Discoveries from the IBEX satellite show we still don't know quite a few things about the heliosphere and solar system

Dr. Svalgaard:
Of course, you ignore the fact that you were caught red-handed making up out of whole cloth, a fabricated quote from Wikipedia.
As for the quote I presented and the reason it was not necessary to quote any further, it is simple enough: It was not germane to the point I was making (but yes I did cite the page number and link the material so readers could read for themselves), which was in regards to the emf, electromotive force, and its action on ionized particles, free electrons and positive ions, charge seperated particles. As Dr. Parker makes clear it is the electromotive force that is the first cause (remember the causation principle in physics) — not magnetic fields — for charged particle motion, which is electric current.
Also, the other reason is this: Like you, Dr. Parker offers NO experimental results of any kind to back up his claims that “somehow” space plasma and electromagnetic processes act differently in space as opposed to the clear experimental results obtained, here, on Earth, which is what my original quote was memorializing. I’ll acknowledge a brief notation of Dr. Parker’s unsupported claims could have been made (although, why embarrass the old man, he’s 82 years old).
Dr. Svalgaard what is your reason for making up a Wikipedia quote out of thin air?
The explanation I gave for the electromotive force is the correct definition, as confirmed by Dr. Parker’s statement and countless other authorities.
Why do you persist in attempting to mislead the reader?
Dr. Svalgaard your conduct (making up whole cloth quotations and other transgressions) is a prime example of sociopathic science.
Your hubris is preventing you from quitting while you are behind (but it could still get worse), or seeing how others perceive your conduct.
It is sad when “belief” and reputation and dogma are more important than science.

Dr. Svalgaard presents vukcevic’s statement: “to present somewhat different alternative”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “There is only one physics.”
Yes, that is true, but what that physics is, is another question entirely.
Good Science is constantly questioning and conducting experiments and observing & measuring to further Man’s understanding toward that “one physics”, most likely Man will never get there to absolute knowledge.
But hopefully that will never be for lack of trying and imagination.
Dr. Svalgaard presupposes that he is in possession of the one “true physics”.
Good Science is constantly investigating alternatives, without alternative ideas science would stagnate into dogma and “belief”.
Obviously, some alternatives are better than others, that’s why science is constantly testing to either falsify or verify hypothesis, a bedrock principle of the empirical scientific method.
Good science does not rely on theoretical constructs and declare there is no reason for experiments be they insitu observation & measurement or laboratory experiment.
It’s naked hubris that drives Dr. Svalgaard to believe he is in possession of the one “true physics”.
Enough of philosophy.
Dr. Svalgaard makes an offering of a Wikipedia entry on Electromotive Force, presumably to suggest that is what he really meant, above, when he cited a Wikipedia entry on cosmic plasma with a quote that was clearly not in the astrophysical plasma entry.
To be fair and give the benefit of the doubt (what little doubt there is), allow Dr. Svalgaard a muligan.
But the Wikipedia entry on electromotive force starts off: “In physics, electromotive force, or most commonly emf (seldom capitalized), or (occasionally) electromotance is “that which tends to cause current (actual electrons and ions) to flow.”
And goes on: “The electric potential difference is created by separating positive and negative charges, thereby generating an electric field. The created electrical potential difference drives current flow if a circuit is attached to the source of emf.”
And it goes on further: “Devices that can provide emf include voltaic cells, thermoelectric devices, solar cells, electrical generators, transformers, and even Van de Graaff generators.
In the case of a battery, charge separation that gives rise to a voltage difference is accomplished by chemical reactions at the electrodes
“For a circuit consisting of an electrical generator that drives current through a resistor, the emf is due solely to a time-varying magnetic field that generates an electrical voltage that in turn drives the current.”
Dr. Svalgaard presents a statement from the Wikipedia entry: “For a circuit consisting of an electrical generator that drives current through a resistor, the emf is due solely to a time-varying magnetic field that generates an electrical voltage that in turn drives the current.”
Obviously, as the quote above Dr. Svalgaard’s quote from the Wikipedia entry makes clear, an “electrical generator” is only one way to produce electrical current among many. Dr. Svalgaard has brought this up before and it has been pointed out to him that the electric current is generated by the rotation of a bar magnets past an electrically conductive material, but the magnetic field in the bar magnet is due to orderred electron motion or “spin” of the electrons.
The first cause of the bar magnet’s magnetic field is electron motion, charged particle motion. The electric current caused by the generator is a secondary effect, which has already been discussed.
There are various theories for the magnetic field in the bar magnet, but they always boil down to orderred electron motion in some fashion.
So, as been stated, here, ad nauseam, electron motion, electric current causes magnetic fields.
Dr. Svalgaard takes a valid quote and uses it out of context to serve his own ends.

Dr. Svalgaard: It is bad enough that you are willing to mislead about the science to protect your own belief system and reputation, but when you distort the record about other scientists and their achievements, you really reveal who you are.
Below is a passage from the Wikipedia entry for the solar wind:
“The ideas of Fitzgerald and others were further developed by the Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland. His geomagnetic surveys showed that auroral activity was nearly uninterrupted. As these displays and other geomagnetic activity were being produced by particles from the Sun, he concluded that the Earth was being continually bombarded by “rays of electric corpuscles emitted by the Sun”. In 1916, Birkeland was probably the first person to successfully predict that, “From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds”. In other words, the solar wind consists of both negative electrons and positive ions. Three years later in 1919, Frederick Lindemann also suggested that particles of both polarities, protons as well as electrons, come from the Sun.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
There is a reason Birkeland currents are named in his honor.
Your willingness to distort and mislead are unbounded.
Of course, it has been pointed out to you that Sidney Chapman was wrong.
Chapman claimed the Earth was entirely isolated from the solar wind by the Earth’s magnetosphere.
Today, we know that the Earth is not isolated by the magnetosphere from the Sun’s solar wind.
As NASA recounts:
“In the 1930’s Chapman and Ferraro predicted that the plasma and magnetic fields from the Sun and the plasma and magnetic fields of the Earth would not mix. They thought that the magnetic field of the Earth could create a complete barrier to the solar wind. The boundary between the interplanetary magnetic field and the region dominated by the Earth’s magnetic field is called the Magnetopause. In the Chapman-Ferraro model, the plasma of the solar wind and the magnetic fields of the Sun slide over and around the Earth’s magnetosphere without any mixing.”
http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/earth_magnetosphere.htm
I’ve seen you write before that Chapman was right. No he was not, but why you back him is simple, he was violently opposed to Hannes Alfven’s concepts, held that space is electrically neutral and held to the mechanical model that you cling to.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “I’m an expert in this field, too. And BTW, have often discussed this in detail with Hannes who was a good friend of mine.”
Please, you distort Hannes Alfven’s work, where he publically rejected “frozen in” magnetic field lines at his Nobel acceptance speech and wrote of “magnetic reconnection” as pseudo-science.
It is offensive that you would claim to be a friend of Alfven when you distort his work. No friend would do that. Only somebody willing to stab him in the back.
You reject Hannes Alfven’s ideas about space plasma being cellular and connected in circuits and a good number of his other ideas, as well.
But the advancement of scientific understanding as in situ satellite probes are sent into space will vindicate many if not most of Alfven’s ideas.
Such will not be the same for yours.
Perhaps, that is why you are contemptuous of the need for in situ satellite probes that could either falsify or confirm your claims.

@ur momisugly Dr. Svalgaard:
Regarding Birkeland, thank you for the pdf file, I take your point that at the time of the journal you provided he was still focussed on negative charges: “Birkeland considers that corpuscles are negative…”
I have no problem with Birkeland subsequently considering other evidence and interpretions and revising his considered opinion, on the contrary, that is an example of good science. It is an example of scientific process you seem to have difficulty with. Also, that doesn’t change the fact that Birkeland did later correctly identify that both positive and negative “corpuscles” were present. And if Lindemann added on with his own contribution, so much the better. In science, everybody stands on the shoulders of those that came before.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote, “…neutral with equal mix of electrons and ions.”
No. this is a confusion of terms. Any region which has ionized electrons and ions (quasi-neutral) there will be electromotive force or an electric field present, even with one free electron and one ion there will be a voltage potential drop between the two (however small that would be).
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The initial phase of a magnetic storm is even today described by the generally accepted Chapman-Ferraro model.”
That does not change the fact that Chapman maintained there was no mixing between the solar wind and Earth’s magnetosphere, which, today, science knows is wrong, which was my point in the first place — typical that you wouldn’t just “man up” and acknowledge that fact.
Dr. Svalggaard wrote: “Curiously, Hannes agreed with me during our discussions about the shape of the HCS.”
It does not surprise me in the least that Alfven would agree with you on that point (I acknowledge your pioneering work) because Alfven was broad-minded (from what I understand Alfven was dedicated to observation & measurement) and your work there was well supported by observation & measurement.
It is your present claims that aren’t supported by ANY observation & measurement whether in the laboratory or in situ that are problematic (more on that later).
Dr. Svalgaard your references to scientific theories from over 50 years ago regarding the solar wind are telling.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “And BTW, of course we know why there is a solar wind [we have known this more than 50 years]: the corona is hot, very hot, and conducts heat very efficiently. The corona is simply evaporating. Interesting enough, it is by climbing out of the Sun’s gravity well that the solar wind becomes supersonic [check ‘de laval nozzle solar wind’].”
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “No, the acceleration of the solar wind is a natural consequence of it not being in hydrostatic equilibrium as Parker showed 52 years ago and has nothing to do with electric currents or magnetic fields.”
Vukcevic was right.
Dr. Svalgaard’s ideas, as I pointed out above in this thread are locked into the 1960’s, “hot gas, “kinetics”, and “pressure”, mechanical model or thermodynamic model. This mechanical model is outdated and has been shown to be for at least a decade (you are clinging to your glory days of the 1970’s) and is antiquated and naive if not simply false.
The wikipedia entry for solar wind specifically addresses this issue in the history section:
“However, the acceleration of the fast wind is still not understood and cannot be fully explained by Parker’s theory.”
Wikipedia goes on:
“In the late 1990s the Ultraviolet Coronal Spectrometer (UVCS) instrument on board the SOHO spacecraft observed the acceleration region of the fast solar wind emanating from the poles of the sun, and found that the wind accelerates much faster than can be accounted for by thermodynamic expansion alone. Parker’s model predicted that the wind should make the transition to supersonic flow at an altitude of about 4 solar radii from the photosphere; but the transition (or “sonic point”) now appears to be much lower, perhaps only 1 solar radius above the photosphere, suggesting that some additional mechanism accelerates the solar wind away from the sun.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
Dr. Svalggard wrote: “But the advancement of scientific understanding as in situ satellite probes are sent into space will vindicate many if not most of Alfven’s ideas. Indeed, satellites and spacecraft have corroborated our joint views on the magnetic structure of the solar wind [and Parker’s as well].”
Structure and morphology is one thing (and is important), but the processes that drive the structure is just as important, and that is where you naively cling to the mechanical model where NASA and others have advanced into a more sophisticated understanding and model that accounts for the electrical and magnetic properties of the solar wind, helio current sheet, and coronal mass ejections, along with their interaction with the Earth’s magnetosphere.
The acceleration electrons and ions that is spoken of, above, is most likely a product of an electric field (always present where ionized particles are present) and this electric field is concentrated in the helio current sheet where the acceleration is most pronounced (electric fields cause charged particle acceleration).
I realize this discussion has been going ’round and ’round.
Carla, I suggest it is Dr. Svalgaard who wants to “burn” everybody out, principally myself, so he can cynically say to himself, “I got the last word,” and salvage is his ego, and make sure and protect the weaknesses in his claims.
But there is one final point that needs to be made and a hypothesis/prediction regarding this ribbon that needs to be stated.
Dr. Svalgaard claims the magnetic fields cause electric current in space. There is no experimental in situ evidence to support this claim (and blatently contradicts the known scientific results) and in fact Dr. Svalgaard has arrogantly claimed no in situ experiments are needed to verify his claims.
In Science, the burden of scientific evidence is on the proponent making the claim. Dr. Svalgaard’s position would reverse this burden essentially because he claims his hypothesis is right without any in situ experimental evidence at all.
At first I thought his insistence that no in situ experimental evidence was needed was because no in situ experimental results existed, which is true enough in itself, but there’s more to it than that.
Dr. Svalgaard’s claim can’t be falsified by in situ experiment.
It’s as if Dr. Svalgaard is claiming there are pink unicorns in space and saying no experimental evidence is needed to verify his claim.
What would an in situ observation & measurement find and record in space plasma?
Well, it would find an electric field in any region (even a region in ‘quasi-neutrality’) of space plasma because ionized electrons and ions which by definition cause an electric field are present in space plasma. There is no in situ experiment that would be able to record observations & measurements that could later tell you whether the electric field and electric current caused the magnetic field or vice versus.
So the reason Dr. Svalgaard insists no experimental evidence is needed is because he knows there is no experimental evidence that could falsify or verify his claim.
That is why he has worked so hard to claim by fiat that his hypothesis is corrent because once his claim has gained currency and been accepted there would be no possible way to falsify his claims and he could go on claiming it is right (as he has done here) and no one would be able to prove anything different.
This is an example of sociopathic science: Proposing a hypothesis that counters known experimental results, which one knows can’t be disproved once it has gained some level of acceptance, which would preserve his functionally “electrically neutral” claims, and which he tenaciously clings to, as does a rump of opinion in the astronomical community.
Dr. Svalgaard, if you think I got this all wrong and I’m needlessly maligning your character, please provide the in situ experiment that would either falsify or verify your claim.
Failure to address this request for an in situ experiment to test your assertion is prima facie evidence that in fact you are claiming something that can never be falsified, or verified. A “no, no” in the empirical scientific method. And that you knew this problem existed all along, but attempted to hide it.
Now, going on to the hypothesis/prediction.
The IBEX has recorded the ribbon on the heliosphere and the researchers have stated it is the magnetic field that is dominating this process, and this has been observed & measured during this solar minimum. And the researchers have suggested they expect the ribbon could change its shape, intensity, composition, and other details over human scales of observation & measurement.
So, should these changes happen (and the changes suggest an intensification of the magnetic field) and a concomitant change happens in the Sun’s solar activity, say going from solar minimum to solar maximum and there is corollation between these changes in the solar cycle and the intensity and other dynamics of the ribbon, it would suggest that the Sun is influenced by the interstellar magnetic field, may receive energy from the interstellar magnetic field and go along way to confirming Alfven’s view of a cellular Universe connected in circuits. It would show that the Sun is not an isolated body in this part of the Milky Way galaxy, but is connected to the rest of the galaxy as every star in the galaxy.
If there was a corollation between ribbon composition and strength and the Sun’s solar cycle of minimum and maximum it would defy all current mainstream explanations of solar behavior and could even challenge the conventional “nuclear furnace” model of the Sun. Present conventional explanation does not envision the solar dynamo being effected or receiving any signal or energy from outside the solar system.
Such corollation as described above would suggest there is in fact a dynamic and structure that connects the interstellar magnetic field to the Sun with energy from the instellar (electro)-magnetic field going to the Sun.
I look forward to the results of the IBEX program in the years ahead.

Leif Svalgaard (19:15:35) :
James F. Evans (14:09:42) :
Carla, I suggest it is Dr. Svalgaard who wants to “burn” everybody out, principally myself, so he can cynically say to himself, “I got the last word,”
I actually want you to have the last word, along the lines of: “I see, now I finally understand the modern view of the magnetic universe, sorry it took so long”.
Well, for me it will take a lot longer to grasp this in a workable format. I don’t have 45 +- years under my belt to reference. Like maybe a year and half or so of some random reads, so it will be a while. lol That’s ok, as long as my understanding progesses forward.
Do we know the polarity of the main galactic field?

Well, let’s see if I can pare this down (it’s gone kinda global, at some fault of my own) to a tailored response.
Dr. Svalgaard presents Evans’ statement: “even with one free electron and one ion there will be a voltage potential drop between the two (however small that would be).”
Dr. Svalgaard responds: “The electrons and ions would be randomly distributed in space [having a very high temperature] so all these small electric fields would point in random directions and there would no net large-scale electric field which is what the discussion is about.”
First, a perfect quasi-neutral region of plasma is not what is observed in the solar system or in the Universe at large.
What is observed & measured is plasma flows where the free electrons and ions are moving in an ordered direction, such as the helio current sheet. That is why NASA and others refer to it as a “current”, which is shorthand for “electric current”, and thus have an ordered magnetic field.
But let’s take Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical at face value. If the electrons and ions were randomly distributed due to temperature and randomly moving due to temperature, a magnetic field would not be evident because magnetic fields are dissipated by high temperature because the random movement of electrons and ions tend to cancel out an organized magnetic field.
Essentially, the electric field and the magnetic field would suffer the same fate in the hypothetical presented by Dr. Svalgaard.
But, again, that is not what is observed and measured, instead there is an organized magnetic field, which only results if there is an organized electric current and organized electric field.
Also, space plasmas exhibit ordered movement even in the intense temperature of the Sun. And, there are coresponding electric currents and electric fields, and, thus, magnetic fields.
As NASA states:
“Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents. These currents are generated within the Sun by the flow of the Sun’s hot, ionized gases. We observe a variety of flows on the Sun’s surface and within its interior. Nearly all of these flows may contribute in one way or another to the production of the Sun’s magnetic field.”
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml
So, while Dr.Svalgaard is entitled to postulate any hypothetical he wants, his hypothetical is meaningless, and, therefore, useless in deriving any understanding of space plasma because his hypothetical has no parallel example in space plasma.
Above, it has been mentioned that the helio current sheet and the Sun both have ordered charged particle movement (plasma), and thus, electric current and electric fields. If the highest temperature objects, stars, have electric currents, and, thus, electric fields, Dr. Svalgaard has a hard time pointing to anywhere his hypothetical has real world application.
Now, let’s go back to the statements in context:
Dr. Svalgaard wrote, “…neutral with equal mix of electrons and ions.”
And Evans responded:
“No. this is a confusion of terms. Any region which has ionized electrons and ions (quasi-neutral) there will be electromotive force or an electric field present, even with one free electron and one ion there will be a voltage potential drop between the two (however small that would be).”
And Dr. Svalgaard answered: “The electrons and ions would be randomly distributed in space [having a very high temperature] so all these small electric fields would point in random directions and there would no net large-scale electric field which is what the discussion is about.”
Actually, not only is Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical irrelevant because there have been no parallel in space plasma regions observed & measured that match his hypothetical, but his answer takes my statement out of context because I was referring his “confusion of terms.”
Dr. Svalgaard is creating a strawman argument.
My point is still correct: “…neutral with equal mix of electrons and ions.” is a confusion of terms that leads to sloppy analysis.
But let’s take this one step further, magnetic fields are ubiquitous in the Universe: But they have ordered form, everytime they are observed & measured. There are no disordered colonies of magnetic monopoles running around.
We know about the helio current sheet and the Sun.
But this also applies farther afield.
The following link is to an image of the Magnetic fields in the Orion molecular cloud region:
http://www.plasmaresources.com/imagestash/magnetic_fields_in_orion.jpg
Note the “B field” in the image are the magnetic fields and note its directionality due to electric fields and electric current, flowing charged particles, electrons and ions.
The ordered magnetic fields are perpendicular the the flows of plasma.
And here:
“The Orion Molecular Cloud superimposed on the Orion constellation, with the orange star Betelgeuse at the top corner and Rigel at the bottom. The inset shows the Slinky-like coils of the helical magnetic field surrounding the filamentary cloud. (Credit: Saxton, Dame, Hartmann, Thaddeus; NRAO/AUI/NSF) ” (Caption for the following linked image):
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/images/OrionMagneticSlinky.jpg
(superimposed schematics, original)
It’s important to note that Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical doesn’t match up with physical observations and measurments. And in fact, the observations & measurements are in line with what I have been arguing: Flows of plasma, electric currents, generate the magnetic fields.
Dr. Svalgaard presents Evans’ statement: “NASA and others have advanced […] this electric field is concentrated in the helio current sheet where the acceleration is most pronounced (electric fields cause charged particle acceleration).”
First, the initial phrase in the quoted passage did not directly relate to the second quoted phrase, so, to put the initial phrase in proper context:
“Structure and morphology is one thing (and is important), but the processes that drive the structure is just as important, and that is where you naively cling to the mechanical model where NASA and others have advanced into a more sophisticated understanding and model that accounts for the electrical and magnetic properties of the solar wind, helio current sheet, and coronal mass ejections, along with their interaction with the Earth’s magnetosphere.”
It is clear Dr. Svalgaard takes the first phrase out of context to suggest I am claiming NASA endorses my view for the physical process that accelerates the solar wind…while that would be nice…I never made such claim.
In the initial statement I was referring to general models: Dr. Svalgaard maintains a mechanical model of “gas”, “kinetics”, and “pressure” of solar sytem dynamics, and NASA supports a “more sophisticated understanding and model that accounts for the electrical and magnetic properties of the solar wind, helio current sheet, and coronal mass ejections, along with their interaction with the Earth’s magnetosphere.”
Which is clearly the case if one reviews the NASA Stargazers website:
http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/sun_earth_background.htm
And Dr. Svalgaard responds: “NASA and almost every space physicist are on the same page as I. The HCS is caused by the magnetic field changing polarity across it, and there is no acceleration there.”
Dr. Svalgaard offers no authority in support of his statement, as typical he relies on fiat, hoping to have his “say so” be taken at face value, I suggest this particlular example casts doubt on that assumption.
Dr. Svalgaard, now, moves to respond to my challenge for him to present in situ experimental observation that would either falsify or verify his claims regarding magnetic fields causing electric currents.
Dr Svalgaard presents Evans’ statement: “Dr. Svalgaard claims the magnetic fields cause electric current in space. There is no experimental in situ evidence to support this claim”
And Dr. Svalgaard responds: “A fundamental process in the cosmos is magnetic reconnection [not recognized by Electric Universe cult], whereby oppositely magnetic fields are pressed together by movement of the neutral [oxymoron] plasma.”
How come astrophysicists like Dr. Svalgaard always seem to resort to so-called “magnetic reconnection” when they don’t have a ready explanation for a physical process in space?
And in direct contradiction to Dr. Svalgaard’s claim, NASA scientists readily concede they don’t understand the physical processes for “magnetic reconnection”:
“[Magnetic reconnection,] The problem is, researchers can’t explain it.”
NASA goes on:
“Astrophysicists see magnetic reconnection do things] But how? How does the simple act of crisscrossing magnetic field lines trigger such a ferocious explosion?”
And the clincher from NASA:
“Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don’t really understand — not from laboratory experiments or from simulations, [and not from in situ experiments]” says Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/31aug_mms.htm
So, while NASA is up front about not understanding it (the collective understanding [or lack thereof] of hundreds of astrophysicists), Dr. Svalgaard claims that he alone understands all about it (sounds vaguely similar to his claim to know the “one physics” prior in this thread).
So, here it is, Dr. Svalgaard claims a process, which NASA in their collective wisdom doesn’t understand, acts to turn around the basic physics of electromagnetism where, as NASA states, electric currents cause magnetic fields.
Sometimes, you just got to shake your head at the guy’s hubris.
Not even Eugene N. Parker went so far as that (he relied on theoretical constructs for his support).
Funny, how Dr. Svalgaard initially claimed that no in situ experiments were necessary to verify his claims, but after getting hammered for such nonsense, he comes up with the tried and true, “oh, yes, good ol’ magnetic reconnection, that’ll do the trick.”
it straines credibility.
I will get to how Dr. Svalgaard handles the hypothesis/prediction. (Hint, the helio current sheet by the time it reaches the heliosphere has no resemblance to the shape of the ribbon, and as stated above the researchers, themselves, and Dr. Svalgaard, too, agreed, the interstellar magnetic field “dominates” the heliosphere and causes the ribbon, not the solar wind or helio current sheet. That’s what was so “revolutionary” about the observations & measurements.)
To be cont.