Don't know about the EU, but the data can only help. Although if the EU is not careful it will soon become the Magnetic Reconnection Theory that drives electric currents, not electric currents that drive magnetic fields. Don't believe that? Go to any forum for mainstream cosmology and ask what causes electric currents. You will be told changing magnetic fields. Then ask how magnetic fields are formed and you will be told it is color charge or strong force which has nothing to do with moving charges. Even though the definitions say exactly that. You will argue to no avail and only end up being banned for supporting exactly what their science says it is.http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmfield.htmlhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/3 ... ode77.htmlhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... etic-field
Yes, sjw40364, that is the big push, to have so-called "magnetic reconnection" as the explanation.
Your tangles with Dr. Svalgaard at Watts Up With That? is a good primer for the strategy. I also have tangled with Svalgaard over at WUWT and the arguments by Svalgaard were similar. One suggestion, focus on Coulomb force between charged particles in a plasma and when "neutral" plasma is brought up, respond with 'quasi-neutral' because any plasma has coulomb force between the charges or it wouldn't be a plasma.
Dr. Svalgaard is the gatekeeper at WUWT, originally he was there to shoot down any argument that the Sun's energy output had an effect on weather, but since AGW has mostly collapsed, that role is diminished, but his self-appointed gatekeeper role for the general status quo in astronomy still animates his purpose at WUWT.
But as this post demonstrates NASA is looking at the electric field and electric currents. Remember, the Double Layer has been quantified by mathematical formalism. Dr. Svalgaard pushed you for a mathematical formalism (he knows that is the weak point for the EU), but the Double Layer has been completely quantified.
NASA knows the history as Hannes Alfven conducted a conference at NASA in the 80's and it is in their history.
NASA wrote:TABLE 15.3.1. Cosmic Electrodynamics.
First approach (pseudo-plasma)
Second approach (real plasma)
Space plasmas often have a complicated inhomogeneous structure
depends on current and often suddenly vanishes
Electric field E| | along magnetic field = 0
E| | often 0
Magnetic field lines are "frozen-in" and "move" with the plasma
Frozen-in picture is often completely misleading
Electrostatic double layers are neglected
Electrostatic double layers are of decisive importance in low-density plasma
Instabilities are neglected
Many plasma configurations are unrealistic because they are unstable
Electromagnetic conditions are illustrated by magnetic field line pictures
It is equally important to draw the current lines and discuss the electric circuit
Filamentary structures and current sheets are neglected or treated inadequately
Currents produce filaments or flow in thin sheets
Maxwellian velocity distribution
Non-Maxwellian effects are often decisive Cosmic plasmas have a tendency to produce high-energy particles
Theories are mathematically elegant and very "well developed"
Theories are not very well developed and are partly phenomenological
The above quote is a table which can be seen in the NASA history link (copy & paste doesn't bring off the schematic). This table comes directly from the lecture Hannes Alfven gave at NASA in the 80's.
** very important, NASA acknowledges the Double Layer:
NASA wrote:FIGURE 15.3.1.- Electrostatic double layers or sheaths are often produced in a plasma. The figure show an electrostatic discontinuity produced spontaneously. The only function of the magnetic field is to keep the discharge away from the walls in order to ensure that the observed phenomena are not due to wall effects. Over the double layer a voltage drop is produced which sometimes suddenly became large (~105 V) and may disrupt the discharge.
I can't emphasize the above quote enough because the schematic which goes along with the above quote is exactly the same as so-called "magnetic reconnection".
The same electric field and magnetic field and electric current pattern!
The history of the development of "magnetic reconnection" is ad hoc with numerous competing hypothesis:
On another board, I had a discussion with saul, a scientist at NASA about these issues. In the end, saul retired without answering my points.
Anaconda wrote:So-called “magnetic reconnection” was developed in response to ground observations of CME’s, and, in the pre-space age of 1946, only magnetic fields could be observed from ground observatories.
The early “magnetic reconnection” papers all focussed on magnetic fields, but the magnetic field is only one force among many which also includes electric fields, charged particle density, location, velocity, direction, and points of acceleration.
As a result, these early papers never quantified the process and many disagreements existed among the scientists studying the process.
Other scientists applied an electromagnetic framework from the beginning of their analysis & interpretation (which had already been developed in the laboratory), these scientists applied the Electric Double Layer model, which has been qualitatively & quantitatively resolved.
And, this electromagnetic analysis & interpretation has been validated by in situ satellite probes.
Of course, Yamada, et al., doesn’t discuss Electric Double Layers or compare & contrast the two processes because if they did, it would be readily apparent the processes are one and the same process, with, albeit, different names.
It’s simple: The “magnetic reconnection” camp can’t admit the Electric Double Layer analysis & interpretation was right all along because then the game would be over.
Clearly, an electromagnetic framework of analysis & interpretation is required to develop a model for the process in question: Formation & propagation of coronal mass ejections (CME’s).
Dr. Svalgaard, as you know, is "all in" supporting Yamada, et al., in terms of "magnetic reconnection".
But NASA acknowledges there is a dispute and that "magnetic reconnection" is not understood.
NASA wrote:The problem is, researchers can't explain it [magnetic reconnection].
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... 31aug_mms/
NASA wrote:"Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don't really understand -- not from laboratory experiments or from simulations," says Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
Dr. Svalgaard did his best to dismiss the NASA statements on "magnetic reconnection" in a debate I had with him over at WUWT. But the fact is that NASA knows the weaknesses of so-called "magnetic reconnection", while also knowing Double Layers have been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively in mathematical formalism, and that "magnetic reconnection" has not been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively in mathetmatical formalism.
In the present scientific literature, 'current disruption' is the term that identifies Double Layers. It is an active area of research.
The history of the development of "magnetic reconnection" is the evidence of how incomplete the idea truly is, as electric fields and electric currents were completely ignored because electric fields and electric currents couldn't be measured from land-based instruments.
Now, with space probes, electric fields and electric currents can be measured.