A friend asked: if ... unmagnetized planets are still spinning, why, or how, would they have lost whatever magnetic field they would have originally generated [if planetary magnetic fields are due to spinning charges]?
* For answers, I think some of the material below is promising.Earth’s Magnetic Field Fluctuates?http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield
According to Glatzmaier, the ongoing 10% decline doesn't mean that a reversal is imminent. "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," he says. "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." Earth's present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2.
* Of course, the dating of a million-year average is likely way wrong. But it may indicate what the strength of Earth's magnetic field was before it entered the Solar System. Right? And that may show how much charge the Earth was subjected to [in the Saturn System].Sources of Charge for Earth’s Magnetic Field
* Mathis contends that charge is a flow of spinning photons emitted by all matter.http://milesmathis.com/galmag.pdf
Explanation of Planets’ Magnetic Fieldshttp://milesmathis.com/marsmag.pdf
William Gilbert, … with his terrellas, or little Earths, back in 1600, … showed that the Earth acted like a magnetized object by comparing it to a sphere he shaped out of a lodestone. By passing a small compass over the terrella, Gilbert demonstrated that a horizontal compass would point towards the magnetic pole, while a dip needle, balanced on a horizontal axis perpendicular to the magnetic one, indicated the proper "magnetic inclination" between the magnetic force and the horizontal direction. …[T]he lodestone is magnetized without converting mechanical energy to magnetic energy. [Is] the magnetism of a terrella due to a dynamo in the core? No, it is due to charge. Why can a lodestone be explained with charge but the Earth needs a dynamo? Put simply, it is because modern physicists can't figure out where the Earth's charge comes from. Since they can't point to a source, they prefer to hide it. But there are two pretty obvious sources, and it takes a large degree of dullness to miss them. The first is the charge at the quantum level, which does not disappear when you decrease your magnification. Every electron and proton is charged, and that charge does not disappear when they combine in atoms. The atom is fairly neutral, but the ions are still charged inside. Charge offsets to some degree, but it doesn't disappear. The second is the Sun, which is bombarding us with E/M radiation all the time. Everything contains charge, but it should be doubly obvious that E/M radiation contains charge. How do they think these ions are ionized[?]: charge. Modern physicists seem to think that charge is something like a kick, that doesn't persist after the kick. But we know that charge is more like an injection or a coat of paint [or an emission], that the ion carries with it.
Solar System Was Different in the Past
I have already explained the lack of magnetism on Venus as due to the fact that it [Venus] is upside down. When its magnetic field is emitted from the surface, this field hits the ambient field. Since one field is upside down to the other, they cancel as a matter of spin. Yes, I have shown that magnetism is a function of photon spin, and the photons coming out of Venus are upside down…. Compared to the Solar system field, Venus is emitting anti-photons. We have a spin cancellation. It is that simple.
… Venus, especially, has a powerful ionosphere, one that blocks the Solar Wind much like our magnetosphere.
… With the Moon, we have a slightly different mechanism. … Since the Moon is so close to the Earth, the Moon's ambient field is determined more by the Earth than the Sun.
… Mars is not upside down, like Venus, and it is not spinning that slowly, and it is not in the shadow of some other very near body. Its day is about the same as the Earth's, and its radius is about half, so it seems at a glance that by my theory it would have about half the charge and therefore half the magnetism. But that “at a glance” is way off, since we have left Jupiter out of it. We can't do that, as I showed in both my axial tilt papers and my Bode series paper. Charge moving toward the Sun increases in charge density and therefore in charge power, which also increases the magnetic power. This is just to say that the photons get closer together, because they are moving into a smaller volume. Therefore, Mars IS [in] the shadow of another body [Jupiter].
Positive and Negative Layers in Planets
We know that although Mars has a low current magnetism, some of the rocks on Mars have a much higher residual magnetism. This has been taken to mean that Mars had more magnetism in the past. I think this is entirely possible, and that this reading is probably correct. But I do not think the magnetism was knocked off the planet by asteroids. No, this residual magnetism in the rocks on Mars is telling us something very important, not about Mars, but about the make-up of the Solar system in the past. It means that either Mars was not at its current orbital distance at that time, or the big outer planets were not. Something was vastly different. Given the asteroid belt and other glaring evidence, this is not hard to imagine. From this we see that my theory of planetary magnetism will give us the tool to work backward in time, rebuilding previous Solar system relationships. These rocks, which we find on other planets and moons as well, are like tablets with numbers on them. They will be very useful in future.
* Charles Chandler has suggested on the NIAMI board that the Sun’s magnetic field is so weak, only 3 times as strong as the Earth’s, because of opposing fields generated by positive and negative layers within the Sun. The planets could also have such layers.