|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 01/15/2006 : 20:36:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
How come the Earth's magnetic field isn't affected by those same Birkeland Currents?
Erosion of dark energy.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 21:15:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I hear and appreciate the logic you are using here, but even a tiny amount of differential rotation should be quite obvious even over the course of half hour or so, particularly in a closeup image like this.
This tells me that you still don't understand the entire observation of differential rotation. It's not a theory, the equation comes from empirical measurements of visible features (like sunspots) traversing the face of the Sun. And the magnitude of the difference is not large. A whole 2°/day between equator and poles, on average.
So, if you think that this sort of difference should be visible in just a half hour, that means you're looking 1/48th of the numbers which come out of the differential rotation equation. But the Lockheed "gold" video doesn't cover equator-to-pole, it only covers a fraction of those latitudes.
Again, it only covers from 11.87°S to 30.52°S, far less than a full 90°, so the differential rotation is going to be far less than maximum. Going through the equation one more time, but this time dividing all the values by 48 to get the rotation in a half hour, I find that the top edge of the "gold" video should rotate between 1.8460 and 1.9307 degrees in a half hour, and the bottom edge should rotate between 1.8349 and 1.8547 degrees in the same time. You will note, of course, that the possible ranges of rotation overlap from 1.8460 to 1.8547 degrees, so not seeing any differential rotation doesn't mean anything except at that point in time at those latitudes and area, it was not occuring. (It's even possible for the bottom edge to rotate faster than the top edge - resulting in "structures" shifting to the right at the bottom, but not "on average.")
The maximum difference possible in a half hour, in the "gold" video, is then if the top edge rotated by 1.9307°, and the bottom edge rotated by just 1.8349°, a difference of 0.0958°, or 2.5 pixels (at apporixmately the horizontal center of the image, since the whole thing is rotating around the Sun). The extreme difference in the other direction is -0.0087°, or about 23% of a single pixel (to the right, though).
In half an hour, we should see anywhere from zero pixels of differential rotation to 2.5 pixels in the "gold" video. So not seeing differential rotation on such a short timebase demonstrates precisely nothing. We cannot distinguish between a solid surface and a gaseous one in just half an hour.
Compare this to, say, the SOHO movie, which is on a long timebase. In 102 hours, we should see between 58.7962 and 61.7712 degrees of rotation at the equator, and between 57.3724 and 59.4481 degrees of rotation at 28°N.
Unfortunately, these ranges don't jibe well with what I measured off the SOHO movie, but given that my method for turning pixel measurements into degrees of longitude for the SOHO movie induces at least 0.6° of error, it's probable that that is the cause (they're both off by about that much from the calculated minimum rotation rate).
Note also that my measurement of that feature on the equator suggests that it is rotating around the Sun once every 26.33 days, or nearly 3.7% faster than your established rate. The differential rotation equation would have it going even faster, leading to further disagreement with your stated rotation rate. How did you calculate it?
On a different note - the idea that because erosion and lighting changes occur, it makes my measurements inaccurate would be fine if you could tell me at all how inaccurate. But you've stated flatly that you cannot do so. Since by my measurements (even "eyeballing" it), the "crater" moves at a fairly uniform pace across the surface, I can't help but think that any erosion or lighting changes that did occur during that 57-hour period were of a generally random direction and magnitude, and cancelled themselves out over the average.
On a third note,quote:
You won't have to "re-center" anything. The image that is left is left, and "centered". As long as you pick time difference between the images that is equal, there should be no problem with centering.
You don't seem to appreciate the problem, here. I don't need to "BELIEVE" that the features seen in the TRACE images shift from left to right over time, because they obviously do. The Sun rotates, and the TRACE images are taken at fixed points relative to the center of the visible disk. TRACE only "rotates" to follow features in big steps, not second-by-second. You could see this by looking at the EW and NS coordinates of the 21 images I linked to for the "crater," and at the raw images themselves.
For any two images taken at the Sun's equator, near the center of the disk, we will see features move from left to right by about 20 pixels per hour in TRACE movies. If I'm right about how long the Lockheed "gold" movie is, then obviously someone cropped and re-centered every one of the 76 frames in order to eliminate a nearly 120-pixel movement of all of the features seen, so that all that would be left is the "action." If they hadn't done this, your "mountain range" and everything else would have been big horizontal blurs across the frames.
So there's more than just subtraction of one frame from the next going on. Given the way the "surface" goes from black to a nice shade of gold over some frames at the beginning, I'm also forced to think that they did a running average instead of a running difference for that movie. The background of most of the raw images around that time period is black, after all, and only some of the images are "hazed over" which would be the source of the "surface." Had they not used those frames, the "mountain range" would have been surrounded by inky blackness.
The above obvious problems, plus the fact that you "may be able to help" in finding the original frames tells that you didn't replicate the "gold" video on your own, to check to see if your RD methodology generates the same results. As such, I can safely conclude that you don't know the algortihm Lockheed used to create that movie, and so you don't know if the processing may have eliminated differential rotation artifacts as large as 2.5 pixels.
By the way, you've also failed to answer the question of why Kosovichev and the others on the Stanford SOI team concluded that the Sun's plasma moves within your allegedly solid layer, at upwards of 1,000 km/second. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 04:06:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
Every time a thermonuclear bomb is detonated, it is verfied. Such a device is an artifical Population III star.
The only thing a thermonuclear bomb demonstrates is that hydrogen fusion COULD be an energy source for suns. It does not PROVE that such a process actually takes place on the sun however.
quote:
How were these elements created without running into the iron limit?
I'm not sure what you mean about an "iron limit". My assumption is that the first radioactive elements came from the same supernova that released the iron that is in our sun.
I see. So some stars must then have been formed in close approximation to the currently generally accepted theories, "gas model", or some other model which does not require a vast amount of elements other than hydrogen and helium.
quote:
quote:
The solar flares and arcs don't emit that much energy at all, compared to the rest.
That is simply not the case IMO. The RHESSI satellite allows us to isolate these high energy emissions in relationship to the arcs that TRACE is able to image. The neutron capture signatures are focused around the upper regions of the arcs, whereas the positron/electron anihilation takes place that base of the arcs.
Not I, nor anyone else, much cares about your opinions. The sun emits 3.86×1026 J/s, constantly. The most powerfull solar flare ever recorded was rated X28, or 2.8 mW/m2. However, since this actually burned out the recorder, later analysis puts it at between X40 (4.0 mW/m2) and X45 (4.5 mW/m2). An X45 flare with the same surface area as the rest of the sun (6.09×1018m2) would emit in the region of 2.7×108J/s in total. That is 18 orders of magnitude less than the rest of the sun emits. Flares do not have the same surface area as the sun.
Strangely, I cannot find anywhere near as much information on the size and strength of CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections is what most people call the "arcs"), so I cannot give a similar analysis of them.
quote:
My guess it the sun's magnetic field change is driven by Birkeland currents from the center of the galaxy.
Why has this current never been observered or measured? The largest Birkeland current discovered so far has been in the 1 million ampere range, are you suggesting that this is enough to disrupt the sun's magnetic field? Why is the earth's magnetic field, which is orders of magnitude weaker, not affected by these currents near as much?
How is a current powerfull enough to affect the sun's magnetic field able to cross an incredibly tenuous (no more than a few million particles/cm3) without ionizing or heating it?
EDIT: Quote hierarchy fixes, but I still can't seem to get it completely right. |
| Edited by - Bunga on 01/16/2006 04:12:04 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 09:57:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You have simply resorted to the oldest cheap trick in the book: smear the individual.
The fact that you feel smeared does not make it so. I was merely trying to make you aware of your credibility problem.
quote:
My "credibility" has nothing to do with the issue. PERIOD!
I'm afraid it has in fact become an issue, at least for me.quote:
I at least give Dave his due for TRYING to provide a scientific context to refute the arguement.
Yes, he certainly has gone the extra mile. I'll be interested to see how it plays out.quote:
You personally have never done anything of the sort, so your views about me as an individual have absolutely no credibility with me.
You may be lashing out at me because you don't like the message.
I can understand being defensive towards the suggestion that you lack credibility, but I am still hopeful that you will acknowledge the problem, even if only to yourself. This could be the first step on your way to becoming a more effective communicator.
quote:
quote:
Very well, on page four you said,quote:
The gas model didn't predict the right amount of neutrinos at first!
The gas model did in fact predict the right number of neutrinos. The problem turned out to be that neutrinos change flavor on the way to earth and thereby had escaped detection.
Er, I think you're splitting hairs. It did NOT predict the right number of neutrinos in the RIGHT flavors. Does that make you happier?
Actually it did predict the right flavors, specifically electron-neutrinos. From the article:quote:
The discrepancy has since been resolved by new understanding of neutrino physics, requiring a modification of the Standard Model of particle physics.
Neutrino oscillation is governed by the Standard Model of particle physics not by the gas model.
quote:
quote:
There's one example. If you'd like more please don't hesitate to ask. I'm sure that someone will be happy to oblige you.
Well, I think you'll need to do better than that to demonstrate any manovolent intent on my part. You're quibbling over details IMO.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 11:56:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Yes, he certainly has gone the extra mile. I'll be interested to see how it plays out.
Yes Matt, me too. That is the difference between someone like Dave who is legitimately attempting to address these issues "scientifically" and logically vs. someone like you that is into smear campaigns. Dave's attitude and tact is "scientific" and logical. Your attitude is not. You're into pety insults and meaningless comments. Dave is into science. I respect Dave, even if I find him "gruff" at times. I do not respect your attutide one iota.
I'm not going through another blow by blow with you. I'd rather focus on Dave's points since he at least is approaching the issue logically and scientifically, and I respect his attitude even if we disagree at times. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 12:00:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
How come the Earth's magnetic field isn't affected by those same Birkeland Currents?
Actually I believe the earth is affected by all sorts of Birkeland currents. Birkeland was convinced these currents were responsible for the Northern Lights in fact. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/16/2006 12:31:40 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 12:20:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
I see. So some stars must then have been formed in close approximation to the currently generally accepted theories, "gas model", or some other model which does not require a vast amount of elements other than hydrogen and helium.
If you're talking about the "beginning of time", then yes, perhaps so. I don't however see any evidence that would lead me to believe that iron was not always abundant in this physical universe.
quote:
Not I, nor anyone else, much cares about your opinions. The sun emits 3.86×1026 J/s, constantly. The most powerfull solar flare ever recorded was rated X28, or 2.8 mW/m2. However, since this actually burned out the recorder, later analysis puts it at between X40 (4.0 mW/m2) and X45 (4.5 mW/m2). An X45 flare with the same surface area as the rest of the sun (6.09×1018m2) would emit in the region of 2.7×108J/s in total. That is 18 orders of magnitude less than the rest of the sun emits. Flares do not have the same surface area as the sun.
IMO, it is the "little" arcs that traverse the surface regularly and uniformly around the surface that generate most of the heat that comes off the sun. These arcs pump heat into the photosphere, and the photosphere emits heat at around 6000K. All output numbers associated with sun treat it as a plasma body at a specific distance that radiates like a black body at that distance. In my model it is essentially no different other than the heat source. The heat source in my model is the arc under the photosphere that heat the photosphere. In standard gas model theory, it's the fusion in the core that provide the "power". Other than the heat source, the calculations related to output would be no different in my model, since it does have a plasma photosphere at the same distance as a standard gas model.
quote:
Strangely, I cannot find anywhere near as much information on the size and strength of CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections is what most people call the "arcs"), so I cannot give a similar analysis of them.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf
Notice the high electron density found in the coronal loops. That is caused by the flow of electricity through iron plasma that came off the surface in the arc.
quote:
Why has this current never been observered or measured?
I think the fact the sun's magnetic core rotates in relationship to it's spin axis *IS* observed evidence of these currents. The sun however creates a "sheath" around the solar system, much like the earth magnetic fields create one around earth.
quote:
The largest Birkeland current discovered so far has been in the 1 million ampere range, are you suggesting that this is enough to disrupt the sun's magnetic field? Why is the earth's magnetic field, which is orders of magnitude weaker, not affected by these currents near as much?
I'm not sure it isn't affected as well. I would assume in fact that the earth is affected by these same currents, but that these currents are overshadowed the the affect of the sun's influence.
quote:
How is a current powerfull enough to affect the sun's magnetic field able to cross an incredibly tenuous (no more than a few million particles/cm3) without ionizing or heating it?
EDIT: Quote hierarchy fixes, but I still can't seem to get it completely right.
I'm not sure I'm following your argument exactly, but at the edge of the sheath around the solar system I would expect to see "buffeting winds" that come from the universe around us. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/16/2006 12:35:10 |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 13:12:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually I believe the earth is affected by all sorts of Birkeland currents. Birkeland was convinced these currents were responsible for the Northern Lights in fact.
Not just Birkeland thought that; today everyone thinks that. However, these Birkeland currents run from the Sun to the Earth, not from other stars to the Earth.
The important question Mab (and me, as well) asked was, however; why does the Birkeland current between our sun and other stars you claim is responsible for the 22 years sunspot cycle, not rotate Earth's magnetic field every 22 years as well?
Aurora borealis is a somewhat miniscule thing compared to a total magnetic polarity shift every 11 years. |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 13:29:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm not sure I'm following your argument exactly, but at the edge of the sheath around the solar system I would expect to see "buffeting winds" that come from the universe around us.
It is a simple argument. Any electric current, travelling through any medium other than a superconductor, which the interstellar medium is not, heats and ionises that medium.
The interstellar medium is not heated or ionised to a degree which a birkeland current would.
Hence, no Birkeland current. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 13:46:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
This tells me that you still don't understand the entire observation of differential rotation. It's not a theory, the equation comes from empirical measurements of visible features (like sunspots) traversing the face of the Sun. And the magnitude of the difference is not large. A whole 2°/day between equator and poles, on average.
Before I start, I want to thank you for approaching this topic logically, mathematically, and scientifically. I appreciate the direction this is headed, regardless of whether we ever agree, or just eventually agree to disagree. It's the focus on science I appreciate. I will likely break this response into a few posts to keep the topics separate. I'm responding in between phone calls so it may be awhile between posts.
The differential rotation is a direct result of the "thickness" or density of the plasma, and the way the plasma behaves over time. When we look at the surface of the photosphere, the convection processes we see are analogous to what we would see at the surface of slowly boiling milk. It is very "liquid-like" in consistancy and movement. Another good example of this consistancy is found in the tsunami video. The wave passes through the photosphere, much like a wave on water. Ultimately the wave expands and the surface returns to a relatively "flat" surface. During sunspot activity however, plasma from the umbra is rising and falling in these regions, but again, the surface seeks equilibrium. We see the affects of these sunspots move around as the plasma moves around, and the heat source underneath moves around. The consistency of this layer is somewhere between clouds and water vs. something like a solid.
There is a distinct difference in consitency between this liquid like layer, and altitude changes we see happening in the layer at .995R. It holds "structure" in 3 dimensions, and these structures change over time. We see these structures in the tsunami video in the region I circled. That "structure" has a top as well as angular sides. This is very unlike the liquid like behavior of the photosphere.
This issue ultimately comes down to consistency, or density, or "thickness" in the final analysis. Keep in mind that even a mass separation process is going to wreak havoc on contemporary gas model theory.
Even in short timelines of as little 10 minutes we can see consistent change at the surface of the photosphere. The behavior of the surface of the stratification layer is radically different.
Those structures you see aren't just two dimensional structures, but three. In other words they have height as well of width. We can tell this by the shadows we see on the sides of these structures. These shadows are cast because the arcs are most active on side facing the moving plasma. The Stanford paper confirms that this stratification layer "breathes" with the solar cycle, changing on the top side by over 50 kilometers, and on the underside by as much as 10 kilometers. Again, we are talking about three dimensional structures that are capable of casting shadows and holding form over long(er) periods of time. These structures however do change over time.
However we might attempt to explain these images, we are going to have to explain all these observed behaviors.
The differrential rotation we see should affect all visible surfaces, right down to the pixels level, just as we see in the photosphere. In other words, the top right side should not necessarily change exactly as the bottom left side. Some changes in these structures should be visible even over the period of as little as 15 minutes.
There is a very distinct and different sort of behavior to explain in these 171A images. That "surface" we see is there. We can see it. We can "isolate" the structures with precision, and track them over time. They have three dimensional shape that changes far less frequently and far differently than the penumbral filaments at the top of the photosphere. Something here is different in terms of density and rigidness, regardless of whether or not you accept it to be "solid". Do you agree with this analysis? If not, why not?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/16/2006 13:49:06 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 14:03:24 [Permalink]
|
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg
Here is what I mean Dave. This is the behavior we see in the photosphere in up close images of the photosphere. You'll note a rising and falling motion taking place along the right side, and there is distinct movement over even as short as 5 minute intervals.
This kind of behavior is quite different than this:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_000828.avi
The structures in the 171A image are not moving in relationship to one another as they do in the photosphere. There's no rising or falling motions happening at the surface. There is some sort of odd "erosion" process along the right side, and "dust" that comes off the surface that looks to be "blowing in the wind".
These layers have radically different behaviors and patterns to them. Agreed? If so, why do they differ so radically and how do you explain them without at least accepting the concept of mass separation? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 14:21:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
Not just Birkeland thought that; today everyone thinks that. However, these Birkeland currents run from the Sun to the Earth, not from other stars to the Earth.
http://clusterlaunch.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=37891#
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1992ITPS...20..867C&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c23415
quote:
The important question Mab (and me, as well) asked was, however; why does the Birkeland current between our sun and other stars you claim is responsible for the 22 years sunspot cycle, not rotate Earth's magnetic field every 22 years as well?
I believe it is somewhat "balanced" by the field of the sun and that it *IS* affected at times since we know that the earth's magnetic field does shift positions and flips it's field from time to time.
quote:
Aurora borealis is a somewhat miniscule thing compared to a total magnetic polarity shift every 11 years.
Well, maybe not. In other words, I believe there is a harmonic motion that was set in play along time ago. That harmonic plays out in our solar system over a 22 year time frame. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 14:32:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm not sure I'm following your argument exactly, but at the edge of the sheath around the solar system I would expect to see "buffeting winds" that come from the universe around us.
It is a simple argument. Any electric current, travelling through any medium other than a superconductor, which the interstellar medium is not, heats and ionises that medium.
The interstellar medium is not heated or ionised to a degree which a birkeland current would.
Hence, no Birkeland current.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/Astronomers_Find_Magnetic_Slinky_In_Constellation_Of_Orion.html |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 14:34:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Aurora borealis is a somewhat miniscule thing compared to a total magnetic polarity shift every 11 years.
Well, maybe not. In other words, I believe there is a harmonic motion that was set in play along time ago. That harmonic plays out in our solar system over a 22 year time frame.
But the polarity change of the Earth takes orders of magnitude, and the poles remain relatively stable for way much longer than that. Again, I question the relevancy: You haven't provided a good argument that there is (or how) a correlation between them, much less that the effects have the same cause. All I can see it speculation on your part. Like before, when you were saying that dark matter and the universal constant (and acceleration) affects the mass measurement of the sun. Einstein's Equivalence Principle nullifies your inclusion of the Universal Constant, but now when you've been called on it you remain strangely silent on that subject and counter by bringing up a similar smokescreen in another area. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 14:44:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
Not just Birkeland thought that; today everyone thinks that. However, these Birkeland currents run from the Sun to the Earth, not from other stars to the Earth.
http://clusterlaunch.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=37891#
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1992ITPS...20..867C&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c23415
And these articles show... what? None of them talk about electrical currents running from anywhere to Earth.
quote:
quote:
The important question Mab (and me, as well) asked was, however; why does the Birkeland current between our sun and other stars you claim is responsible for the 22 years sunspot cycle, not rotate Earth's magnetic field every 22 years as well?
I believe it is somewhat "balanced" by the field of the sun and that it *IS* affected at times since we know that the earth's magnetic field does shift positions and flips it's field from time to time.
Interesting. Do you have any evidence for this belief, or are you just posting another unevidenced hypothesis?
quote:
quote:
Aurora borealis is a somewhat miniscule thing compared to a total magnetic polarity shift every 11 years.
Well, maybe not. In other words, I believe there is a harmonic motion that was set in play along time ago. That harmonic plays out in our solar system over a 22 year time frame.
Again, can you prove it? How was this harmonic started? Why? Why is it stable? Is it stable?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm not sure I'm following your argument exactly, but at the edge of the sheath around the solar system I would expect to see "buffeting winds" that come from the universe around us.
It is a simple argument. Any electric current, travelling through any medium other than a superconductor, which the interstellar medium is not, heats and ionises that medium.
The interstellar medium is not heated or ionised to a degree which a birkeland current would.
Hence, no Birkeland current.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/Astronomers_Find_Magnetic_Slinky_In_Constellation_Of_Orion.html
You are right, forgive me. Of course Birkeland currents exist, my point was, and I should have made this clearer, that no Birkeland current strong enough to affect the Sun's magnetic field in a non-trivial way exists between the Sun and anywhere. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
