In our quest to understand how the Earth and other planets generate their magnetic fields why do scientists consistently leave out half of the theoretical foundation on which they build their dynamo models? In other words, according to the theory relativity and the superposition principle, if we assume our point of observation to be some fictitious point in space then the earth should have a bi (two) magnetic field associated with it. Irregardless if the fields are generated in the planets hot liquid iron core or not, it should have a magnetic field associated with its negative charges, which I call the beta magnetic field and it should also have a magnetic field associated with its positive charges, which I call the alpha magnetic field. These two magnetic fields combine to makeup the magnetic fields observe on the planets in space. In fact, not only does there exist two magnetic fields but each field also have unique characteristics as determined by the dynamics of the charges that generate it. I asked the above question not to test your intelligence but rather to make you truly think about your understanding of basic physics and what scientists take for granted in their attempts to explain celestial magnetic fields. Obviously, if they leave out half the information in their founding primus then they will never get a complete understanding of celestial magnetic fields.