Hi mharratsc:
Thank you very much. Your analysis is very helpful and I appreciate your time and effort to unravel the experiment.
1. First highlight- he's talking about magnetic field "lines"... are we to presume that they have discovered actual lines somehow grafted onto a three-dimensional radiating field??
Yes, anytime magnetic field "LINES" is stated one needs to exercise caution because a magnetic field is an undifferentiated continuum of magnetic force or strength within a bounded region, as members of this forum well know, the mention of "lines" is simply a conceptual aid the same as latitude lines, regrettably it appears most astrophysicists are determined to reify the "lines" into a physical object -- in essence, it appears they have to do this to make sense of their "magnetic reconnection" terminology, which is, itself, an attempt to minimize the role of double layers and thus electric current in space.
2. This experiment was designed to observe the behavior of plasma around a magnet, not to observe the magnetic fields found in a plasma.
This is the crucial insight that I'm most greatful for. Intuitively, that was what I was thinking, but I simply didn't have the fortitude to "cut through the words" to articulate the nub of the experiment. In reality, this experiment is not remarkable, there is no dispute that magnetic fields influence plasma, the questiion is what is the original cause of magnetic fields in space plasma, electric current or something else? So-called "frozen in" magnetic field lines is an exercise in circular reasoning. This experiment is classic exercise in self-justification for circular reasoning.
So far, I haven't seen that "something else".
Yea verily, this was an MIT experiment, but they A) seem to be operating from a different dictionary than most plasma physicists, and B)their experiment-tho they mention "plasmas in space"- have not a damn thing to do with any natural plasmas, but rather they monkeyed with how currents in plasmas can be stopped by the application of a magnetic field.
The "dictionary" this experiment relies on is the "dense pack defense". Pack so many terms or jargon together that one is inclined to "go along" with the experimenters' claims without requiring the experimenters to justify such claims in ordinary language.
Quite right, this experiment for all the talk of "plasma in space", has nothing to do with space or plasma dynamics in space. The authors of the paper state there is a vacuum, but other than that, there is precious little simulation of space conditions.
If I understand that right- this whole experiment proves nothing against EU theory, and only proves that mainstreams has even managed to change the jargon of science to meet the requirements of their failed theories.
Again, I agree, you are quite right, there seemingly is a driving determination to defend the concept of "magnetic reconnection" and "frozen in" field lines in conventional astronomy circles. The reason for this in my opinion is the underlying desire to marginalize "electric currents in space" and continue on with the over-reliance on gravity explanations.
Or in other words, they can't deny magnetic fields in space, but they want to limit the discussion to magnetic fields only and avoid discussion or acknowledgment of electric currents in space.
In my discussions/debates with Dr. Leif Svalgaard over at Watts Up With That?, even though he is a plasma physicist by training and a helio-astrophysicist by profession, he is loath to acknowledge "electric currents in space", Dr. Svalgaard was the "provider" of the experiment. Dr. Svalgaard even denies that the "solar wind" is a diffused radial electric current, even though it is a "flow of charged particles", a classic definition of electric currents.
Also, Dr. Svalgaard has trotted out the idea of "plasma in the rest frame" having no electrical field.
While "modern" astronomy has recently been forced to acknowledge "electric currents in space", there still is incredible antipathy toward applying electromagnetic principles to specific objects or processes in space.
But the cat's out of the bag, as they say:
Tim Thompson, an objector of some note to the 'Electric Sun' hypothesis had this to say about 'Electric Currents in Space':
Tim Thompson an astrophysicist recently retired from the JPL was challenged by an interlocutor: "…somehow you've managed to convince yourself that electricity does not play a vital role in events in space."
And Tim Thompson responded:
Wrong. I believe no such thing and neither does anyone else I know. Electric currents certainly do play a vital role in events in space, on every spatial scale from the smallest to the largest. They are incorporated into standard physical models of the solar system and cosmology. There are whole books and reams of papers on the topic. Electric currents do play a vital role in events in space without question...Sometimes plasma & electric currents dominate, sometimes not. Sometimes it's not easy to tell which dominates.
I can work with the above statement by Tim Thompson.
