displacement involving oscillation about a
new centre will not affect the basic natural frequency of the
motion. Thus, in Fig. 7, the charge is portrayed at S but in
reality it will be oscillating about S. Also, we could argue that
the charge at Q and the positions O and P share such an oscil-
lation in the inertial frame of reference. The aether charge is
subject to restoring force proportional to displacement. This is
why the oscillation frequency is universal. The aether is a natural
clock. The distance PR is a measure of the electric field at P due
to the charge at Q. The distance PS signifies the strength of the
field absorbed by the displacement to S. Some energy is trans-
ferred locally from the main electric field of the charge at Q but
this does not afiect the inertial behaviour of the charge. The
criteria accounting for mass effects explained in Chapter ll are
not affected.
The action described is reversible. As the charge at Q passes
and recedes into the distance the aether charge at S will return to
P. Note that the displacement RS is less than PR but that when
OQ exceeds OP some positions of P do allow RS to equal PS, a
condition corresponding to a charge velocity in excess of the
speed of light in free space.
Let us now consider electric induction effects in matter rather
than in free space. To explain the velocity of light in an optical
medium, that is, to derive the refractive index, a standard
method is to use electron theory and suppose the wave dis-
turbances to be simply periodic in time and space. Energy is not
considered. The analysis concerns fields, disturbances, displace-
ments and the natural frequencies of the different systems
present. Convincing results emerge from the analysis. Disper-
sion and absorption are explained in wave theory, the pre-
decessor ofquantum theory and the photon. But, remember that
energy is not considered. Indeed, go further than this and begin to
wonder whether the propagating medium really needs any special
energy stimuli. There is the reversible deployment of energy
from the direct electric field actions of disturbing charge, but
electromagnetic waves may be suificiently nourished by these
disturbing actions and may rely more on the energy already
contained in the medium. Electromagnetic waves may merely
cause a local oscillation of the existing store of energy in the
medium itself. Waves may travel through the aether or through
matter without conveying any energy as part ofthe wave action.
If we now regard matter as having properties such as were
assumed in Fig. 7, we can expect the passage of an electron
through matter to develop disturbances merely deploying
energy locally. The electron will retain its kinetic energy. How-
ever, this would be to ignore the interaction effects of other
electrons, which can lead to energy dispersion amongst them.
Also, of course, there are quantum phenomena, events involving
interaction between the electron and what are probably localized
disturbances of the lattice-like array of charges which must
constitute an important metric ofthe aether. These actions give
rise to Bremsstrahlung and photon phenomena, but it is the non-
quantum interaction between matter and aether which is
important to the present argument. We can have no duality of
wave theory and quantum theory unless we mean that both
phenomena coexist in reality. Then we need waves without
energy transfer and look to quantum mechanisms to explain
energy migration.
The aether is merely disturbed by its interaction with charge
THE AETHER IN EvIDENcE 113
in motion. But the aether acts as a catalyst. It is essential to the
system. It has energy and it holds this energy in a state of equili-
brium with the charged matter present. There are energy inter-
changes continuously but it is an exchange process which ensures
that the aether retains its store of energy however much it is
buffeted by the electric forces of passing charges. Magnetic
forces too will promote, we assume, similar effects. They will
promote actions or displacements, but always subject to the
overriding equilibrium tendency ofthe aether energy. The result
of all this is that if energy is fed to the aether transiently by a
charge in motion and the aether reacts to reject it, the aether will
not discriminate between any such charge present. Accordingly,
the disturbing charge will only receive its energy back as a co-
operative action involving other charge. Some kind of statistical
process is at work. There are mutual induction effects with the
ever-present environment of other charges of matter, as the
aether plays its catalytic role.
This has two important consequences which help to provide
some very significant evidence of the existence of the real aether
medium. One is magnetism itself, but firstly let us consider our
problem of electric induction in matter.
The process described by reference to Fig. 7 will be somewhat
thwarted if the propagation velocity is retarded by the presence
of other matter and the charge displaced from P experiences the
direct action of the charge at Q before the propagated distur-
bance arrives from O. In free space this cannot happen. How-
ever, high velocity electrons moving close to the speed of light
could be injected into a refractive medium in which the velocity
of light is lower than the speed of these electrons. In simple
terms, there is field action but the propagated aether charge dis-
placement cannot occur quickly enough to assure the equili-
brium state of Fig. 7. The energy deployment process at points
within the field involves a time delay. Reaction is rapid and
almost instantaneous if the rapid oscillatory motion of the
aether lattice has adapted to the disturbing charge by experienc-
ing the gradual effects of the propagated disturbance. However,
what comes in the case under study is a shock wave which
disturbs the equilibrium in the aether itself. Even displacement
114 MoDERN AETHER scIENcE
effects due to direct field action in the refractive medium are
subject to substantial time delay when reacting to really high
speed electrons. This medium has hardly time to participate in
energy deployment in the field. The aether, therefore, takes the
brunt of the shock wave effect.
As the charge recedes the effect of the shock cannot subside
fast enough. The equilibrium has been disturbed and some
energy is left behind in the field. This energy has not been fed
back to the disturbing charge via the interaction forces between
the lattice charge and the charge of the electron. It is retarded,
losing its kinetic energy until its speed comes below the propaga-
tion velocity within the medium. Then its further retardation
will depend solely upon its interactions with other matter and
photon emission. Note that the physical displacement of charge
in the aether is essential to this argument. It is not possible to
contemplate solely displacement in the refractive medium itself
because this cannot react quickly enough to the direct action of
the electron field. The electron is moving at a velocity much
higher than any prevailing in the atomic systems it is disturbing.
In effect, we have said that the aether preserves an energy
equilibrium and in so doing it acts as an unseen catalyst under
normal circumstances. However, it can be taken by surprise and
its equilibrium processes, at least in respect of the wave propaga-
tion role they play, are just not fast enough in the singular
situation described. The aether can be left holding energy after
the electron has passed on, and this energy will be spilled out to
any other charge in the medium in a manner unrelated to pro-
cesses normally observed at speeds below the propagation
velocity.
The experiment has been performed by Nobel Prize winner
Pavel A. Cerenkov. It was reported in 1937. Quoting from his
1958 prize lecture entitled: ‘Radiation of particles moving at a
velocity exceeding that of light’, we read:
In 1904 to 1905, shortly before the theory of Relativity came into
being, Sommcrfeld submitted the hypothetical case of the movement
of an electron at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum to a
theoretical study. But the coming of the theory of Relativity which
affirms that material bodies are unable to move at the speed of light,
still less to exceed it, overshadowed Sommerfeld’s conclusions which
seemed less to the purpose. It is, seemingly, to this circumstance that
we may to some extent ascribe the complete neglect of the problem
of the movement of electrically charged particles in a substance,
because it could not be reconciled with the theory of Relativity.
Cerenkov discovered that when electrons travelling at a speed

higher than the speed of light in a substance are injected into
that substance there is emission of radiation having no spectral
structure. The quantum we associate with Planck is missing.
The photon mechanism seems to be supplanted by something
else. Electric particles can interact to exchange energy and a
dispersal of energy known as Bremsstrahlung occurs. However,
with Cerenkov radiation it seems that the aether characteristic
of energy conservation is at work until the particle moves slower
than the speed of light in the medium.
We now turn to the problem ofa magnetic field. It would, it
seems, involve extreme speculation to explain the physical
nature of a magnetic field. To attempt this one would have to
take note of the efforts of the nineteenth century and remember
that a formal physical account of magnetism could lead to the
analysis of the motions of an aether fiuid. Magnetism is as
fundamental as electricity itself since the most minute element
of charge, even an element ofa discrete charge, exerts a magnetic
effect. Electrons have the fundamental discrete electric charge
we recognize as the basic quantum in accepted physics. Yet,
electrons can develop a magnetic effect attributed to spin. The
explanation of the nature of a magnetic field does not fall
amongst the same order ofthings as other fundamental physical
phenomena. In this work we are treating what may be termed
the macroscopic properties of the aether medium. The nature of
an electric field, of electric charge, and of magnetic field actions
probably depends upon the microscopic behaviour ofan aether
more fundamental than the electrical model presumed so far in
this work. Accordingly, for the present purpose, let us rely on
the analogy between electricity and magnetism. The aether has
been found to react to a disturbing electric field merely by
deploying energy locally from the field to the balancing electric
state of charge displacement in the aether medium. For the
116 MODERN AETHER scIENcE
magnetic field we will suppose a displacement state of some form
but accept, by analogy, that no energy attributed to the motion
of the disturbing charge is, in fact, fed to localities in the field
region, taking due note of the possibility of transient exchanges
which assure equilibrium conditions.
On this hypothesis what, then, is magnetic energy ? It could be
regarded as a component ofenergy stored in the aether but, if so
regarded, its presence should be melded with that of what we
might term ‘dynamic electric energy’ associated with the dis-
placement vector RS in Fig. 7. It so happens that the field vector
RS is equal in magnitude to the magnetic field vector developed
at P by the motion ofthe charge at Q. Then the magnetic energy
at P would need to be taken as a negative component compen-
sated by the positive dynamic electric energy component and
we must not imagine deployment of the intrinsic static field
energy of the electric charge at Q. Such a concept was helpful in
developing the main analytical work of the author* but it can
best be avoided by simply ignoring magnetic field energy as
such. It may have no real existence. Magnetism may be a state
providing its own microscopic catalytic action between charged
electric particles in motion, but somehow referenced on an
electromagnetic frame provided by the dominant role of the
lattice array of aether charge already mentioned.
Remember that the aether will not discriminate between
charge when it feeds back any energy accepted from a particular
charge in motion. We must then expect that when a charge is set
in motion it will have to find its own equilibrium via the cata-
lytic action of the aether, exchanging energy with other free
charge present. It will experience a retarding electromotive
force (a back-EMF in the terms of the electrical engineer).
Other charges present may see this electromotive force as an
accelerating force and absorb energy to augment their kinetic
energy. Then they too contribute to the magnetic disturbance,
but the net effect is that the catalytic action can transfer kinetic
energy between the charges, a phenomenon we well know from
the behaviour of the electric transformer.
We will now develop this argument in detail, coming to the
* PI1ys'ic_\" without Einstein.
thesis that magnetic energy supposedly stored in the field really
takes the form of kinetic energy imparted to the reacting system
of charge, whether in matter or in free space. This will afford
some clear indicators of the existence ofa real aether medium.
The law of force action between electric current elements can
be worked out by evaluating the interaction magnetic field
energy components and examining how these change with
separation distance between the elements. This was discussed in
Chapter 8. However, it has just been said that a magnetic field is
merely a disturbance condition in the aether and that energy is
conserved in the aether field. All we have is kinetic energy of the
charges generating the current elements and we cannot reason-
ably expect an interaction energy from these terms. It seems then
that we have a problem. But this is a problem which takes us to
convincing evidence that the aether medium does exist. It leads
us to some remarkably easy answers to other problems as well,
problems which have turned physical theory upside down for
many decades.
We are talking of currents which produce magnetic fields and
the effect of these fields upon electric charges in motion. Our
physics tell us that any reacting charge will describe helical paths
and develop an opposing magnetic field effect resisting the mag-
netic field applied by the action of primary currents. But do all
the charges behave the same way? Do all free electrons in a
lump of copper, for example, really react to oppose the applied
magnetic field‘? If so, we would find it difficult to put a steady
magnetic field into copper. There should be very strong dia-
magnetism substantially cancelling the whole field effect. But
there is no such reaction, certainly not of the magnitude our
physics would imply. History provides some very remarkable
answers: they discredit the contribution which scientists have
made to progress in this century.
The authority on diamagnetic susceptibilities is the treatise by
Van Vleck.* After referring to the statistical theorems by which
earlier workers reconciled their minds on this problem, Van
Vleck writes at page 101 :
* The Tlieory of E/eerric am! Magmelic Smreptihi/i!ie.r, Oxford University
Press, 1932.
This absence of a diamagnetic susceptibility from free electrons at

first thought appears quite paradoxical. If each electron describes a
circle about the field, it certainly possesses angular Inomentum about
the centre of the orbit, and the sense of the rotation is such that the
attendant magnetic moment is opposite to the field, apparently
giving diamagnetism. However, . . . in case the body containing the
electrons is bounded in extent, the electrons near the boundary can-
not describe complete circles but are reflected from the boundary. . . .
These boundary electrons are very vital, as without them there would
be diamagnetism. . . . A potential barrier is also required at the
boundary to refiect the electrons. Ofcourse, on true theory, quantum
modifications must be taken into account. . . . Thus the theorem on
the absence ofdiamagnetism is valid only in classical theory.
We know before we start any theoretical enquiry that a lump
of copper does not suppress a magnetic field which is not alter-
nating. We know that there is no apparent diamagnetism. Our
physics applied to the electrons individually say that there is
diamagnetism. How does Van Vleck explain the difiiculty?
Electrons bounce off the inside boundaries of the copper. But if
an electron collides with an atom it will hit one of the Outer
guardians of the atom, another electron. Newton tells us that
when two identical bodies collide they merely exchange
momenta. So the electrons change places. Such a collision will
not constitute any change in the diamagnetic argument. No,
Van Vleck says that there has to be a potential barrier causing
the electron to bounce back. Van Vleck draws the bounce as in
, v>
\,/
Fig. 8 so that the electron migrates around the inside boundary
to develop a magnetic field compensating the orbital motions of
the other free electrons. There is also a reserve position. Van
Vleck falls back with confidence upon quantum theory for a
supporting explanation. He imparts a statistical distribution to
the angular momentum. Negative angular momentum is as
likely in mathematics as is positive angular momentum, when
there is no magnetic field. When we apply a field we know that
magnetic force acts at right angles to the electron motion. It
does no work. Therefore no energy is added by applying the field
and so, ifthere is no magnetism due to the electron motion when
no field is applied, there is none when the field is applied. The
argument is clarity itself. But it is wrong: not because the quan-
tum statistics are wrong, but because we have applied with
confidence a law of elcctrodynamics according to Lorentz, and
completely forgotten that fundamental discovery Inade in 1831
by Michael Faraday. An electric current is generated in a closed
circuit when a magnet in its neighbourhood is moved. This dis-
covery still has to survive all quantum treatment by the physicist.
If you apply a magnetic field to a system of electrons in motion
you must supply energy. There is an experiment which shows
that induction applies to the current element, and so to the
discrete charge in motion.
It is an experimental fact that the electromotive force and
potential drop can differ in a circuit element. This has been
shown by apparatus of the kind shown in Fig. 9. Here, a mag-
netic core M is excited by an alternating magnetizing field to
produce magnetic flux changes linking a circular current circuit
C. Two diametrically-opposite points on the circuit are con-
nected by symmetrically disposed leads to a voltage detector G.
These leads are flexibly connected so that the circular current
circuit can be pivoted about an axis through the two points of
connection. The axis of the magnetic core passes through the
centre of the circular current circuit. The experiment consists in
pivoting the circular current circuit with the magnet excited. It
is found that, whereas the potential drop in the two halves of the
circular circuit must be the same since they carry the same
current, the measured signal changes from zero as the circuit
12O MODERN AETHER scIENcE
F {#9
M
Q / I
Fig. 9
is turned from a position normal to the axis of the magnetic

core. This clearly shows that the electromotive force in the two
halves of the circuit are not equal. There Inust be a force
induced in a circuit element, that is, on a single charge in motion,
acting along the direction of the current or motion. This force is
supplementary to the lateral force set up by the operation of the
law of electrodynamics. It is a force existing transiently when a
magnetic field is changing.
There is therefore a fundamental error in physical reasoning
in the theorems purporting to explain why the free electrons in
any material are of negligible effect in resisting the applied
magnetic field. From energy considerations, diamagnetism is
the inevitable result and we do have to face this fact and see how
we can reconcile it with the apparent non-existence ofsubstantial
diamagnetism.
Our starting point is obvious. Some substances exhibit
ferromagnetism. They contain electric charge in motion, both
free electrons and electrons in their atomic systems. Somehow,
the statistics of their behaviour, whether classical or quantum,
allow them to develop a magnetic field without any help from
outside. Effects such as this come from deployment of energy. It
suits the electrons in the ferromagnet to assume a state where
they develop a magnetic field. They pay attention to the alter-
native states open to them and accept the one involving mini-
mum potential energy. They seem to ignore the statistical rules
which Van Vleck would impose upon them to deny them the
ability to contribute some magnetic field of their own. So, we
look to energy. We minimize potential energy, which implies
maximization of energy due to the dynamic state, such as
magnetic energy or kinetic energy. And we turn back to our
diamagnetic problem.
Ifa magnetic field acts on an electron, the interaction with the
transverse velocity component ofthe electron drives the electron
into a circular orbit at this velocity. There is balance of magnetic
force and centrifugal force. It works out that the electron
develops a reaction magnetic moment equal to the kinetic
energy due to this velocity component divided by the strength of
the magnetic field. It is the same if we merely assert a ‘spin’
magnetic moment since the magnetic field times the magnetic
moment is a measure of the energy involved. Analysis then
shows that if a magnetic field is applied to a system of electrons
in motion, the total reaction magnetic moment will be the total
of these energy components divided by the effective magnetic
field. This effective magnetic field is the applied field less that due
to the reaction magnetic moment. There is an optimum reaction
for maximum kinetic energy or minimum potential energy. This
is when reaction field is exactly half of the applied field. This, in
turn, means that, apart from small atomic reaction effects, all
substances are diamagnetic to this same extent. The magnetic
field is invariably halved by the reaction of charge. Accordingly,
what really happens is that any electric charge in motion sets up
twice the magnetic field we measure. Half of this is cancelled by
reaction. Then we see that the kinetic energy deployed to develop
the reaction is exactly equal to the conventional magnetic field
energy.
We have solved our problem with remarkable ease and con-
firmed the theoretical aether field result deduced above. The
free charges in a substance have a statistical distribution of their
kinetic energy and produce no magnetism due to this but they
receive extra energy, in measure equal to the so-called magnetic
energy, and this they deploy exclusively to sustain the reaction.
I
All magnetic fields are halved, whether in material substances or
in the aether itself. Therefore there has to be free charge in space
capable of reacting. This itself proves the existence of the aether
as a real medium. It is needed to keep our physics coherent on
this awkward problem ofdiamagnetism.
The reader might be suspicious of the above argument and be
inclined to accept the assurances of Van Vleck that statistics
can eliminate diamagnetism. lt may help, therefore, to draw
attention to some comments made by 1970 Nobel prizewinner
Professor Alfven. After deriving the result that the diamagnetic
reaction moment of a charged particle is equal to its kinetic
energy divided by the magnetic field but noting the theorems
based on Fig. 8, he writes:*
On the other hand, as a single spiralling particle produces a dia-
Inagnetic moment, it seems reasonable that a gas consisting of an
aggregate of such particles should be diamagnetic when it is not in
thermodynamic equilibrium. The importance of this is evident in
view of the fact that discharges are in a state very far from equili-
brium. . . . Our discussion of an electron gas is ofinterest because it
shows that under certain conditions a charged particle gas may be
diamagnetic. In cosmic physics a gas always contains about the same
number of positive and negative particles. . . .
Alfvén is saying that if there is free charge in space it should
react to exhibit diamagnetism and that it will so react if it is not
in thermodynamic equilibrium. Therefore, if the aether is an
electric plasma and it has the form envisaged in this book, a
form in which there are no collisions able to develop the boun-
dary reactions according to thermodynamic statistical processes,
then the aether too will display diamagnetism.
Ferromagnetism is a natural phenomenon because the atomic
electrons in certain states in certain materials find that energeti-
cally there is an advantage in aligning their orbits. Their
intrinsic energy is deployed to set up a magnetic field. The reason
is interesting. Firstly, note that any electron in motion in an
atom is like the charge at Q in Fig. 7 discussed above. Associ-
ated with its motion there is reaction kinetic energy in the aether
or in the electrons in surrounding substance.
* C(I.S‘I7If(‘(If E/welruzfwizinzics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1950, pp. 58 and 61.
THE AETHER IN EVIDENCE 123
The process of energy deployment is as follows. When the
charge at Q moves it develops a disturbance we recognize as a
magnetic field. Free charge in the environment is affected. An
electric inductive reaction is involved due to this and a force
exists on Q absorbing some of its kinetic energy. This energy is
transferred via the same inductive mechanism to the free charge
just mentioned. Ferromagnetism occurs because the atoms can
release some of their potential energy to come to a more
favoured energy state. In the energy equilibrium process there is
ample kinetic energy in the free electron system present to
sustain the mutual efiiects of the magnetic field. An appropriate
statistical contribution can be made by just enough such free
electrons reacting to the main magnetic field polarization to
keep the energy balance. Magnetic polarization and alignment
of the electron orbits in the atoms correspond to the preferred
energy state. This action is, however, regulated by the over-
riding condition that the alignment of orbits does not itself
require more potential energy than is freed. For example, let
us suppose that one electron orbit in each atom in a ferro-
magnetic crystal decides to align itself with some direction in the
crystal. Because of the orbital quantization of the electron its
magnetic moment is fixed and a certain amount of potential
energy has to be stored because we have induced new strains in
the crystal. The electrodynamic interactions have been altered.
The orbits are no longer randomly orientated. It follows that
ferromagnetism will occur if the potential energy accompanying
the change in elastic strain is less than the reaction kinetic
energy, because this latter quantity is not just a measure of the
magnetic energy usually recognized but is equal to the energy
sustaining the induction processes. At the onset of ferromagnet-
ism the potential energy from the atoin spills out to feed the
strain energy. Meanwhile the reaction field energy is tapped
from the thermodynamic energy of the free charge moving in
the substance. Any surplus energy goes into kinetic energy and
increases the thermal condition.
There is some evidence that the kinetic energy imparted to
electrons by magnetic induction is limited by the related
magnetic energy. If a strong current pulse is induced in a
semi-conductor, one would expect the kinetic energy of the elec-
trons and so the current itself to have a critical relationship with
the magnetic energy within the conductor. This presupposes that
the energy imparted by applied or induced fields exceeds by far
the initial kinetic energy of the electrons, an unlikely possibility
in ordinary metals but a distinct possibility in semi-conductors.
The result will be an apparent failure of Ohm’s law because a
current saturation effect may occur. Also, since the magnetic
field relates to current in dependence upon the physical size of
the conductor, this saturation effect should depend upon the
conductor cross-section.
In a paper at page 941 of Hclrericu P/1_1"sica Acra, l969, Jaggi
has drawn attention to the experimental evidence of the size-
dependent non-ohmic behaviour of germanium and silicon.
Jaggi also mentions the curious saturation condition that
magnetic energy equates with the kinetic energy within the
conductor at saturation. This helps to confirm the thesis about
the disposition of the so-called magnetic energy in reacting
current systems, but we must stay with the problem of ferro-
magnetism to see if we can account for the saturation magnetism
evidenced by iron and other ferromagnetic materials.
We know that in a crystal the minimum strain energy is
stored when there is symmetrical strain. The strain due to ferro-
magnetism is not symmetrical. It depends upon the axis in
which the polarization lies. However, strain energy is a function
of stress and strain. It depends upon the time it takes for the
crystal to react to the stress. The minimum energy condition is
then one where the magnetic polarization reasserts itself
repeatedly in each of the possible directions of magnetization. If
this happens fast enough the energy deployed as crystal kinetic
energy will be small. Overall, therefore, minimum potential
energy is a state for which the polarization is repeatedly
quenched and reasserted so as to allow the magnetization vector
to spend the same period oftime in each of the possible crystal
directions. There are no problems here due to thermal losses.
The changes in magnetization involve repeated exchanges of
energy with the kinetic energy stored in the free charge system.
However, each time magnetism is lost there is adiabatic cooling
and each time it is re-established there is adiabatic heating. This
means that the temperature stays unchanged.
Of course, if a magnetic field is applied to a ferromagnetic it
will favour a magnetization direction in its sequence of inter-
changing its magnetism between the different axes, and so it
will develop an apparent polarization in one direction and form
into the domain systems familiar to the expert on ferromagnetic
properties. The strain energy does not depend upon which
direction in a given axis the magnetism has chosen. Ideally, the
polarization \vill be along each axis for equal portions of any
time interval, but this will be modified very slightly by the effects
of an external field and its direction. This will endow the ferro-
magnetic material with some strain sensitive properties and
magnetostriction is to be expected. Our object here is really only
to show how the aether leads us to an understanding of ferro-
magnetism and how ferromagnetic properties give convincing
evidence in support of the aether concept.
The first real evidence comes from the fact that we have shown
that in a ferromagnet there will be a half-field reaction. The
magnetic moment set up by an orbital electron is exactly double
that predicted by conventional theory but it is half cancelled by
reacting charge which also has its own orbital motion. In a
ferromagnetic substance the reaction will be caused by electrons
and so if we measure the ratio of the total magnetic moment
change and the total of the accompanying angular momentum
change when we reverse the magnetism in a ferromagnetic
specimen it will be double the value expected on normal theory.
This was observed experimentally by Sucksmith and Bates
(l923).* The anomalous factor of two, known as the gyro-
magnetic ratio, has sustained Dirac’s formalism, because this
mysterious factor is supposedly due to a primary property
called ‘electron spin’. The Dirac theory has, however, been a
great handicap to the theory of ferromagnetism. It has prevented
the true source, the orbital motion of the electron, from being
accepted as the origin of the ferromagnetic field. This we have
rectified in the above account.
With the new theory of ferromagnetism developed above it
* Pmc. Roy. Son, 104A, p. 499, 1923.
becomes possible to attribute ferromagnetism to electrons which
decide to come out of their wave mechanical motions and lock
into a simple orbital state. Analysis shows that two electrons in
the second Bohr orbit produce the observed magnetic polariza-
tion in iron. It is noted that the quantization of each atom in
iron is known to contribute 2-221 Bohr magnetons. The Bohr
magneton is the quantum measure of magnetic moment. It is a
real challenge to any theory to explain a quantity such as 2-221
when ideally one would think it should be an integer. Let us see
where our theory takes us.
The force on an electric charge moving in a magnetic field
arises because the energy conditions involving reaction effects
optimize that way. Thus. energy optimization is more basic than
force. Consequently in considering how a charge reacts in a
magnetic field it is the deployment of energy in reacting to the
effective field which matters. An iron crystal has a body centred
cubic structure and ifits magnetism shares each ofthe three cube
directions equally. being bi-directional in two axes and uni-
directional in the third, we have one third of the total instan-
taneous magnetic field as the effective polarization. This will
develop a reaction effect of one half this, determining the energy
to be deployed to provide the reaction field. Since this reaction
is shared between the three axes as well, we have a polarization
of one third the instantaneous action less one half of one ninth
of the instantaneous action. This is five eighteenths of the
primary quantization.
The energy analysis can be used to show that iron is ferro-
magnetic due to the contribution ofelectrons in the second Bohr
orbit.* It appears that two electrons contribute to the ferro-
magnetic state. because this gives eight Bohr magnetons when
the double action is allowed for. Five eighteenths ofthis is 2-222
Bohr magnetons. Allowing a little time for the magnetism to
move from one direction to another we would expect the actual
value to be slightly less than this, comparing well with the
measured value of 2-22l. Similar analysis can be used with
success for cobalt and nickel. allowing for different crystal
structures and taking two electrons per atom in half the lattice
* See Chapter 3 in the authors book P/i_1'si<'s wirlmul Einstein.
structure for face-centred nickel and two electrons for each
atom in the close-packed hexagonal structure of cobalt.*
The evidence of reaction effects in ferromagnetic material is
strong and the evidence points to the corollary, a reacting aether.
Magnetic phenomena are therefore particularly important in
judging whether or not the aether should be recognized by the
modern physicist.
Before ending this chapter something should be said about
gravitation. Gravitation is a magnetic phenomenon. It is readily
explained and is seated in a magnetic disturbance at the universal
frequency of the aether. It can have certain steady state charac-
teristics in respect of interactions between gravitating elements
but will not interact with a magnetic field unless, of course, it is
at this very high frequency ofthe aether. The frequency is that of
photons developed when electrons are annihilated. The constant
of gravitation G can also be derived in terms ofthe charge/mass
ratio of the electron, based on a straightforward analysis of the
aether. The reader is referred to the comprehensive analysis
elsewhere.T However, it is appropriate to note that the state of
magnetism in space corresponding with a gravitational field
means energy deployment from the joint orbital motion shared
by matter and aether charge. The aether is found to undergo
charge displacement due to the out-of—balance effects otherwise
arising from the presence of matter. The harmonious orbital
motions of this displaced charge are like the orbital motions of
the electrons contributing to ferromagnetism. Energy is
deployed from this motion and converted to the kinetic energy
released to matter when a body moves under a gravitational
force.
* H. Aspden, lecture at meeting of Magnetics Group of German Physical
Society, Salzburg, March 29. 1971.
"I" Physics wirhour Eirisrei/I.
13
Action at a Distance
In explaining the effects of an electric charge in motion by
reference to Fig 7, it has been tacitly assumed that there is action
at a distance in the aether. Coulomb’s law of electrostatic inter-
action between electric charge has been the basis of the whole
argument even though a case has been declared favouring
energy action as Inore fundamental than the force effect. Force
arises when motion permits energy to develop what it is that we
experience as a force.
Now, there are those who think that field theory excuses us
from the need to worry about action at a distance. Also, there
are advocates of mechanical aether theory who just cannot
accept such a thing as action at a distance. The energy argument
developed in this work and as used by reference to Fig. 2 may or
may not give a satisfactory alternative to these sceptics. lt seems
that the orthodox scientific community accepts ‘field theory’ as
the convenient alternative, without quite understanding the
physical reality of the ‘field’. Action at a distance still bothers
the realist element in scientific thought. It is authoritatively dis-
missed by abstraction in a paper by Hoyle and Narlikar* with
the words:
The success of field theory has overshadowed the action at a distance

theories, although, ironically, we nowadays need have no difficulty
with the problem that seemed so worrying to Newton and his fol-
lowers, namely the mystery of ho\v particles manage to act on each
other when they are at a distance apart. We now know that particle
couplings are propagated along null geodesics—i.e. at no distance in
the four dimensional sense. Strictly, the phrase ‘action at a distance’
should be changed to ‘action at no distance’.
* ‘A new theory of gravitation’, Prov. Roy. S0c., A, Vol. 282, pp. 191-207,
1964.
ACTION AT A DISTANCE 129
This is peculiar thinking. It seems that Einstein’s theory can
be used to transform words as well as frames of reference. We
are simply concerned with the question of how two electric
charges relatively at rest act upon one another, somehow exert-
ing their mutual effects across the space separating them, and we
are told they are both at the same point in space—time. Two
electric charges can be separated by a distance in a three-
dimensional world and since we are concerned with Coulomb’s
law, a law derived from experiment in an assumedly three-
dimcnsional reference frame, we had better restrict ourselves to
this real world if we expect to achieve anything meaningful. Are
two spaced electric charges constantly subjected to the mutual
interaction force ‘? Are they in a state ofjittcr due to pulsations
in the actions and delays in propagating their interactions?
These questions may offend the physicist who lives by abstrac-
tion. The offence, however, may well arise because it is irritating
to have a problem and not to have any clear answers. It is easier
to argue that all that matters is what can be measured. If one
cannot make measurements to determine the truth it probably
will not matter to our physics how abstract our thoughts, as
long as they link at least somewhere with the reality of observa-
tion. ls it not better to acknowledge our difficulties and let the
students of physics wrestle with them, as problems of real
physics, rather than as abstract riddles purportedly connected
with the true nature of things?
Stedman,* writing recently on ‘Broken Symmetry’ in Science
Progress, gave perspective to the philosophical implications of
abstract physical principles when he referred to a reported con-
versation involving Heisenberg:
Someone asked Heisenberg in the discussion time: ‘Why then did
God create the world with asymmetry in it?’ Heisenberg’s reply:
‘Only nothingness is absolutely symmetrical, and there would be no
point in creating that.‘
Stedman then went on to write:
Perhaps the rambling account above is reminiscent of the endless
debates of the schoolmen of the Middle Ages, on such questions as:
* G. E. Stedman, S('f(’II(‘£’ Pmgrcxs, Vol. SS, pp. 507-23, I970.
‘When a fish swims, which moves first, the water or the fish?’ If such
apparently futile questions form the warp and woof of modern
physical theory, it would appear that we are not much better off
than the schoolmen.
A question may seem futile if we do not know the answer, but it
is better to keep in mind such futile questions than to offer to
others futile answers. In many matters in physics we have pro-
gressed remarkably little from the state of knowledge in the
Middle Ages.
When we contemplate the problem of action at a distance
perhaps we are in a poor state of mind. It is the present author’s
contention that there is a real aether medium. Such is the subject
of this book. But this belief has arisen from the discovery that
much of the accepted physics of electromagnetic theory is
inconsistent and that the weaknesses can be remedied by involv-
ing the electrified aether medium. Coulomb’s law has been the
foundation of all the author’s analysis. It is the most funda-
mental physical law relied upon by the author in building the
theory published in his earlier works.* Certainty has come from
the quantitative derivation of the universal physical constants.
These are the features which give the theory its real meaning.
The universal constants of physics are somehow determined by
Nature; they are determined quantitatively, and, of course,
qualitatively. However, it is easier to contrive qualitative argu-
ments purporting to explain what is observed than it is to couple
with a qualitative picture a derivation ofthe observed numerical
features. Quantitative support does exist for the simple qualita-
tive physics given in this work. The form of the aether under
discussion can be analysed in depth by applying classical
electrical theory with some corrections. By discovering that if an
electron does not radiate its energy when accelerated it must
possess the property of inertia, the aether, as an energy con-
taining medium in its own right, has come in evidence and also
mass properties have become a consequence of the electrical
properties of the aether.
The author has therefore been content to brush aside the
* The Theory of Grarimriun, lst edition I960, 2nd edition l966 and Physics
without Einstein, 1969.
concepts of those advocating an aether based on mechanical
foundations and, of course, the author‘s ideas, along with any
favouring an aether, are set aside by those scientists of our time
who are happy with life as a matrix of mathematical equations
in a void.
One staunch advocate of aether theory is Oscar N. R. Potier,
who has questioned the lack of definition of energy in the
author‘s work, pointing out that energy is really force times
distance. He writes:*
You suggest that gravitation is a magnetic phenomenon. This means
that action at a distance and tractive. tensile, or attractive forces are
accepted, against the teaching ofthe sacrosanct laws of mechanics-
contiguity and push or compression as the only possible forms of
reality where physical forces are concerned.
Potier’s own theoryi is based upon an ever-accelerating
universal expansion by which all elements of matter are forced
further and further apart by forces transmitted by a space sub-
stance forming the aether. The inertial restraint appears as a
gravitational attraction if this accelerated expansion is not
appreciated. This idea can be disputed on quantitative grounds
but it does, in principle, show how an unwillingness to give in to
the doctrines of established physics and accept the inexplicable
action at a distance forces can provoke new thoughts about the
fundamental mechanics of our universe.
Now, it is not particularly worthwhile to argue that energy is
force acting through a distance when, in fact, force may be a
measure of energy change when whatever is associated with the
energy undergoes a change of spatial configuration, that is,
change of distance. Given energy and distance we need have
little difficulty with the concept of force. Given force and dis-
tance we can understand energy, but energy can be something
existing in its own right, whereas force implies something else.
Energy is a scalar quantity whereas force is a vector. Energy is
the more basic parameter. The example from the human frame
* Private communication dated Lisbon, January 9, 197].

“I” Oscar N. R. Potier, ‘The Fundamental Mechanism’, paper read before
Portuguese-Spanish Congress for the Progress of Science, Seville, November 23,
1960.
is that a lifeless unenergized body can exert no force because it
can expend no energy. An electric car battery needs energy
before it can be applied to develop a force. So it may be in
Nature, at the really fundamental level. Energy is a primary
quantity and force a secondary effect. Therefore, it is not to be
expected that we can ever fathom the very nature of energy.
The question we can approach is the problem of electric
charge. Energy and space (distance) imply force and we need not
invoke mass from these parameters, as did Newton. Instead,
given energy and space. can we develop the notion of electric
charge and from that then cotnc to understand Coulomb’s law
and the problems ofaction at a distance. The author can explain
mass from the electric nature of the aether, but the author may
still be taught that the aether can yield an even more funda-
mental truth, possibly cxposing the very nature of electricity. It
is important to keep an open mind in these matters.
Let us, for the moment, return to Hoyle and Narlikar’s
‘action at no distance‘ theory. Their paper is entitled ‘A new
theory of gravitation‘ and concerns Hoyle's ideas of signals
from the future. The subject is essentially the problem of the
accelerated electron already treated by reference to Dirac’s
abstract ideas on electrons. The Schott energy referred to on
page 97, as requiring a mechanical aether to apply the necessary
forces, appears to be invoked when Hoyle and Narlikar write:
An accelerated charge in an otherwise empty space experiences no
electromagnetic force, whereas a damping force is actually observed.
It is not clear from this paper how this damping force has
been ‘observed’. Then, referring to Wheeler and Feynman,
Hoyle and Narlikar write:
They pointed out that the particles we actually observe to radiate are
not in an otherwise empty world, so the theoretical result that such
particles should not radiate is not necessarily a contradiction with
experience.
The paper then talked about a ‘static homogeneous universe
of charged particles’ which produces a reaction equal to halfthe
usual retarded solution due to accelerated charge minus half the
advanced solution. Not only do we need an aether, but we need
AcTIoN AT A DISTANCE 133
the inevitable signals from the future to reconcile the theoretical
problems of energy radiation by electron acceleration. By assum-
ing that an electron can radiate its energy scientists have given
themselves a problem which they overcome by assuming that
the aether sends energy to the electron anticipating its future
movements. The human body is an assembly of electric charge
and, on similar lines of thought, we must argue that the aether
already contains the data governing our future movements, as if
our destiny is ordained by the spiritual control of the aether
substance. However much this may conform with religious con-
viction, it seems so much easier, scientifically speaking, to
recognize that an electron will not radiate its energy. We must
turn our physics around to satisfy this fundamental observation.
The aether exists. This is beyond dispute. How far beyond dis-
pute has been the question at issue since Einstein changed our
frame of reference. However, the future docs not exist until it
happens, at least to those of us who understand what we mean
by the word ‘simultaneous.
In Chapter ll it was implied that the great thinkers in the
classical period in physics had missed the fact that an accelerated
electron derives its inertia because it does not radiate its energy.
They did, however, not miss an important part of this fact, that
is that an accelerated electron need not radiate its energy.
Rather, they deliberately chose to ignore this possibility when
they had the message clearly before them.
Professor G. H. Livens, Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge,
writing in the second edition of his book The Theory of Elec-
tricity, published by Cambridge University Press in 1926,
presented this message quite forcibly. It is appropriate to quote
from his work at some length. After deriving Poynting’s
formula for energy transfer, he writes:
This is Poynting’s result and this vector is usually called after him. It
is however necessary to emphasize the fact that it represents the flux
of energy only on the hypothesis that the kinetic energy is distributed
in the medium with a density fgH dB per unit volume; and even then
it is uncertain to an additive vector quantity which integrates out
when taken all over the surfacejl However, following usual practice
in physics, it is best to adhere to the simplest hypothesis. The actual
phenomena strongly suggest that the flux of energy is correctly
represented by this vector and the addition of anything else is merely
a gratuitous complication which is not, after all, necessary. There is
however no definite and precise reason why we should take the matter
this way; we might have adopted some other scheme. The only other
one of any importance is obtained by performing the first integration
by parts in some other way. We found that. . . . This is the general
form of a result which has received very influential support in some
quarters and there is something to be said for it. . . . In any case we
cannot definitely say that either form is wrong, and the particular
form of theory is entirely a matter of preference and not proof. The
chief point to be noticed is that we get different distributions of
magnetic energy according to the assumptions we make; the differ-
ences are, it is true, unimportant in the ordinary statical and
dynamical aspects of the theory so far examined, but cases will be
examined where the two distributions are of fundamentally different
types. In some types of fields, for example, the densities of the
magnetic energy on the two theories are equal in magnitude but
opposite in sign.
The above appears between pages 242 and 244 of Livens’
book. Written, as it was, in the heyday of the quantum theory,
when more and more evidence was being discovered of energy
transfer by discrete quantum processes, it is surprising that the
popular preference did not switch to reject Poynting’s ideas and
accept the alternative outlined by Livens. Probably, however,
the minds of the time were too busy with the new ideas in wave
mechanics to be bothered repairing some of the classical theory.
Professor Livens reverted to the problem on page 313 of his
book writing ‘On the flux of energy in radiation fields’:
According to the usual conceptions of physical science, when
energy travels by radiation the direction ofthe flux is along the ray, so
that the flux vector gives not only the direction but also the intensity
of the ray (the intensity ofa ray being measured by the energy that
passes along it per unit of time). In ordinary propagation in isotropic
media the direction of the beam is perpendicular to the wave front,
because the electric and magnetic vectors are both in this surface.
The energy in this case travels along the beam normally to the wave
surfaces. In crystalline media however it is the electric displacement
vector that is in the wave front and the electric force is not coincident
with the displacement so that the energy flux vector is no longer
normal to the wave front. The direction of the ray, that is the path of
the energy, is then oblique to the wave front surfaces, but in any case
its direction at any point is the same as that of the energy flux vector
at that point.
In entering into a more detailed analysis of these phenomena the
first difficulty encountered is the ambiguity in the definition of the
flux vector. The usual procedure is to base the whole discussion on
Poynting‘s form of the theory, which appears to provide the simplest
view of the phenomena, and to ignore the possibility of alternatives.
We must not however forget that our view-point may be coloured by
a long use of the particular form of the theory as the sole possibility
so that its apparent suitability may be at least misleading. It is there-
fore essential that we bear in mind that Poynting‘s theory is not the
only one which is consistent with the rest of the electromagnetic
scheme and we shall therefore follow the usual discussion along the
lines laid down by Poynting by a brief review of at least one simple
alternative.
After Livens has given the analysis using Poynting’s theory he
then writes:
The whole of this discussion has been based on Poynting’s theory of
the processes involved. If we turn to the single alternative theory
suggested in paragraph 229 where the radiation vector appears not as
the vector product of the force vectors but as the product of the
complete vector current by the scalar potential . . . we shall find a
remarkably different aspect of the whole of the processes.
He then shows energy transfer perpendicular to the direction
of propagation of wave radiation and says:
Of course in a theory where there is to be no transfer of the energy,
the whole conception of energy at a point must be different. That this
is so in our present case is immediately obvious. According to the
general discussion the appropriate formula for the kinetic energy
density is . . . that is the kinetic energy now has the same value but
the opposite sign to that usually employed in Poynting’s theory, so
that the total energy is on the modified theory simply the excess of the
electric potential energy over the magnetic kinetic energy on the
older interpretation. In the case of no absorption these are equal and
the present theory does not associate energy at all with the radiation,
so that no question of its transference arises. In the case of absorp-
tion it will be seen that the new theory identifies as the total energy in
the fieldjust that part ofthe energy which on Poynting‘s theory is not
transferred.
Livens next considers the Hertzian vibrator and goes on:
Thus whereas on Poynting"s theory the energy supplied to the field
at the vibrator is transferred outwards and radiated away, on the new
form ofthe theory the energy, now however differently interpreted, is
stored up in the field surrounding the vibrator and counted there in
the kinetic energy. . . . We know without ambiguity the difference of
the energies . . ., the Lagrangian function, which is of necessity
correct, as it leads to equations which have been proved by experi-
ment to represent the motions of observable electrons. But beyond
this the rest is pure conjecture.
Livens says ‘beyond this and the rest is pure conjecture’, yet
we have had half a century of pure conjecture thrust upon us
because we favoured the wrong alternative. Professor Livens
puts the case for non-radiation of energy and the case for nega-
tive field energy. The present author, unaware of Livens’ work,*
was later to develop these same notions on independent lines
and to follow their stimulus in understanding magnetic
phenomena.
We may now revert to the problem of action at a distance and
the nature of electric charge. Let us proceed, attempting a
simple logical approach. Three dimensions are needed to define
the parameters of physics. We may choose dimensions which are
observed as variable quantities or we may opt to base our
physics on dimensions which match the basic physical con-
stants. ln the latter case we would need to explain then why a
particular quantity could occur as a constant. Therefore, logi-
cally, we will choose as primary dimensions quantities which are
variable, or rather arbitrary, in the scheme of Nature. Thus
electric charge seems to be a fixed quantum and cannot be con-
sidered as primary. Hence, we can hope to explain it in terms of
more fundamental concepts. Nature somehow keeps the electron
charge invariable. It is a determined quantity and is not arbit-
rarily fixed by some quirk of Nature. Variables we can use as
primary dimensions are energy, time and distance. A universe
can be constructed in one's imagination which permits the dis-
tance between its elements to be set arbitrarily. If the elements
move to relate to time then time can be set arbitrarily as well.
Also, energy does not come in Nature as a fixed quantum. Even
a photon is frequency-dependent. Hence energy, space (or dis-
* I am indebted to Mr. David Eagles for drawing Livens’ work to my attention
in November I970.
tance) and time are appropriate primary dimension quantities.
Time, distance and energy may have units set by Nature but
all can change. More important is that electric charge can come
in positive and negative forms. Now what does this really mean ?
We only have positive and negative as notional concepts; some-
thing we interpret by mathematics in comparing two quantities.
In terms of time, distance and energy we cannot conceive nega-
tive time or negative space. Negative energy is no better than
negative substance. A negative energy component is possible if
our measure is relative to a positive reference and negative
magnetic field energy as contemplated in Chapter 12 only
implies an aether permeated with energy and depleted to become
energy in some other form. Negative energy is an impossible
notion in any fundamental frame of reference. Nevertheless we
can combine space and time to develop opposites. We can con-
ceive oppositcs which arbitrarily become positive or negative in
the choice of direction of movement or rotation of an element
of energy.
It follows from this that the logical approach to explaining
Coulomb's law and the charge it connects is to try to seek out
something which offers motion of energy in a plenum. Vortex
theory is the likely candidate. Such speculations will not be
pursued here save for a cautionary remark. Vortex theory often
presumes the existence of particle forms in a fiuid medium and
accounts for their interaction in terms of the vortices ever
present when they move. This assumption will not advance us
to a better solution than was found when vortex theories went
out of fashion at the beginning of the twentieth century. The
particle form itself must be part of the same fluid form. It
could be a cluster of vortex filaments in an all-pervading incom-
pressible fluid medium.
Given a particle concept in terms of motion and an energy
substance, mass can be developed from the dimensional relation-
ship between energy and velocity. Perhaps then if the particle
form is nothing more than a vortex system it may move to
conserve itself and thus display inertial properties and its Inass
in keeping with the author's theory. To be reasonably content
with such an approach Coulomb‘s law would need to be
K
explained and. consequent upon this, magnetic effects. This was
the fundamental object ofmany of the old aether theories which
claimed success in their time. Whittaker* has provided an
excellent account of such theories. Also, hovvever, vortex theory
is still very much alive in some minds. See. for example, the
work of Wilhelm M. BZ1LlCl'.+
It may seem to the reader that to speak of vortex theories of a
fluid aether is to set the clock back a century. lt is out of tune
with the world of the modern physicist. Yet the eventual truths
about the aether vvill not change vvith time and the truths of the
past will not either. The physicists of the last century may not
have had the experimental data \ve possess today, but equally
they could focus their undistracted attention on to the funda-
mental philosophical implications of the subject. Their eon-
clusions inay not be conclusive. but their lines of enquiry
deserve respect and should not be rejected without some
caution. After all, they did possess some experimental facts
which the modern physicist still cannot explain.
lt is gratifying to see a report of a lecture in June l97l
presented by Professor Wheeler at the Cambridge Institute of
Theoretical Astronomyti
His new discipline describes reality without recourse to either mass
or charge. Whereas Einstein described a universe where the curvature
of space--time vv as a product of real masses for which Einstein could
not account theoretically, Wheeler's universe accounts for all pheno-
mena without the need to postulate any real mass at all. This is a
revolutionary improvement on Einstein. lts full implications are only
beginning to be realised. In superspacc. Wheeler contends, ‘pre-
geometry‘ constructs material out of non-material. This plenteous
nothing (not to be confused with antiquated theories of an aether)
contains entities of dimensions far too small for direct observation.
However. on a scale of the order of lO‘3"‘ cm the universe is a fabu-
ously rich sea ofevents. eddies. vortices. and foam.
Let us. therefore. revive vortex theory of the substance permeat-
ing empty space, but let us be at pains to avoid anything anti-
quated. A modern aether is \vhat is needed.
* l]i.s'r0r_1' n/' I/l(’ '1'/ieoriux of /Iv!/|<'r uml L'1eetri<'i!_\‘, T/IL’ C'las.\'irul Tlzeories,
Nelson, London, l95l.
/\1c('/Imii/\' [J/ckrmIm1_Q/1z'!i.\'<'/1t'r l*o1"_g'iiI1g<', 1965.
i New S('it'11Ii.vl um! St'iz'm'c Journal, July 29, 1971, p. Z42.
14
The Nuclear Aether

The physics of the aether is to many minds the physics of the
nineteenth century. The twentieth century has so far been con-
cerned with the physics ofthc atom and its quantum behaviour.
Physics has assumed importance in industry primarily because
electrical technology in the semiconductor field has become the
province of the physicist rather than the electrical engineer.
Also, physics has now an undeniable place of importance
because everyone is all too aware ofthe energy hidden inside the
atomic nucleus. For this reason the minds of many research
physicists are technology-orientated. Theoretical physics is
complicated, the aether is dead and who has the time anyway to
be concerned with such an antiquated topic! The more open-
minded may say that ifthe aether has a place it is in cosmology;
it is certainly not in the field of the nucleus. But let us see if we
can dispel this belief.
ls there anything about the atomic nucleus we cannot explain?
The atomic mass does not increment in proportion to the atomic
charge. lt seems that over a range of atoms of low atomic mass
the number of nucleons is approximately twice that of the
number of proton charge units in the nucleus. The nucleons
comprise the protons and neutrons believed to form the
nucleus. At high mass numbers the ratio of two increases
roughly to about two and a half. An explanation of this would
help our understanding of nuclear physics. Does the reader
already have such an explanation‘? lfnot, perhaps the following
analysis will have some appeal.
Consider an electric charge surrounded by a concentric
uniform spherical distribution of discrete charges of opposite
polarity. Now calculate the electrostatic interaction energy of
such a system. This quantity will be found to be negative until
the spherical charge distribution has a charge exactly double the
magnitude of the central charge. Thereafter we would have
positive interaction energy signifying instability, because the
‘binding’ energy associated with the negative polarity has
ceased to ‘bind’. We may expect, therefore, an entity to form as
a stable aggregation in which the central charge acquires an
enveloping double charge of opposite polarity, assuming the
spherical distribution. If we consider instead a central charge
with a uniform spatial charge distribution surrounding it,
bounded by a sphere, then instability sets in when the surround-
ing charge is two and a half times that of the core. Between
these two limiting examples. we could have, say, charge dis-
tributed in two concentric shells of unit and double unit
radius, the charge content being proportional to the area of the
spherical shell form. This gives a ratio of 2-166 for stability.
It needs little imagination to recognize the relevance of this to
our nuclear problem. The atomic mass number is a measure of
the number of negative nucleons clustered around a central core
of charge. This charge has negligible mass compared with the
nucleon mass contribution but the charge is the positive charge
we regularly associate with the atomic nucleus. We need not
speak of a combination of neutrons and protons to explain
qualitatively the numerical difference between atomic number
and atomic mass number. Somehow the charges of the nucleons
are not detected, because we well know that the atomic electrons
only react to the central charge. They ignore the nucleon
charges just as they ignore charges in the aether medium.
Indeed, the electrons may see these nucleon charges as they see
the aether. In fact, the nucleons may be deemed to be arrayed
in a structure and to have displaced negative aether charge so as
to substitute themselves in the structured form of the aether
itself. Their charge is undetected just as the mass of a buoyant
body goes undetected in a fluid of equal mass density.
Hence, we need to invoke our aether. Also, we see support for
the cubic lattice distribution of aether charge. An oxygen
nucleus can be adequately populated by a single shell of discrete
charges. There are 26 charges disposed in a regular cubic system
about a central charge and l6 ofthese are presumably replaced
THE NUCLEAR AETHER 141
by negative nucleons. The two to one ratio applies, because the
oxygen atom has a atomic number of 8. Now take chromium,
for example, which has an atomic number of 24. Here, we might
expect charge to be distributed over another shell as well. The
stability condition, calculated for idealized spherical distribu-
tions, requires 2~I66 times as many nucleons as units of central
charge. Hence an atomic mass number of 52, as is found.
Similarly, for heavier atoms we find an appropriate relation
between the two quantities conforming with this theory.
It has to be accepted from this that the nucleus consists ofa
central charge surrounded by a cluster of regularly spaced
nucleons of negative charge. As the author has explained in his
book P/1_t'.s‘ir'.s' wi//tour Einstein, the nucleons form into a lattice
structure with bonds joining the nucleons and, additionally,
pions contributing to the energy of the bonds also derive their
energy from an interaction with the nucleons. These features of
the nucleus modify the mass and add some complication.
Different isotopic forms may depend upon alternative structure
configurations rendered possible by the dififerent bond positions
available. This is a matter for further analysis. When the above-
mentioned book was published the author supposed the
nucleons to be formed as a system ofneutrons and protons, as is
conventional. The later realization of the stable charge system
introduced in this chapter, however, has led to a revision of the
model. All the nucleons are the same. They are negative particles
of mass approximating that ofthe proton.
The central charge itself is the conventional nuclear charge
of the atom but it has relatively small mass. The physical size
of this charge has been measured by experiment. It is approxi-
mately the size of the electron or positron multiplied by the
atomic number, as if, for example, the oxygen atom has a
charged core formed by the merging of 8 positrons which
conserve their charge within their aggregate volume. The forma-
tion of dilferent atoms can then be understood as a process by
which a positron core is successively made larger by combina-
tion with other cores. The conservation of charge is to be
expected, but the conservation of volume implies the presence of
an enveloping incompressible lluid, again evidencing the need
for an aether medium. The existence of the charged core in a
highly energetic environment permeated by heavy negative
particles forms a nucleus. The charge has an afiinity for heavy
particles because they do have their own mutual gravitational
attraction and this makes their association more stable. Also
the higher the mass of the elements the less sensitive the system
to spurious disturbances from light bodies such as electrons.
Given the charge quantity at the central core, the nucleus forms
to assure the stability criteria discussed earlier in this chapter.
There is a limit on the size of the central charge. This charge
itself has mass which will increase more than in direct propor-
tion with the charge. Thus. the charge of a uranium core may
have its own mass of nearly 2,000 times that of the positron,
even though its charge is only 92 times that ofthis particle. Also,
there is a limit on the spatial extent of the nucleon lattice. This
reaches the innermost electron shell ofthe atom when the atomic
number is of the order of40. However. this latter effect may not
be relevant because the nucleons are hidden in the charge
pattern of the aether. It would seem. therefore, more likely that
it is the mass of the central charge core which governs the
stability of the heavy nuclei.
Before concluding the chapter some comment about the
conservation of charge volume is appropriate. If discrete
charges exist in a surrounding pressurized but incompressible
medium they will adapt in shape to be spherical. This is assured
by the self-repulsion of their intrinsic electric charge. Also, the
charge will be distributed within the bounding sphere so that a
uniform pressure exists within the body of the charge. The elec-
tric energy thus stored by the charge is inversely proportional to
its radius. A question of stability arises. particularly as charges
of different sizes may exist. To answer this, we can say that, due
to the uniform nature of the enveloping medium, if one charge
expands another must contract. and yet, energy must be con-
served. Therc can be equilibrium in this exchange relationship
and so stability in the charge forms. The energy conservation
condition will act to assure that charges of different size do not
exchange any of the space they occupy. They will remain
mutually stable under normal conditions. The energy criterion
THE NUCLEAR AETHER 143
is primary to any force action. Nevertheless, the charges will
tend to form into families of equal charge and equal sizes or
energies. Somehow. nature determines certain possible forms of
particles and these forms then prevail to exclude any hybrid
varieties which form transiently.
This argument also permits us to understand how charges in
the aether might vary in size to change their mass. The author
believes that gravitation is due to a modification of mass of
certain aether particles. The idea is that there is a cyclic motion
of matter with a lattice formed by aether charge and a counter-
balancing effect due to motion of other aether charge. The
aether adapts to balance the mass of matter present. The
balancing charges of highest mass react and become very slightly
smaller, so increasing their mass and causing a very small
electromagnetic effect which explains gravitation.
Should a reader have difiiculty understanding how a particle
of charge can be stable and yet vary in size to accommodate
kinetic energy as a change of its electric energy also correspond-
ing to its change in mass. he should ask himself a question.
How can a charge expand to release kinetic energy to itself
when such energy is stored by its contraction‘? A charge will
exchange energy with other charge. but stability amongst
families of identical charges is assured by the mutual balance.
I5
The Ea/"th’s Electricity
We seek to understand the universe in terms of the physical
phenomena which we witness in our earthly reference frame.
Thus, we knew the earth had a magnetic field and were not at all
surprised when we found that the sun had one as well. We dis-
covered how the optical spectra of radiant materials reveal
their nature, and it was logical that we should find similar
spectra in solar radiation. Minute displacements of the spectral
lines were our clues to new cosmic phenomena, and when, for
some stars, these displacements became significant we were
confronted with a really mystifying problem. The spectral red
shifts of the quasars will long remain a unresolved problem
because we have no earthly phenomenon by which to formulate
comparisons. The earth cannot provide the reference needed for
our understanding. Only our theories duly extrapolated can be
forged into shapes able to give satisfaction, but there can be
little certainty in these matters. The earth is our test bed for
theory. Phenomena verified on earth can reasonably be expected
to have their counterparts elsewhere in the universe. And so it
must be with that phenomenon we know as atmospheric elec-
tricity. Somehow the earth retains a negative electric charge. It
seems not to have been explained in our reference sources, yet it
exists and, if it exists as a terrestrial phenomenon it can presum-
ably exist on the sun. We need to understand it if we are to seek
the fullest understanding of solar phenomena. When we dis-
covered nuclear energy, the sun became a nuclear fire. Before
that time the sun was a body generating heat, emitting light and
somehow surrounded by luminescent clouds. It was hot gas,
electrically ionized gas when ionization was discovered, and it
became nuclear as our earthly minds grew to comprehend
nuclear phenomena. It is indeed surprising that the thunderball,
THE EARTH’S ELECTRICITY 145
as we have seen, did not become nuclear until 1970. It has been
suggested that both the sun and the thunderball are, in fact,
mere spheres of rotating aether, but acceptance of this depends
upon our belief in the existence of such a medium. We are, when
it comes to understanding the nature of astronomical bodies,
including that great solar source of our own existence, mere
victims of fashion. We depend upon our understanding of
phenomena in our terrestrial frame of reference. Why then are
we not paying attention to the earth's electric charge‘? Just
because we cannot explain it does not mean that it lacks great
cosmic importance.
The subject was given special treatment in a book by H. A.
Wilson.* Wilson writes:
The difference of potential between the earth and a point in the air
above it may be found by means ofan insulated conductor provided
with some device to bring it to the same potential as the surrounding
air. . . . The potential difference between the conductor and the
ground can be measured with an electrostatic voltmeter connected
to the conductor and to the ground by insulated wires. If the con-
ductor is on a pole l0 in. above the ground in the open air away from
buildings or trees, the potential difference between it and the ground
will be of the order of I500 volts. The vertical field varies greatly. In
fine dry weather it is usually directed downwards, indicating a nega-
tive charge on the earths surface. It varies with the time of day and
season of the year. The vertical field has been measured at various
heights by means of balloons. It is found to diminish as the height
increases. and usually becomes negligible at about 10,000 m.
Wilson then demonstrates the challenge confronting physic-
ists. How can this charge be maintained ‘P Wilson calculates
that the conducti\ity of air would discharge such electricity in
about l7 minutes. Yet it is sustained. Various explanations are
then reviewed. Rain drops may carry charge downwards to
restore loss. But observers say that raindrops are usually posi-
tively charged and this could not explain the earth‘s negative
charge. Lightning tlashes may account for the current balance.
It may be that more flashes convey current upwards than convey
current downwards. Hence, if enough lightning llashes occur
over the whole earth's surface, we can expect a negative charge
* Moi/urn P/i_\'s"ir's, H. A. Wilson, Blackie, London, 1937, Ch. XVII.
to be held by the earth in spite of steady conduction losses. This
seemed quite feasible to Wilson. Note, however, that we cannot
then explain the origin of lightning in terms of the existence of
the earth’s electric field. Wilson then mentions a suggestion by
Simpson that charged particles are shot out from the sun. Some
reach the earth and the positive ones are stopped in upper
regions whereas the negative ones. electrons, penetrate to the
lower atmosphere. The problem here is that the electrons would
have to move at velocities close to the speed of light to set up
the observed charge on the earth. Also experiments to collect the
charge they bring with them have yielded null results. So
Wilson finally concludes:
lt will be seen from this discussion that we are as yet very far from
having a satisfactory theory of atmospheric electricity.
Now. we are interested in this earthly phenomenon because it

might tell us more about the source ofthe sun‘s energy. So let us
question the idea that electrons travelling from the sun at a
speed close to that of light can be the cause ofthe earth"s electric
charge. First. why should the speed be close to that of light?
Well, if the earth has an electric charge it will act on incoming
electrons repulsively and slow them down. They have to have
enough momentum to fight against the earth's electric field and
reach the surface. The number arriving will determine the
earth's charge and it will rise to the appropriate value subject
mainly to this bombardment rate but also subject to conduc-
tivity leakage and lightning discharges. The earth’s charge is
known from the electric fields we can measure. lt happens to
correspond to the electron velocity of the speed oflight. Is not
this a coincidence‘? Or is it evidence of scientific import?
Experimental attempts to collect charge directly from these
electrons failed. A large insulated copper collector was used but
it acquired no measurable charge when exposed to the sun’s
radiation. How do we solve this mystery‘?
Let me quote from another completely unrelated chapter in
Wilson‘s book. ln his chapter on Quantum Mechanics at pages
92 and 93 he writes about an experiment involving interference
and diffraction of light:
THE EARTH‘S ELECTRICITY 147
The light acts like particles in this experiment . . . the electrons shot
out receive energy from the light. . . . If we suppose that the source of
light emits only one photon. the chance ofan effect due to this photon
occurring at any place will be proportional to the wave intensity, at
the place. when the source is supposed to be emitting a continuous
train of waves. The waves therefore carry no energy. and the wave
theory may be regarded as merely auxiliary mathematics which
enables the distribution of the photons to be calculated. Just why
such a method of calculation is necessary and why it gives results in
agreement with the facts is not known. . . . The velocity ofa photon
is always equal to the velocity of light. so its momentum is equal to
. . . its energy divided by the velocity of light.’*‘
Apart from the interesting recognition by Wilson that waves

carry no energy. a thesis expounded elsewhere in this work. he
asserts the truth that wave mechanics do not explain; they just
happen to work correctly. One may yet have to analyse the
aether to really understand the whys and wherefores ofthe utility
of wave mechanics in treating the problems of Nature. But this
is digressing from the point which the discerning research-
minded reader will already have appreciated. lf light acts like
particles and electrons ‘shot out‘ receive energy from light, we
have answered the anomaly confronting us above. The sun emits
light. Light travels at the speed of light. lt comes in packages
known as photons. Photons impart momentum to electrons in
atoms and thereby ionize the air. An electric field is established
in the atmosphere in appropriate relationship with the absorp-
tion of solar radiation. We do not need electrons from the sun.
All we need is light. This will impart momentum to electrons in
atoms and sustain their displacement towards the earth. An
electric field will be maintained directly in dependence upon the
sun’s radiation. The earth will have an electric charge which is
seemingly negative but the effect will be more analogous to the
Maxwell displacement in an insulator medium when an electric
field is applied. lt is just that the same effect is produced by
light radiation. or rather the total electromagnetic radiation
from the sun.
Now, as stated above. we know that the speed of light is the
*The text has been changed in the quotation by replacing mathematical
symbols for terms ‘velocity of light' and ‘energy’.
key to the relationship between the momentum and the energy
which is needed to hold an electron down in the earth’s electric
field. This is easily verified because we know the earthls potential
gradient at its surface and its electric charge per unit area. Hence
we know the force urging this surface charge into the ionized air
adjacent the earth's surface. For equilibrium the solar radiation
pressure is absorbed by the earth's atoms at the surface and,
though deployed to urge the displacement of electrons and ions,
this displacement is effectively neutralized by the balancing field
(the potential gradient) due to the earth’s surplus of electrons.
The rate of supply of solar radiation energy per unit area is the
quantity known from measuretnents. Taking this quantity, the
earth's electric field and the charge then deduced from this field,
we find that the balance condition will occur if the momentum
of solar radiation happens to be the rate of supply of solar
energy divided by the velocity of light. Conversely, the earth"s
electric field can actually be deduced in quantitative terms from
the value of solar energy radiation since it is well known that a
photon imparts momentum in proportion to its energy divided
by the speed of light.
Due allowances must, of course, be made for the inclination
of the radiant solar beam and the heat absorption effects of the
atmosphere. The earth itself will not store much of the solar
heat. lts surface temperature reacts rapidly to the daily cyclic
changes in the solar heat supply because the earth has a poor
heat conductivity. Thus, heat received by radiation is eonvected
or radiated upwards without the balance being upset by any
significant thermal inertial elTects in the earth's surface material.
It is the balance of radiation energy which is really effective at
the earth's surface in developing electric field. It appears that
much of the upward heat transfer is by convection and convec-
tion plays no part in inducing electric fields comparable with
those induced by radiation action. We must also take note of the
tremendous heat capacity of the atmosphere. This does absorb
solar energy during the day and it develops downward radiation
throughout the night, sustaining the earth‘s electric field even
when the sun is not visible. Of course. the measured electric field
varies cyclically during the 24 hour period. Three factors co-
THE EAi<TII's ELECTRICITY 149
operate in developing cyclic variation, different radiation pat-
terns for the atmosphere, the sun and the earth’s surface. The
atmosphere absorbs and re-radiates solar energy and since it has
a high thermal capacity its heat content will cycle about a mean
. . . . f
value with substantial phase-lag relative to the direct action o
the sun. Curve A in Fig. 10 is representative and shows maxi-
mum radiation iii the early evening. The sun's radiation when
resolved into its vertical components will vary as indicated in
curve B. The combined etlect ofatmospheric and solar radiation
,-\ \ \
/
/ /
L
\
’ \
__\ zr
/
/
l /\
I \,
1 ‘¢>-\
1 » \\
/
/ /’ R \ / f \\\
/ / \ /’ E) \\
/ // >/ \\ \
/ \
\ \\A /
// /
/ / \\ \
\\\_r___4_/_ / '7 \ \\B
\ // \\ C
'\~—-\.:;_____g_‘1L/’/ \ L
I
1/ \ \_
\ /
O 2 4 0\L_ <b._ 6-. §T_‘,_. '
Z)‘.- L_
65 Z0 Z2 24
Fig. 10
is the curve C having a substantial midday peak. This radiation

heats the earth and, in keeping with the heat emission properties
of usual materials
' at earth temperature, about half wi"ll b e re-
radiated upwards. The effect is shown at D, with the peak in the
early afternoon. The peak is significant because radiation is very
sensitive to increase in temperature and the earth’s surface
temperature is readily changed in dependence upon incident
radiation. Subtraction of curve D from C gives the resultant
d ow'nward radiation. curve E, as a measure of the earth's
P otential C‘gradient - The curve has two peaks during a period of
24 hours and, indeed, this is exactly what is observed experi-
nieiitally.
ln Fig. ll data presented by Swami in 1919 is reprodueed.* lt
* Join‘. F/‘ti/I/I’/in I/Is!., 133, p. 577, 1919.
applies to a typical summer day, presumably at a North
American location. The curve shows that the earth’s potential
gradient, as measured, was of the order of 100 volts per metre
but the interesting point is that the form of the curve is exactly
I-I0 '
I10
*~7r*r"r~e7rr<
V/m
‘.5 i§7Tj\;/.§T._]f
so —-»——-~ —- -»—
40 = — -~-
20 ~ -. - ._--- --
0 3 5-9 l2T|5l8 2124

TIME
Fig. ll
that which we can predict on the theoretical account given

above. Swann observes that the average potential is higher in
winter than in summer. This may seem surprising at first but, in
fact. it verifies the tlieoryjust presented. The curve such as A in
Fig. I0 will always be representative of radiation coming verti-
cally downwards. whereas the curve B depends upon the angle
of inclination between the vertical and the sight line to the sun.
In fact, curve B in the figure is developed as a full cycle ofa sine
wave on the assumption that at noon the sun is directly over-
head. ln the northerly part of the hemisphere, and particularly
in winter, there is further attenuation of the direct solar radia-
tion. Thus, curve A will become more predominant in winter
and curve B will be less predominant. Additionally, since the
solar radiation is impacting the earth's atmosphere more
obliquely in winter relative to summer, a higher proportion of
the sun‘s radiation energy is absorbed and this, in turn, con-
tributes more to curve A while removing the strength from
curve B. The lower temperature of the earth in winter ensures
that the back radiation is significantly reduced. In summer,
THE EARTH’s ELECTRICITY 151
although the energy received is greater than in winter, the fact
that more of the radiation comes in at an angle and a higher
proportion re-radiated by the earth results in the actual radia-
tion pressure and the consequent electric field being greater in
winter than in summer. Of course, this distinction between
winter and summer effects only applies in certain latitudes.
There can be little doubt that the earth's electric field is there-
fore generated by the pressure action of solar radiation as
described. It is interesting to observe that Swann, writing in
I919. came very close to realizing this mechanism. He analysed
the effect of gamma radiation impinging on electrons and used
data for ionization based on experimental measurement of the
effects of ‘radiation from above‘. At this time, Swann could not
have been aware of the later discovered Compton EtTeet which
showed that all the electromagnetic solar radiation received at
the earth can be absorbed to impart momentum to electrons.
The above account of the origin of the earth's electric field is
not an explanation of the phenomenon of lightning. Neverthe-
less, just as Wilson imagined that lightning might provide the
current needed to sustain the earth"s charge, we can now invert
this argument and say that the solar radiation pressure will
restore the charge dissipated by lightning flashes.
It is evident that some physical mechanism triggers dis-
charges in the atmosphere. A cloud, for example, will absorb
rather more radiation than the clear atmosphere. Therefore, the
cloud will become charged. It becomes a giant capacitor floating
in the sky. Atmospheric conditions conducive to the formation
of dark thundercloiids will enhance this action. Then, when
clouds interact electrostatically, either with themselves or with
the earth, we may find a substantial positive charge is drawn
towards a substantial negative charge and lightning discharges
occur. What the explanation of the earth's electric field does
offer is the mechanism by which charge is induced. All the many
factors, such as ice or water droplets, which have been observed
to contribute to the initiation of thunderstorms, may still per-
form their recognized roles. However, we do not preclude by the
new ideas put forward in this work the prospect of cosmic
lightning discharges at the sun"s surface, for example. We do
not need to argue that ice is an essential feature of the physical
basis of lightning and that this precludes cosmic thunderstorms
save, as Sir Basil Schonland concedes,* in ‘dying stars having
relatively cold atmospheres’.
It was not really necessary to consider the origins oflightning
in this book about the aether. The topic has been included in
order to show that the seemingly uncertain source of the earth‘s
electricity can be explained in association with lightning and in
such a way as to suggest that the apparent surface temperature
of the sun is enhanced by lightning discharge. Heat radiation
from the solar energy source induces electric fields which charge
the solar atmosphere.T Lightning discharges produce high
temperatures in transient striations which occur continuously,
making the sun appear hotter than it really is. lt is also interest-
ing to note that Jupiter, for example, appears to have a tempera-
ture higher than it should have ifall the heat it received from the
sun is re-radiated. This suggests an internal heat source but
equally it suggests a non-uniform temperature, inasmuch as the
disproved heat balance assumes uniformity of temperature.
ln the next chapter we will examine the prospect ofdiscover-
ing the source of the sun’s energy.
* See page 13.

l" The action of radiation pressure, that is photons, on electrons in stars is
discussed by M. Stix at p. 161 of A.\!r0n0In}' & Asm>p/1_rsic.v, January 1970 and
used to explain charge displacement and magnetic fields resulting from stellar
rotation of this charge.
16
The Cosmic Aether
What has been accomplished in this book so far? A case in
favour of re-admitting the banished aether has been presented.
But what is the reader's \'erdict‘.’ Not pro\/en‘? lt; is time to
believe that a thunderball is a whirlpool of aether when we can
reproduce thunderballs expei"imentally and harness their use in
storing energy until heat is needed in a furnace application. We
can await proof in the next centtiry when someone contrives this
experiment. and perhaps succeeds in cooling objects by extract-
ing aether whirlpools developed within them. lt is unnecessary
to believe in an aether-based explanatioit of gravitation and
terrestrial magnetism when our measurements tell all we need to
know for practical purposes and there is existing theory which
apparently satisfi Q 2/. ,- LT (D I5 tajority of those interested. lt is mere
speculation to presume to explain the origins of the solar system.
Such speculation can be tolerated if founded upon accepted
physics, but to invoke an aether in such an explanation is asking
for a little too much credulity.
The reader has to be cautious. He need not be so cautious
about believing Dirac’s theory of the electron. After all, in spite
of the criticism presented in this book. there is general accept-
ance of [)irac“s work, abstract or not. And if you have to teach
physics to others you must surely teach the physics which has
appeal, abstract though it may be. S0 by all means be suspicious.
Our minds are all part of a slow moving world made all the
more inert by interactions which push and pull new ideas in all
directions but prevail in rejecting what we do not want to believe.
The aether is not wanted by the modern physicist.
lf this book has been of interest it has served its purpose.
Acceptance is not expected.
In the author's book P/zysics wit/tout Eilzsreflz a full analysis
L
and detailed quantitative account of the physics of the aether
were presented. What was offered was an alternative to Rela-
tivity which went further and ga\e rigorous evaluations of the
basic universal constants of physics. The Fine Structure Con-
stant and the Constant of Gravitation were important results
but also t uantities such as the binding energy of the deuteron
and the fl’-"4 FD._. C magnetic moment were shown susceptible to evalua-
tion by the aether structure presented. Having discovered or, as
some would say. contrived or built such a new theory_ it was
appropriate in this present work to attack the established theory.
Relativity is intriguing because it is so elusive. lt is seemingly
impregnable. Yet. as we have seen. it has a weakness in respect
of boundary criteria. The grand cdilice of Relativity is built on
the wrong foundation. ln this work there has also been an attack
on the abstract ideas in the physics of the electron. The alter-
native otlered is an explanation which is no more abstract than
the classical physics of the nineteenth century and yet one
which actually explains the nature oi‘ mass. Above all, the
alternati\ e oiliered is not sterile. lt is as fruitful as Nature herself.
The aether permeating and surrounding our earth is con-
templated as a uniformly dense positively charged electric
continuum containing discrete negative electric charges formed
in a lattice array. Because of the uanslational motion of the
earth some of these negative electric charges are free from the
lattice as we have already noted in Chapter -i. The lattice deter-
mines the cleetroruagnetic irame of reference and moves as a
unit in a cyclic motion. The lattice c -. -i ('0 are displaced from
(ya
their aeutral pcsiti-ims in the continuunt andm- move in centrifugal
brrlartee. Thi.< rnotiorr C. o rniuers the time parameter" and is
Ft}
rteccsstzsjv to \irali7e the aether * event a condition of

3 c tr: .2tl\~\: electrostatic inter;:cticn g " as may be shown
-.-.
rtiathermrticrtll;. '5":, 0 or1trnu..r
(‘.1 Ii 0ru 315..‘ "Q3._ I-.
,_ E s./ O4 .l by the presence of
sortie relatively sparse but nrassixe aetirer particles which assure
f__
(.1
-
d).nr:mic balarxce by e continuum systerzr and which perform

.... L. C _,. r '14‘:/~ role in dc-ter'rn§rting the electr'orr".agrretic action we know
as _g:‘i'~.irt-.r:rr.‘rr. Also. each such particle is as;<;oci;1ted witlr an

e’~:;;. at l‘f.rr\llrg“ v-.iih the lattice system. Such electrons qua
sew
the e'Ie;1;'t :».t;;=.;c interaction state a little and actually prime the
THE cosxrrc AETHER 155
aether with energy so that it may sustain gravitational fields.
This will, of course, seem very complicated and it is beyond the
scope of this work to analyse the aether structure in detail. lt
sufiiees here to note that an aether expansion process may occur
by which the massive positively charged aether particles expand
to become a part of the uniform continuum and the correspond-
ing electron becomes a negative lattice particle. Energy is
released in this process. contributing to motion. Moreover, all
the elementary particle forms of matter we know can be pro-
duced in transitional phases of this expansion process. The
massive aether particle has nearly three times the mass ot‘ the
proton. The creation of matter is a consequence ol‘ the expansion
ol‘ space, the transient by-product of an expansion which
permits parts of the aether occupied by such matter to adapt its
stable state to a new apportioning ofthe particle populations.
Now, it appears that matter as we know it, as atoms, protons,
ete._ can only come into existence if an abundant supply of
electrons and positrons is available.* Accordingly, we must
anticipate the matter creation process to occur steadily at the
unstable boundaries between aether ofdillerent polarities. lfthe
earth's aether contains essentially low-mass negative particles, it
cannot sustain the matter creation process. Nor can aether,
according to the above model, with all polarities reversed. It is
at moving boundaries between two such types of aether that we
can look tor the charge constituents to create matter.
This takes us to the concept that the sun contains aether of
polarity opposite to that surrounding it and permeating the
planets. The origin of the sun itself is the matter created as the
two aethers meld at their interllrce, the enveloping aether form
gradually closing in as the inner aether form appears to shrink
by the polarity inversion process. But there is a prime movement
of the boundaries owing to the tr'ar*.s!ational motion ofthe solar
system. ln this way, atoms are being l‘or"n'red steadily from the
aether and emit photon r":rdi;rtion generated from their thermal
condition. Probably the nuclear" irtterchanges, as heavier atoms
form from the alreadj; created proton-sized matter, are the true
* See Chapter 7 of the author's Pl1yxic.r irit/1011! Erhstci/1.

156 .\roDi:Rt~1 AETHER SCIENCE
source of the heat generating this radiation. But this account has
gone beyond merely asserting a nuclear origin for solar radia-
tion energy. The origin of matter has been traced to the aether.
The gradual process of formation of matter as the solar aether
shrinks in company with the gradual expansion of space is a
feature of this new explanation as is the catalytic action of
electric discharge phenomena in transforming the radiation
SOLIFCC.
lt is still speculation. Where is there any eyidence‘? Well, the

reversals of magnetism in astronornieal bodies may provide
some evidence. Remember that in Chapter 7 it was noted that
Dirac said there was no way ofdistinguishing a star from one in
which all the polarities of its constituent charges are reversed.
This may be true as between t\vo stars but, if all polarities in a
particular star were to reverse, as they would it‘ the aether
inverted polarity, there would be a reversal ofthe magnetielield.
The same is true for the earth. Dirac also envisaged that, for
reasons of symmetry, perhaps halt‘ the stars were made up of
matter ofinverted polarity, anti-protons substituting for protons
and positrons for electrons.
Applying symmetry considerations to the aether we then
may expect aether to comprise vast cubic cells of one polarity
interposed between identical cells of opposite polarity as
depicted in Fig. 12. Stars are indicated in a random distribution
but a star in a region of positive aether would have an aether
core of negative polarity on the principles outlined. Further, the
symmetry, preserved even as space expands, would ensure that
the flat boundaries are stable and not regions for matter creation.
We are still speculating, but at least have the comfort of the
similar speculation by Dirac. But no\v let us examine some
interesting evidence.
The solar system moves steadily through space following a
curved path about a remote point in our galaxy. The earth
shares this motion and every time the solar system passes one of
the aether boundaries in Fig. 12 the earth's magnetic field will
reverse direction. If the sun moves at right angles to a flat
boundary, the earth's licld will reverse at regular intervals. More
likely is the migration of the sun along an oblique trajectory,
THE COSMIC AETHER
N
\
iu N
_\ w\
+ i "_ r "l" /"“/-
.- ,\ »H ,
v,/ /
~— ~.-—r if l
i
I . ,
. +/~ r
_ T -+1
t
i‘-r .»/
- 37/
/_+_' l . .4'__ ._ _ _._.;_
"1
/1 .54 i
+ r R /
:~ _l“ l I
.__ ' ~24//'

. _ / -
/IF‘. . _
, _
~/.,.+ ‘r __ l +
rig. I2
such as one of those depicted by the broken lines in Fr" 12 and

this would result in irregular reversals of the geomagnetic held
However. such irregular reversals would be systematic and
could occur rapidly it‘ the solar system passed close to an iiitei-
section between the aether boundaries. Three reversals could
occur very close to each other in time in this occasional cri-
cumstance.
The reversals of the earth's magnetic field are typified by
experimental data presented by A. H. Cook in the Au ust 1970
issue of P/:_i'.s"1'r's Biz//erru at page 350. Tlicse data are poitia ed
in Fig. l3.
/_______~r\..._ .- ta. . ‘g .'.

-¢- ._ ,\ .
.r
1-
-i i-,.
lr Mi
r
Q ,44 \.
|./ l l ’ £5‘?!
r , ,
t 9
v ., r . 9
r\H . // ‘
. ’‘ ' I /, //ii? , v
_; / t r ~ V.»-
{__._.{__c7_
0 9/
,/ /»*
. ~' it
l ‘
r
s ” r ////V r ‘ r 1
‘ ‘
r|l ;. .i r
ii.’ Ii‘ at --_ ...._.__i,m_;.___i
‘J l' -—r\~*v ,+ ‘J i
ll.__ .J_j"< S
li::_ l3
Compare now these reversal data with a steady rate of pro-
gress along the trajectories in Fig. l2. Regard them as depicting
motion in a circle from dilTerent viewpoints relative to the co-
ordinate system created by the aether symmetry. The reversals
in Fig. l3 can be matched exactly by the steady motion depicted
in Fig. 12. Reversals are indicated at R1, R2, R3, etc. Further,
there is the expected orbital pattern. This provides an assuring
check on the proposal that there is an aether with symmetrical
polarity inversion as depicted. Interested readers will see that
given known data for the speed of the solar system through
space, as measured relative to an assumed isotropic cosmic
background radiation.* we can work out the cell dimensions of
the aether. The lattice spacing is of the order of 300 light years.
Also, from the earth orbit evidenced by the magnetic reversal
data, an estimate can be made olithe distance to the point in our
galaxy about which we are moving and the orbital period of this
galactic motion. An orbital period of 108 years is indicated by
the data.
Before ending this book it is perhaps important to comment
about the Michelson-Morley Experiment. Traditionally, aether
theory has been set in conflict with the null result of this experi-
ment. The author lias dealt with this conflict in his previous
worksi and has really nothing to add that is new. Reference is,
however, made to the recent analysis of Ruderferi who has
reviewed the subject only to conclude that the aether is very
much in evidence and in no way rejected by the Michelson-
Morley approach.
Ruderfer writes:
ln retrospect, the search for dynamic proof of an ether has been a
sterile one. lt has distracted us for over a century from what may be
stated as the origirial fundamental question: ls the space between
matter a void or a plenum? When approached in this way, the ether
may be viewed as a natural extension of the known hierarchal struc-
ture of matter--~ -pcndcrable bodies. conipouiids, atoms. elementary
particles. The relati\e rapidity ofthe discoy cry of this series and the
prevalent belief in the existence of an elementary particle substructure
* E. K. Conklin, .\'iirii/1'. June 7. 1%‘), p. 971, gives I60 knisee.
1' The books l'Cl'\.‘fl'Ctl on page I30.
I M. Riidertcr", Lt’!/L'I'(' 11/ .\'1mro ("i1m'iiin, Series I, Vol. 3, pp. 658-62, 1970.
THE cos.\nc AETHER 159
presages further structural delineation in the microcosm, conceivably
ad infinitum. The ether may then be regarded as the repository of all
the submicroscopie structures that may conceivably exist but are
beyond present observational limits. The attribution of energy
properties to such a plenum inevitably follows. In fact, the 1neasur-
able QED and the relativistic effects of matter on the vacuum and
space—time provide independent support for the necessity ofascribing
energy properties to the ether: from the minuteness ofthese effects of
the interaction of matter and ether. it must be surmised that the ether
energy density must be much greater than that of matter. That all of
the energy of the observable universe may then originate from the
ether now becomes plausible.
Later he writes:
In summation. the various physical disciplines appear to be intri-
cately interwoven with the concept of an ether. One may wonder ifthe
widespread rejection of an ether, \\hieh primarily derives from the
inability to dynamically detect it, is worth the loss of its synergistic
potential in physical theory.
This is seemingly a good note on which to end, but why

should the reader be left to ponder a philosophical problem‘?
Instead, the reader is offered the stimulating thought that the
aether is about to reveal its essential role as a source from which
matter originates and into which matter dissipates itself. There
is energy conservation but matter is really particles of energy in
an intermediate state of decay between their primordial origin
(particles having a mass some 5063 times that of the electron)
and their primordial destiny (particles of about O-0408 electron
mass units or part of the fluid plenum. depending upon their
polarity). These quantities are fully explained in the author’s
analysis elsewhere.* But now it appears that some further
experimental support is at hand. Such particles, as ingredients
of the unseen aether. have never been detected directly, but ifthe
aether contains particles of these dimensions what would be
their consequence to electromagnetic wave propagation? Might
not they atliect frequencies corresponding to their annihilation
or creation? The related photon frequencies correspond with
(D 3 O ".2' C1 s of 2-58 GeV and Z0-9 ke\/, respectively. lt is then
’_1
* 1’/i_1"\it's wit/mu! l;‘in.s'Iv1'II.

interesting to quote a problem of cosmic X-rays recently
revievved in New Scicm‘/st and Science Journal 1*
The main stumbling block to progress is the shape of the X-ray
spectrum. This has a curious discontinuity at 20—40 keV, usually
termed the kink or break: it corresponds to a break at 2—5 GeV in the
parent electron spectrum, which is itself hard to explain.
It must ever be remembered that \\ hen we look up into space
we are notjust looking at the stars. but are also looking into the
aether. lf\ve see things \vhich are diliicult to explain in terms of
the phenomena \\e associate with ordinary matter then perhaps
we should take note ofthe aether and develop our understanding
of aether science.
If we vvant to stay in the laboratory, however, maybe we
should turn back to page 28 and question Wilson’s experiment
with the svvinging iron bar. His experiment really tested the
elfect of s\vinging the earth relative to a detector on the bar.
This is possible if yott rely on Einstein’s principle, which Wilson
did. In an experiment in which he rotated a test specimen
relative to the earth frame he did observe a magn ca ,_. ' r: TF10 F‘) P“?
Of this, he said:
The current appeared to be due to residual magnetism in the iron
case, which could not be got rid of.
This vvas in spite of the fact that he rotated the specimen about
vertical and horizontal axes.
Relativity killed Wilsotfs experiment, just as:
Einstein's special relati\ity killed this idea of the ether. But . . . one
can get over the diiliculties of reconciling the existence of an ether
with the special theor) ofrel;tti\it_\.
So said Dirac“. but let us not theorize. Rather let us examine
these effects \vhieh Wilson cannot get rid of.
’*‘ Page 287, February ll, 1970.
'§' l’ .~\ M. Dirac, .81 it‘/iii/iv .-in.-t'r/(‘<1/1. May, 1963, p. 50.
Appendix
The Law of Electrodynamics
Consider two electric charges ofequal mass positioned at A and
B in Fig. 14. Let the forces AF’, BF denote the electromagnetic
field interaction exerted between the charges. The value of AF’
or BF, as an attractive force, is the product ofthe two charges in
electromagnetic units multiplied by the scalar product of their
velocities and divided by the square of AB. The velocities of the
charges are represented by u, v in the directions AO and BO,
respectively, as shown.
We now suppose that an external force acts on the system.
The force will be etliective through the centre of gravity of the
two charges and will be equally apportioned in providing an
action AX’ or BX at A and B. The total force on the charge at A
is then AX’ +AF’ and this may be resolved into a component
AP at right angles to AO and a component AU along OA.
Similarly, the total force on the charge at B is BX »E-BF and this
may be resolved into a component BQ at right angles to BO
and a component BV along OB.
The nature of the force component BV is that needed to slow
down the charge at B, since we assume its speed is changing due
to the interaction effects. Then. for there to be no turning action
on the system as a whole. this force component must have a
counterpart at A. Hence, we equate UX’ and BV. Similarly, for
speed changes at A there is the force component AU which is
balanced by the force \'.\' induced at B.
Given the positions cf./\ and B. the interaction force BF, and
the vector directions u and v. we can then derive the value of the
force AX’ or BX from the geometry of Fig. l4. To {ind the force
on B, draw FQ in the direction opposite to u, determining Q by
the perpendicular to from B. Then derive V by drawing FV
(shown by the broken line) front F perpendicular to u. V being
Tt X
<2
Ll \ , '. '\ S
.- T. t v
Ll
O
Fig. 14
at the interception with the velocity direction v through B. The

electrodynamic force on the charge at B is then BF +BV +FQ,
adding to BT.
Note that for action between discrete charges, if u and v are
parallel then the force FQ' applies at B but then BV will cancel
FQ’ and so the electrodynamic force on B will act directly
towards A.
Index
Adams. 76 Bremsstrahlung. 112. 115
Aether. 2 dc Broglie, 42. 64, 72
Aspden‘s theory. 15-1. 159 Bruce. 12. 13
dc Brog1ie's theory. 72 Biichel, 20
cyclic form. 3-1
rotation. 11 14. 35—38 Cavendish. 17
Alfven. 122 Cerenkov, 96, 114, 115
Altschuler. 9. 1-1 Chadwick, 67
Ampere. 77 Compton. 151
Anderson, 67 Conklin. 158
Angular momentum. ofaether. 58 Cook. I57
of electron. 60 Cosmic radiation. 49. 67, 158
of solar system. 42 et seq. Coulomb's law. 73. 129
of star. 46
Aristotle. 15. 25 Dauvillier. 44
Arrhenius. 44 Descartes. 3. 18, 19, 22
Asteroids. 52 Diamagnetism, 1 17 et seq.
Atmospheric electricity. 144 et Dingle. 83
seq. Dirac. 60472. 92—99, 125, 160
Augenheister. 36 Doolittle. 55—57
Babcock. 28. 29 Earnshaw, 87490, 94

Ball. 12. 54 Earth's electricity, 144 ct seq.
Ball lightning. See thunderballs Earth's magnetism, 26—29, 36
Barnett. 3 reversals of. 53. 156
Bates. 125 Earthquakes, 9, 13. 23, 31, 36
Batter. 138 Eddington.22,42.43.60.61.63,78
Black holes. 19. -16 Einstein. 3. 24, 31, 65, 84, 86, 99
Blackett. 28. 29 Elcctrodynamic law, 73 et seq.,
Bondi. 6. 101 1 19. 161
Born. 62 Electron. 65
Bouguer. 17 radiation. 68. 95~97, 102, 115,
Boundary conditions". relativity. 133. 147
82 86 size. 99
diamagnetism. 11$ spin. 60, 64, 70, 117, 125
Eotvos, 54 Langevin, 75
Erasmus, 3 Laplace, 20, 21, 44
Exclusion principle, 70 Leverrier, 54
Expanding universe, 44 Lightning, atmospheric, 8, 9, 31,
36, 145
Faraday. 119 cosmic, 13, 151, 152
Fermi. 67 Livens, 133435
Ferromagnetisin, 26, 123-27 Lodcstone, 24
Feynman, 102, 132 Lorentz. 83—85, 94-97, 119
Fitzgerald. 75
Franklin. 8. 30 Mach. 78, 100, 102
Freeman, 20 Magnetism, 110 et seq.
Freinlin, 76 Mass, 100
Maxwell's theory, 84, 95, 96
Galileo, 3, 15, 16 Mercury, 55
Galle, 54 Miche1son»Morley experiment
Gauss. 89 158
Gilbert. 25. 26 Millikan, 67
Gottdsmit. 64 Mills. 14
Gravitational collapse, 19, 21 Mossotti. 17
Gravitational theory, aether, 18
Aspden's, 127, 143 Narlikar, 128, 132
electrical. 17, 19 Neutron, 67
Fitzgerald's. 58 Newton. 3. 16, 20, 71, 72
\1ewton's, 16, 55 Nordenson, 4, 32
Potiers, 131 I\uclear theory, atoms, 139 ct
relativistic. 6, 20. 57 seq.
Gyromagnetic ratio, 60 sun. 12, 155
thunderballs, 10, 11
Heaviside, 100
Heisenberg. 3. 24, 129 Ohm's law, failure, 124
Helmholtz. 19, 22, 80
Herschel, 12 Page, 76
Hoy1e,6, 101. 128, 132 Pauli. 3, 24, 70
Hydromagnetism, 26 Perihelion anomalies, 56, 57
Planck, 65. 115
Inertia. nature of. 102 "
0 ,-4 u 4".1 .0 Planets, formation. 5C--53
Inertial inas>._ 5-1. 108 perturbation. 54
Poincare. -1-l-. 75
Jaggi, 124 Poisson, 89
Jeans, 43, 44. 88 Positron. 65. 67
Josephs, 101 Potier, 131
Poynting's theory, 133—35
Kant, 47 Priestley, 30
Kepler. 16 Proton. 67
INDEX 165
Rabe, 57 pulsations, 52
Relativity, 4, 5, 82, 9S radiation. 147
Ritchie, IO, 14, 39 Sunspots, 12
Rocher, 30 Swann, l49~5l
Runcorn. 26, 29, 35
Rudcrfcr, l58
Thiessen. 29
Thomson, 104
Sclionlnnd, 8, IO, 13, 39, 152
Tl1Ul](l(’fl7L\llS, 9, l0. 38—40, 153
Schott, 97, l32
Thliiidcrbolu. 2
Sclirocdingcr, 65
Timc, dilution, 32
Scliuslci". 28 Ul‘-l\Cl‘>£ll, 35
Schus1cr-- Wilson hypoth-csis, Trouton-i\ioblc cxpcriincnt, 73
28 ~30, 36, 49, 51
cf. seq.
SClLll‘il1L l()l
Scott. D;m;i, 61
Scott. W. T., 87, 90 Ulilcnbuck. 64
Silk, 46
Simpson. M6 \-km \/lccl; 53 I22
Soininc:"l"';~ld, l 14, 115 \/cmzrl. 5%
Stability. ofucllici", SS Vén:-nnci. 34 -I‘-\ ~ 4.- L) cc O
electric Cl1L1l'gC, 92, l -1-‘,1 Von Eiluhcii 29
gi';1\;i1:nio:i:1l, 20 Vortcx llicor_\'_ I37. 138
nuclczir, I39 VL!lC(‘.l‘-.
Stairs, collision. 44
invcrlcd polarity, 67, 68, I56 Watson. 46
Stedman, 129 \\'c‘r»c1'. l7. l9, 27
Stsvinuq, 15, l6 \\."hcclci', lO2, 132, L38
Stix, l52 \‘v'liitel1cacl, l
Strnud, 76 \\’liitt;:l<cr. 75, 100
Sucksmith, 125 Wils-:>n, 28, l45—47, 160
Sun, energy, 12, 19. 68. 146 '\'Yrigh€, 46
formation, 21, 41 et seq., 155
magnetism, 28, 29 Zollner, l7, l9, 27
MODERN AETHER SCIENCE
By HAROLD ASPDEN
The book follows the author’s ‘Physics without Einstein’ published

in October, I969. It is an attack on those abstract philosophical
dogma which are impeding the development of physics. Also, the
author records progress made in expanding the physics of the earlier
book, particularly on the formation of the solar system, the stability
and structure of the atomic nucleus, and the periodic reversals of the
earth's magnetism. The treatment is deliberately non-mathematical,
inasmuch as a basic comprehension of the universe need not be
founded in mathematics. It is shown that the aether has to be
revived for complete understanding of physical science.
A mathematical extension of the new ideas presented in this work
will be published separately under the title of ‘Aether Science Papers‘
and will be available from the same publishers.
BY THE SAMF AUIHURI _
PHYSICS WITHOUT EINSTEIN

‘An extremely well-written and challenging book which should be
read by all physicists.‘ ASLIB aoox usr, u.x.
‘The reviewer welcomes this new and stimulating challenge of the

orthodox views of modern physics . . . well-written . . . a bargain.‘
012091-wstcs, U.S.A.
SABBERTON PUBLICATIONS
P.O. Box 35. Southampton. England

Modern Aether Science - Aspden, Harold

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modern Aether Science - Aspden, Harold

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modern Aether Science - Aspden, Harold

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODERN AETHER

First published March 1972

P/"irlml in G/‘cut Brimin /21'

Nature’s Unseen World

APPENDIXZ The Law of Electrodynamics

So said the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead in his Science

Nature’s Unseen World

Erasmus preceded Galileo, Descartes and Newton, men who

and especially those of epistemological character. On the other hand

It would seem that the modern physicist is so specialized

can assimilate what is presented to them in texts on Relativity,

imagination and conviction. Eventually, we must discover the

stable and display certain electrical effects as well as generating

* Published by Cassell. London, I897.

sceptical reader might say that it could equally be explained by

The nature of gravitation was accounted for by Aristotle

Newton had to apply then-complex mathematical principles to

We do not see that the sun is dissipated by the surrounding sub-

(American Journal of P/iysics, Vol. 37, p. l222). Dimensions larger

We well know. today, that the earth is older than this by a

motion is more likely to be a cyclic rotary motion, with the

At least one star in three is double—a pair of self-luminous globes

momentum is transported away by the imagined aether. The

has been given showing that recognition of the aether medium

to explain why the earth’s magnetism reverses in Chapter 16,

exactly equal. Thus it was indicated that the gravitational

Planet Secs arc/century Solar mass/Planet mass

* Trans. AIm>rir'un P/zil. S011, 22, p. 37, 1925.

are straightforward, as the author has shown* elsewhere, and the

Modern techniques for understanding the behaviour of the

* The Na/are aft/iv P/zysical War/1/, A. S. Eddington, Cambridge University

discovery when, near the end of the nineteenth century, it

* Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit, Nnturwi.s-.v, 13, 1925, p. 953.

electron is swept into the negatively charged system and shares

We begin with the equation connecting kinetic energy and momen-

Here the quotation develops into the one already presented.

chapters. Now we are turning away from these grand matters

from Nature’s own structure, is subject to erosion with the

* J. Strnad, C'0!irmnp0mr_v PIi_i".ri¢-.\", p. 59, 1970.

moving along a common line. All sense points to this result.

theoretical foundations, seems to be the correct law for dealing

Now, l wish to explain where the physicist has gone wrong in

change, then the charge can redeploy. Reduction of the ﬁeld

Neutrons are believed by some authorities to be electrically

This seems an appropriate objective, but we are looking at a

this is an idle pursuit if we have no way of relating this to the

This, indeed. is a statement which evokes comment. If every-

" Sec discussions of Cerenkov radiation in Chapter 12.

This is puzzling. lt depends whether we have charge or energy

* Af).S‘fI'(I('I.Y 0/" l)f.\'S(’!'!(IIf0!l.\‘, 19534954, Cambridge University Press, 1956,

interval during which the acceleration occurs. We can ignore the

Chapter 4, aether charge will tend to move in harmony in

Cerenkov discovered that when electrons travelling at a speed

This absence of a diamagnetic susceptibility from free electrons at

is turned from a position normal to the axis of the magnetic

The success of ﬁeld theory has overshadowed the action at a distance

* Private communication dated Lisbon, January 9, 197].

The Nuclear Aether

Now. we are interested in this earthly phenomenon because it

Apart from the interesting recognition by Wilson that waves