You do an excellent job continuing the discussion with Dr. Svalgaard over at Watts Up With That?.
I didn't think there'd be any agreement, but there it is acknowledging the ring current. And no arguments against the double layer or Bennett pinch? From Leif?
I agree those are significant acknowledgments, but now Svalgaard has followed up and the responses are the same variety as he has given in the past when confronted with Plasma Cosmology ideas:
Svalgaard presents a commenter's statement:
NASA: “Moreover, electric current causes magnetic fields (see Electromagnetism)…”
Galactic magnetic fields are caused by galactic electric currents.
In general, it takes an electric current to create a magnetic field is ordinary life [and that was what NASA's piece was about].
In cosmic plasmas the magnetic field is the cause of the currents in material moving relative to the magnetic field.
Dr. Leif Svalgaard denies the fundamental role of electric currents in space. Svalgaard will acknowledge electric currents in space, but only as a weak secondary process that is derivative of magnetic fields and kinetic motion.
Obviously, this is a fundamental distinction from the Electric Universe model.
Svalgaard is a follower of Eugene N. Parker, the astronomer who coined the term "solar wind" and the "Parker spiral" is named in his honor. Parker still maintains to this day that electric currents are secondary effects of magnetic fields. This is the "frozen in" magnetic field line argument that has been considered, here, and in other forums and dismissed as an artifact of the mistaken assumption of perfect electrical conductivity of tenuous space plasma, zero resistivity, i.e., superconductors, but Svalgaard persists, as it is the "last line of defense" for excluding consideration of electrical currents in equal measure with magnetic fields in astrophysical science, and is in accord with the dean of American astrophysical science, Eugene N. Parker.
Svalgaard goes on to address solrey's questions:
Svalgaard presents solrey's statement:
Mr. Svalgaard, I think you forgot one important detail,
that detail is “pressure from a hot population of charged particles…”
And Svalgaard responds:
There is a misconception here [and an important one]. The ISM and the solar wind are both electrically neutral, as is a plasma in general. The pressure has nothing to do with the electrical properties of the medium. It comes from the gas being hot. The same process takes place around the Earth where the pressure of the particles in the solar wind is balancing the pressure of the Earth’s magnetic field.
Svalgaard essentially repeats his "electrically neutral" stance and promotes Parker's ""hot gas" and "kinetic" arguments. The "gas being hot" and thus has "kinetic" energy is almost exactly the same rational Parker used back in the 60's to explain the "solar wind", while this posture has been dismissed in many astrophysical circles, where the helio current sheet is acknowledged to be an electric current, hence the term "current" as in electrical current, apparently Svalgaard clings tightly to this idea contrary to the present body of scientific evidence.
Dr. Svalgaard goes on to address another of solrey's concerns:
Svalgaard presents solrey's question:
I’m curious about your thoughts on the spherical shape of the heliosphere, which prompted the declaration, “These images have revolutionized what we thought we knew for the past 50 years.”.
And Svalaard responds:
There is the usual NASA hype here. The shape of the heliosphere is determined by the pressure balance between the ISM and the solar wind and the solar wind moves 20 times faster than the relative speed of the Sun and the ISM, so will be the determining factor, so one would not expect a long comet-like tail. Especially not, since the interstellar magnetic field is not aligned with the direction in which the Sun is moving.
Svalgaard chalks it up to "hype", ignoring the unanimous declaration that the models were wrong. (Where is Svalgaard's model and prediction based on that model?) This is to subtly imply that "I knew it all the time" what it would look like, and more important, that the scientific understanding of solar system astrophysics has not greatly changed from the 1970's, even 1960's, when "hot gas" and "kinetics" was the primary focus and electromagnetism was given little if any consideration.
Of course, Svalgaard also ignores his own prior statement in the same comment thread that the heliosphere resembles the Earth's magnetosphere, i.e., like a "comet" which gives the lie to his 'hype" excuse (and also gives evidence to Svalgaard's questionable ethics, I've caught Svalgaard in outright lies in prior debates, like seriously distorting Hannes Alfven's work at the same time as saying he was a friend of Alven's -- some friend).
(I have seen Svalgaard use this "hype" excuse before where he wanted to downplay the "surprises" articulated by the authors of the report in question. I "knew it all the time" is Svalgaard's mantra.)
(Dr. Svalgaard is Swedish by origin, but seems to have sold his soul when he came to America, as I have caught him distorting the work of Hannes Alfven, his fellow countrymen, and aping the American old bulls in astrophysics.)
My suspicion about Svalgaard is that he knows Watts Up With That is the most popular astrophysical website in the world (averages 15,000 hits a day) and knows that a general readership (that challenges the scientific dogma of global warming) not steeped in astronomy's dogma would be open to consider the scientific rational and reason of alternative scientific ideas opposed to the status quo of "modern" astronomy. In that sense, Svalgaard is a self-appointed "enforcer" to keep general readers (but still interested enough to follow a scientific website) from picking up rival ideas to "modern" astronomy.
For should the general population become aware of the scientific gaps in status quo theory and presented a readily understandable theory in alternative, this could upset the apple cart with all the far-reaching consequences of that happening.