Sigh- ok, here we go....
Let's start with your original post in which you stated:
Maybe they'll finally figure out that their models are incomplete because these aren't "static magnetic" structures, they're electric structures. Magnetic fields do not exist in the absence of electric currents!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfie.html http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmfield.html http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current#Electromagnetism
Refusing to 'deal' electrically, seems to be the biggest issue holding them back... They're dealing with a byproduct rather than the thing itself.
Gmirkin: "Maybe they'll finally figure out that their models are incomplete because these aren't "static magnetic" structures, they're electric structures."
This statement alone demonstrates clearly that you dont have an even fundamental grasp of the topic... The field of magnetohydrodynamics is used to model and understand the behavior of magnetic-plasma systems like the sun and the Earth...
As the name implies magnetohydrodynamics is not 'static', it looks at the inseperable interplay of the plasma and the magnetic fields... It does not assume a static magnetic field or structure. Claiming that it does is dishonest, or indicates extreme ignorance of the topic.
Advanced (ie beyond the first few semesters) undergraduate physics courses touch on this subject, it is covered in greater depth in graduate physics courses- researchers in the field spend many more years learning and using the physics...
But I'll take the implication to be that you agree magnetic fields track back to electric currents. A simple yes or no will suffice.
Yes and no... for instance if you try to explain the magnetic moment of the electron classically as the electron physically spinning, then you get an equatorial velocity of the spinning electron that exceeds the speed of light...
If you are discussing large systems like the sun, you have to consider the movement of the charged plasma and its interaction with the magnetic field- which is exactly what magnetohydrodynamics does...
You seem to be claiming that it is viewed or can be viewed as an either/or phenomenon- it isnt and it cant.
Likewise, I assume that you would agree that magnetic field strength is proportional to current strength and "field line" topology (a visualization tool, not a reified entity) is dependent on electric current geometry? Again, a yes or no will suffice
It is proportional to many things- the medium, the boundary conditions, and much more, again this is known, not at all new
If yes on the above points, can magnetic fields be used to "diagnose" electric currents,
Sure, its something that was in lab courses I taught- so what?
My point is and more-or-less has been that the relationship is often not tacitly acknowledged (of late) and in some cases may be improperly applied or "over-simplified," to the detriment of theoretical understanding.
See, THAT is where you delve into nonsense... That statement is so untrue that it leaves me wondering how anyone could come to that conclusion. Either that statement is an intentional lie, or it results from an extreme lack of understanding....
Moreover it appears to be verboten to even mention electric forces in the discussion of astronomy without some kind of a hand-waving, reactionary, knee-jerk reaction ensuing.
Again this statement does not even make sense- It is simply not true... its a statement that must result from dishonesty or ignorance.
So, I have responded, knowing full well that it is a waste of time- a quick examination of your past posts shows that you really are not interested in learning- otherwise you would have followed the advice of others given to you 2 years ago and studied the subjects that they suggested... instead you are back here spouting the exact same nonsense that you have been corrected on over and over... THAT is why I have zero patience for your nonsense.
Were you someone that genuinely wanted to learn, I would respect that- but it is clear that you are interested only in trying to promote your debunked nonsense, and you are using deceptive means to do so.
That is why I simply called it pseudoscientific garbage, and didnt really want to waste the time going over it with you yet again... because I know what will happen next... You will argue this on and on... selectively quote articles on the web and claim that they support your claims... you will make further wild claims.... I will either have to go on wasting my time correcting you or finally just run out of time to waste on you.
In the end you will still be wrong, you will not change your claims and eventually you will return to spout them here again unchanged....