Another scientific consensus bites the dust

@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard:
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.

@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard:
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.”

@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard:
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.

Hey, E.M. Smith:
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.

@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard:
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?