Uh, Bernie…. That would include:
Emergency radio dispatchs … people would die
Air control radar … people would die
Almost all medical equipment … people would die
Traffic lights … people would die
My pacemaker … people would die

I’m all for saving spaceship earth as long as I don’t lose my chance to stick around and enjoy the ride.

Tell you what: You give up your pacemaker first, I’ll give mine up second. Bless you and keep you Bernie, and I hope the devil has nice spots reserved for the people who filled the role of educators in your life.

The post is old and off the board, so this is for the record if nothing else.

I rasied Maxwell’s equations several times which require an electric current to generate a magnetic field. This was ignored, so I asked a direction question of Svalgaard about the validity of Maxwell’s equations.

Svalgaard responded this way: “…in a plasma, the magnetic field generates the current that sustains the magnetic field.”

And I noted Svalgaard’s response was a classic case of circular reasoning to which he never responded.

Also, Michael Gmirkin (17:03:20), made a comment in which he stated: “frozen in” fields and ”econnection” are bunkum.”

(So-called “frozen in” magnetic fields are the supposed justification for ignoring Maxwell’s equations.)

And Svalgaard responded:

“Reconnection has been directly observed [ http://www.astroengine.com/?p=475 ] and is a cornerstone of our understanding of plasmas in the Universe [although not in the laboratory because we cannot make plasmas that are dilute enough for reconnection to work]. And we are beginnig to drift off topic again. This is not the place to debunk the debunking of everything we know. There are specialized websites for such activities. Go there.”

The thrust of my comments on this thread have been that space is not “charge neutral” and electric currents to flow in space (as a side proposition I agreed with Gmirkin that so-called “magnetic reconnection” was a faulty idea), therefore, the Sun’s irradiance is not the only energy received by the Earth from the Sun, and failure to take this electromagnetic energy into account will render climate models inaccurate.

Dr. Svalgaard consistently denied my proposition that there are electric currents in space.

But looking at the above link provided by Dr. Svalgaard, which was about so-called “magnetic reconnection”, I noted this statement:

“Although magnetic reconnection is one of the bedrock theories within the field of space plasma physics, it has been very difficult to observe. We know that magnetic instabilities and electric currents operate within the plasma environment, but the triggering mechanism is difficult to understand.”

Looking at Svalgaard’s above quoted statement and the quote from the article, it seems Dr. Svalgaard paraphrased the article, nothing wrong with that, but he left out of his paraphrase, “We know that magnetic instabilities and electric currents operate within the plasma environment…”

So the very article that Dr. Svalgaard linked to and quoted from, clearly stated, “We know…electric currents operate within the plasma environoment…”

Yet, Dr. Svalgaard continued to deny the existence of electric currents in space, even though the article he linked to stated there are electric currents in space.

This seems a strange contradiction and one is left wondering why?

Michael Gmirkin (17:03:20) comment is a good exposition of why “frozen in” magnetic fields doesn’t work.

It should also be noted that Hannes Alfven was the 1970 Nobel Prize winner in physics for his work in Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). Alfven was the one who origninally developed the concept of “frozen in” magnetic fields in space plasma as part of his work on MHD. Alfven’s idea was that space plasma is a superconductor with zero electrical resistence. Science now knows that to be false. Plasma does have some resistence and is not a “perfect” conductor.

How do we know that?

Plasma physicists have confirmed the electrical conducting properties of plasma in the laboratory and that plasma is not a “perfect” electrical conductor — good — but not “perfect”.

But also, Hannes Alfven who developed the idea of “frozen in” magnetic fields continued to challenge himself and his ideas, he was not satisfied, so he continued to work in his laboratory and found his earlier assertions about “frozen in” magnetic fields were wrong and publically stated his ideas on “frozen in” magnetic fields were wrong.

But “modern” astronomy had jumped on the idea of “frozen in” magnetic fields because they could then ignore electric currents in space, as a result they ignored Alfven’s repudiation of his own ideas.

But Hannes Alfven was so concerned this was wrong that he dedicated his Nobel Prize winner acceptance speech to publically stating his ideas were wrong.

Alfven took the biggest moment of his life, his own Nobel Prize acceptance speech, to declare that his ideas were wrong.

That is a profile in courage and intellectual honesty and a testiment to the best traditions of the Scientific Method.

Sadly, even though the author of MHD had repudiated “frozen in” magnetic fields in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, “modern” astronomy wouldn’t listen.

Where have we seen that before?

Svalgaard states: “Perhaps the NASA messenger would comment on with this NASA press release”

I already did, in effect, see the below link, it’s the same one I posted above:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/24jul_plasmabullets.htm

Notice the dates are the same and the material is roughly the same in both links.

Apparently,you didn’t bother reading the NASA link I provided.

Why am I not surprised.

Just to refresh your recollection this is what I stated above:

“The, below linked, NASA news release states: “Although the explosion happened inside Earth’s magnetic field, it was actually a release of energy from the sun. When the solar wind stretches Earth’s magnetic field, it stores energy there, in much the same way energy is stored in a rubber band when you stretch it between thumb and forefinger. Bend your forefinger and—crack!—the rubber band snaps back on your thumb.”

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/24jul_plasmabullets.htm

“… it was actually a release of energy from the sun.”

Note the discussion in the NASA release uses the term “plasma”.

The NASA release to on to say, “The blast launched two ‘plasma bullets,’ gigantic clouds of protons and electrons, one toward Earth and one away from Earth.”

The New Scientist schematic shows that these “clouds” don’t take the shape of a “cloud” in actuality, but rather a filamentary shape, “twisted magnetic field lines” (reflecting the underlying electric current dynamics), with a vortex, thus, the reason it is referred to as a “magnetic tornado”.

It is the storage and release of electrical energy.”

As i stated already, above, “magnetic reconnection” doesn’t happen (NASA doesn’t get everything right, nobody does), rather electric currents change and/or ‘double layers’ can explode. But keep going and demonstrate some more, that you don’t seriously consider evidence by commenters that disagree with you.

Svalgaard states: “Perhaps ESA is stupider than NASA:”

Of course, the article goes on in the next sentence to say: “It is spread over large distances in space and guided by the action of magnetic and electric fields. A substorm induces violent changes in the plasma sheet. It energises ions and electrons and hurls them Earthward. The substorm itself can occur as a series or in isolation.”

Yes, “electric fields”, probably a result of ‘double layers’ as I stated above.

And, I bet if the authors were questioned closely they would acknowledge the concept of ‘quasi neutral’ and the existence of ‘double layers’ in space plasma.

Really, Svalgaard, you are being too easy and it only hurts your credibility more.

I stand by my statement you were so good enough to quote. And as I stated above: “‘magnetic reconnection’ doesn’t happen (NASA doesn’t get everything right, nobody does), rather electric currents change and/or ‘double layers’ can explode. But keep going and demonstrate some more, that you don’t seriously consider evidence provided by commenters that disagree with you.

“You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.”

That’s true, Svalgaard, if you don’t consider the evidence you aren’t going to learn anything, but ultimately that’s up to you.

All I can do is point out the facts and evidence so readers can inverstigate and decide for themselves.

The, above, statement just shows that “modern” astronomy has severe problems, as any competent plasma physicist will tell you that magnetic reconnection has not been observed and has no basis in electrical theory or practice.”

Obviously, NASA has changed their tune or perhaps they are deliberately try to fool their messenger?

Obviously, NASA has changed their tune or perhaps they are deliberately try to fool their messenger?

Perhaps ESA is stupider than NASA:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM3GYMPQ5F_index_0.html
“At the centre of the magnetotail is a denser region known as the plasma sheet. Plasma is a gas composed of ions and electrons which is electrically neutral.”

Perhaps the NASA messenger would comment on with this NASA press release”

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/jul/HQ_08185_THEMIS.html
“GREENBELT, Md. — Researchers using a fleet of five NASA satellites have discovered that explosions of magnetic energy a third of the way to the moon power substorms that cause sudden brightenings and rapid movements of the aurora borealis, called the Northern Lights.

The culprit turns out to be magnetic reconnection, a common process that occurs throughout the universe when stressed magnetic field lines suddenly snap to a new shape, like a rubber band that’s been stretched too far.”

This press release is a year old, and perhaps the messenger knows of later NASA releases that overturn everything they have said in the past? Such as reconnection not happening…

I have no problem with being corrected. Fire away!

(I’m interested with matching human understanding with reality, including my own understanding.)

But it does seem that Dr. Svalgaard has a problem with acknowledging inconvient facts and evidence.

Leif, I don’t think he will stand much more correction …

Simply answer the assertions and that will be enough.

As to my statements: Certainly, many “modern” astronomers insist on ignoring the only way to generate magnetic fields is electric current — that is why so many papers do ignore electric currents when discussing magnetic fields (these papers primarily are focussed on structures beyond the solar system), but that is slowly changing, more papers are discussing electric currents.

Regarding the study of the solar system, few scientists THAT ARE CURRENT on the NASA findings still cling to the space is “charge neutral” dogma.

Remember, many if not most of the NASA findings are only from the last two years or so, this is not a long time in terms of diffusion of knowledge especially considering the longstanding position of “modern” astronomy.

Looks like you are changing your mind about how widespread my antiquated, old, dogmatic view is. I’m beginning to enjoy your postings. It is not every day that one comes across such vehemence, please keep it up. It is quite entertaining now. I look forward to the next installment.

Note in the schematic at the head of this post there is there is the legend “plasmoid” and the caption for the schematic discusses: “…plasmoids…”

“Plasmoids” are entirely an electromagnetic description, as in plasma…

A plasmoid per Wikipedia entry:

“A plasmoid is a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields. Plasmoids have been proposed to explain natural phenomena such as ball lightning, magnetic bubbles in the magnetosphere, and objects in cometary tails, in the solar wind, in the solar atmosphere, and in the heliospheric current sheet. Plasmoids produced in the laboratory include Field-Reversed Configurations, Spheromaks, and the dense plasma focus.

The word plasmoid was coined in 1956 by Winston H. Bostick (1916-1991) to mean a “plasma-magnetic entity”:

The plasma is emitted not as an amorphous blob, but in the form of a torus. We shall take the liberty of calling this toroidal structure a plasmoid, a word which means plasma-magnetic entity. The word plasmoid will be employed as a generic term for all plasma-magnetic entities.

Bostick wrote:

Plasmoids appear to be plasma cylinders elongated in the direction of the magnetic field. Plasmoids possess a measurable magnetic moment, a measurable translational speed, a transverse electric field, and a measurable size. Plasmoids can interact with each other, seemingly by reflecting off one another. Their orbits can also be made to curve toward one another. Plasmoids can be made to spiral to a stop if projected into a gas at about 10−3 mm Hg pressure. Plasmoids can also be made to smash each other into fragments. There is some scant evidence to support the hypothesis that they undergo fission and possess spin.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid

The, below, linked schematic is of Mercury, although, it is similar to Earth in regards to it’s electromagnetic envronoment:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/mercury/mercmag.jpg

Readers will note in the schematic there is a legend entitled “PLASMOID”, along with other legends that spell out the electromagnetic nature of Mercury’s near-space environment.

The full NASA news release is linked below:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/30apr_mercury.htm

Svalgaard states: “And since my views are shared with a great majority of ‘modern’ astronomers and you correctly point out, I take it that your point is that we collectively have no scientific credibility.”

Those that ignore new scientific data don’t have scientific credibility and the doctrinaire viewpoint that space is “charge neutral” is falling by the wayside as more and more astronomers take an open-minded look at the Scientific evidence presented by NASA.

In regards to the solar system the doctrinaire viewpoint is fast changing because the scientific evidence is so overwhelming, that many in “modern” astronomy are now accepting the electromagnetic dynamics of the solar system, yet, obviously enough, there are antiquated, doctrinaire holdouts such as yourself.

Few, informed scientists that study the solar system and are current on the NASA findings still cling to the space is “charge neutral” dogma.

The new “mantra” is “yes, but”, as in “yes, the solar system is electromagnetically dynamic, but this does not include anything beyond the solar system.”

Svalgaard states: “We can live with your assessment of the state of modern astronomy.”

It is not my “assessment”, but the scientists at NASA who have made this assessment, I’m only the messenger, here.

I note that instead of refuting my arguments regarding the necessity of electric currents for generating manetic fields, you simply “surround yourself with the herd” for self-justification.

Actually, you are quite naked, just like the “emperor with no clothes.”

If presenting facts and evidence and insisting on answers makes me a “nasty person”, I plead guilty.

But it seems you were the first person, here, to to resort to the ad hominem, where essentially you said “people who disagree with me are the equivalent to “creationist, bible thumpers that believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.”

if that isn’t an adhominem I don’t know what is.

Svalgaard, your hypocrisy doesn’t surprise me.

Let me get this straight, “…in a plasma, the magnetic field generates the current that sustains the magnetic field.”

So for the record, Svalgaard refuses to give a direct answer about Maxwell’s equations, but implicitly rejects them.

Background on Maxwell’s equations per Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell’s_equations

Svalgaard, beyond your say so, what is your authority?

There is no laboratory support for your statement.

Plasma physicists would disagree with your statement.

Svalgaard states: ” This double-action is often difficult for people to understand, so you are a bit excused.”

No, Svalgaard, I understand perfectly well, rather, you present a classical case of circular reasoning.

The magnetic field forms the magnetic field, what???

What forms the magnetic field to begin with?

Background on magnetism per Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism

Per Wikipedia’s entry:

“Magnetism, at its root, arises from two sources: Electric currents, or more generally moving electric charges, create magnetic fields (see Maxwell’s Equations). Many particles have nonzero “intrinsic” (or “spin”) magnetic moments [still a type of electron 'movement'].”

I’ve engaged in numerous discussions with astronomers and not once did they come out and openly reject Maxwell’s equations (as Svalgaard implicitly does here) because the scientific evidence is too unequivocal to deny.

All plasma experiments confirm Maxwell’s equations that it takes an electric current to generate a magnetic field, although for the record, magnetic fields do effect electric currents.

But such is Svalgaard’s reliance on dogma that he’s willing to make statements that make him an intellectual outcast among other scientists and scientific observers.

Svalgaard states: “The important thing for you to understand is that the plasma is electrically neutral through all of this…”

No, that is false.

Plasma is ‘quasi neutral’ which means, while in a large volume there are equal numbers of electrons and ions, charged particles, however, plasma forms ‘double layers’ where the charges line up in structures (the ‘double layers’ cause a voltage drop). I provided a link that explained ‘double layers”, above in this post, but apparently, Svalgaard was too incurious and couldn’t be bothered to read the link, so, here it is, again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)

Per the Wikipedia entry:

“A double layer is a structure in a plasma and consists of two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge. The sheets of charge cause a strong electric field and a correspondingly sharp change in voltage (electrical potential) across the double layer. Ions and electrons which enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field. In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics. Double layers are found in a wide variety of plasmas, from discharge tubes to space plasmas to the Birkeland currents supplying the Earth’s aurora, and are especially common in current-carrying plasmas. Compared to the sizes of the plasmas which contain them, double layers are very thin (typically ten Debye lengths), with widths ranging from a few millimeters for laboratory plasmas to thousands of kilometres for astrophysical plasmas.”

The magnetopause has been confirmed by satellite probe in situ observation & measurement as being a double layer.

Apparently, Svalgaard is completely unaware or chooses to ignore this scientific understanding because it contradicts his dogma (and his professional livelyhood).

Sorry, Svalgaard, the old shibboleth that “space is charge neutral” simply doesn’t carry any water, today, in informed scientific circles.

Svalgaard, your problem is not with me, but with NASA which has conducted numerous satellite probe in situ observations & measurements that confirm the electric dynamic of Earth’s near-space environment.

Again, since Svalgaard apparently is unaware or in denial about electricity in space and the electromagnetic properties of the Earth’s magnetosphere, I present NASA educational website on the magnetosphere which is taught to high schoolers:

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wstart.html

Per NASA’s educational website:

“The complex flow of plasmas in space, of gases consisting of free electrons and of electrically charged atoms missing one or more electrons (“ions”). Most of the known universe consists of plasma, and the magnetosphere is our best laboratory for studying its plasma processes.”

I suggest readers review the entire website, it is a valuble introduction to the study of the magnetosphere and it’s electrodynamic properties.

Svalgaard, your failure to acknowledge scientific evidence and facts related the the Earth’s magnetosphere suggest your opinion has little credibility in discussions involving the Earth’s magnetosphere or the Earth’s energy budget derived from its electromagnetic relationship with the Sun.

Svalgaard states: “…and that the ‘Electric Universe’ is a fiction, entertaining, but a fiction, nevertheless.”

Interesting, that Svalgaard seeks to inject ‘Electric Universe’ into this dialogue, since all my authority (links provided) for this discussion comes from NASA and Wikipedia entries of confirmed scientific validity.

Svalgaard, your problem is with NASA and not with me.

Your problem is that NASA findings completely contradict your dogma and reduces your scientific credibility to almost zero.

Get to know it.

:-)

You are much too nasty a person to bother with [and this is a direct ad-hom], but for the record, in a plasma, the magnetic field generates the current that sustains the magnetic field. This double-action is often difficult for people to understand, so you are a bit excused. The important thing for you to understand is that the plasma is electrically neutral through all of this, and that the ‘Electric Universe’ is a fiction, entertaining, but a fiction, nevertheless.

Yes, I acknowledge evidence and facts, even if they contradict what I’ve stated, because that’s the Scientific Method.

But you on the other hand, fail to have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge Maxwell’s equations that require an electric current to generate a magnetic field.

I’ve stated Maxwell’s equations several times and you have ignored it.

So, I’ll ask a direction question: Do you subscribe to Maxwell’s equations which state that electric current is required to generate a magnetic field?

And if not, then what to you subscribe to?

In your view what conditions are magnetic fields sustained without electric currents in space environments?

Yes, I acknowledge accurate statements from my intelocutors.

Apparently, you feel no need to acknowledge basic physics and ignore facts and evidence that contradict your statements.

And apparently, you can’t be bothered to read the NASA educational material about “Electric Currents from Space”, which clearly spell out the role of electromagnetism in near-space and the Sun and Earth’s electromagnetic relationship.

I guess that’s okay because it just makes you look arrogant and hide-bound, if not something much worse: Dishonest.

Everytime there is made mention of magnetic fields, there is an underlying electric current.

Too bad, so far, you aren’t scientist enough to admit it.

Your irradiance work simply doesn’t address all the scientific data.

You seem oblivious to your intellectual duties as a scientist bound by the Scientific method, sadly too many astronomers seem to be of your ilk.

I saved teh planet!!! (where’s my “Peace Prize?”)