|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/16/2006 : 15:45:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Even in short timelines of as little 10 minutes we can see consistent change at the surface of the photosphere.
Yes, but not due to the differential rotation of the Sun. Due to convective "boiling," absolutely, but not differential rotation. Either tell me what's wrong with my math (which demonstrates that differential rotation on the order of minutes may be zero), or stop confusing the two different processes.quote:
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.
Yes, and I'm still waiting to hear from you how, precisely, a solid surface expands (over the entire Sun) by up to 60 km over the course of 11 years. Your previous analogies to tectonic effects here on Earth don't work, since the "breathing" of the 0.995R layer happens over the entire Sun, not locally.quote:
Again, we are talking about three dimensional structures that are capable of casting shadows and holding form over long(er) periods of time.
That's a conclusion you need to support. I don't accept it as a premise.quote:
The differrential rotation we see should affect all visible surfaces, right down to the pixels level, just as we see in the photosphere.
Nope. What you see in close-ups of the photosphere is due to convection, and not differential rotation.quote:
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.
For 15 minutes, you can halve the values I calculated last night. In other words, in 15 minutes, differential rotation might be responsible for a shift of a maximum of 1.25 pixels in the Lockheed "gold" video, and may not be seen at all depending upon conditions.quote:
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?
Yes, I do, because I happen to agree with the satellite scientists that what is seen in 171A images is not a part of the photosphere at all, but a part of the corona. And there are two reasons I agree with that assessment:
1) I've measured it myself, and
2) you have not yet offered any reason or calculation of why I should think that the 171A images show anything at 0.995R. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 15:47:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
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.
I think you need to consider what this information suggests. That "slinky" is most likely caused by the flow of electricity through that "cloud". It's a Birkeland current on a cosmic scale, which may involve perhaps millions of stars in the current flow. There is no way for us to know for sure how all the currents flow within our universe. We do however see plenty of evidence of current flow, including helix shaped magnetic fields around these large clouds.
Suns, particularly if they have iron shells, will be great conductors of the this flow of current. There is certainly no reason to believe that they would be "unaffected" by this flow of current.
Such a flow of current could in fact have many ramifications as it relates to how the earth might be affected by such currents. I think there is ample evidence to suggest we live in a very electric universe, including that stratified iron surface on the sun. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 16:18:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, but not due to the differential rotation of the Sun. Due to convective "boiling," absolutely, but not differential rotation. Either tell me what's wrong with my math (which demonstrates that differential rotation on the order of minutes may be zero), or stop confusing the two different processes.
I think your math is probably (I haven't checked yet) quite accurate, but your assumption that these are not interelated processes is false. In other words, it's the "texture" and "density" of the photosphere and the movement of the photosphere and the processes of the photosphere that the equations apply to. They describe the drift that occurs on a fluid-like surface, and it applies to every pixel. That lack of rigidity is what creates this "drift" in the first place.
quote:
Yes, and I'm still waiting to hear from you how, precisely, a solid surface expands (over the entire Sun) by up to 60 km over the course of 11 years. Your previous analogies to tectonic effects here on Earth don't work, since the "breathing" of the 0.995R layer happens over the entire Sun, not locally.
I didn't necessarily get from that paper that the "breating" was necessarily SUN wide in polar regions as well as equatorial regions.
Keep in mind that this study is a multiyear study, and over such an extended timeline, whole mountain ranges could come and go. In fact that is exactly what I would have to assume occurs, expecially as the sun reaches it's solar maximum with the magnetic poles pointed just north and south of the equator. During these times we see intense electrical activity at the surface, and active changes in the surface.
quote:
That's a conclusion you need to support. I don't accept it as a premise.
I would support it with two different satellites, in two different images, and I would support it using the field of heliosiesmology. That first Lockheed image has shadowed areas and lit areas all over the surface. What casts this shadow? What causes these shadowing effects?
I would also support it with Kosovichev's video of the tsunami in the photosphere. Those are angular structures underneath the photosphere, and the technology that allows us to see the wave also allows us to see those angular structures and shadows along the sides.
I would also site that last paper by UCLA and Stanford as evidence that this stratified layer changes by tens of kilometers over the course of an 11 year cycle.
quote:
Nope. What you see in close-ups of the photosphere is due to convection, and not differential rotation.
You are "assuming" that they are not interrelated processes. Why? It's the texture of the penumbral filaments that allow for this "drift". That drift occurs everywhere, not just a little, but all the time, all over the surface. Most filaments drift "around", some of them go left, some go right, and some sort of drifts around in ciosed circles and bump into other individual filaments. The whole thing is related to the texture of the plasma and it's very fluid and mobile. If there is any "structure" to it at all, that comes from the individual filaments involved. Even still that drift is radical and fluid, and not limited to a couple of pixels here and there, but all over the surfact we see evidence of drift.
quote:
For 15 minutes, you can halve the values I calculated last night.
For 6 hours you'd have to multiply it by many. That isn't the issue. The issues are TEXTURE and STRUCTURE.
quote:
Yes, I do, because I happen to agree with the satellite scientists that what is seen in 171A images is not a part of the photosphere at all, but a part of the corona. And there are two reasons I agree with that assessment:
1) I've measured it myself, and
How so? Do you mean in this thread? You can't "measure" a three dimensional set of arc in 2D and expect to get meaningful results. STEREO, and technologies like STEREO will allow us to actually "measure" these interrelationships mathematically. At the moment that third dimension is interpreted, and there is not reliable way to "measure" it in a simplistic way.
quote:
2) you have not yet offered any reason or calculation of why I should think that the 171A images show anything at 0.995R.
Let's start with the Occum's razor arguement. We already know there is a transitional region at .995R. We MIGHT have another one above the photosophere, but we aready know there is one at .995R, and we don't NEED to create another one above the photophere.
Secondly, you are trying to suggest that something that holds stucture to the individual pixel is sitting on top of of a layer that is convecting all over the place. How is that possible? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/16/2006 16:23:48 |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 16:24:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
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.
I think you need to consider what this information suggests. That "slinky" is most likely caused by the flow of electricity through that "cloud". It's a Birkeland current on a cosmic scale, which may involve perhaps millions of stars in the current flow. There is no way for us to know for sure how all the currents flow within our universe. We do however see plenty of evidence of current flow, including helix shaped magnetic fields around these large clouds.
Suns, particularly if they have iron shells, will be great conductors of the this flow of current. There is certainly no reason to believe that they would be "unaffected" by this flow of current.
Such a flow of current could in fact have many ramifications as it relates to how the earth might be affected by such currents. I think there is ample evidence to suggest we live in a very electric universe, including that stratified iron surface on the sun.
Yes, yes yes. But these currents are not here. A current the magnitude of the "slinky in Orion" doesn't exist within 20 parsecs of Sol, or more. Demonstrating the existance of powerfull Birkeland currents in general, doesn't mean that they exist in our stellar vicinity.
You have to show that there is such a current that flows to or from our sun. Our sun, not another sun dozens of parsecs away.
Once you have done that, you still need to explain how such a current can flip a magnetic field. But first, show one near Sol. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 16:53:45 [Permalink]
|
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002713/Sunspots.mpg
Try this Dave. Check out this animation from NASA. Notice that the coronal loops, the things that emit the iron ion photons, start from beneath the visible photosphere, and ultimately poke through the surface of the photosphere. If you only look at the outside set of photons, you might get the impression this "layer" is on top of the photosphere, when it fact it starts from under the photosphere and extends into the photosphere and into the corona. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 17:03:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
Yes, yes yes. But these currents are not here.
How do you know that we experience no currents of our own?
quote:
A current the magnitude of the "slinky in Orion" doesn't exist within 20 parsecs of Sol, or more. Demonstrating the existance of powerfull Birkeland currents in general, doesn't mean that they exist in our stellar vicinity.
It suggests that currents do flow through our universe and continue to flow through our universe on almost unimaginable scales. We had no idea these currents existed anywhere ourside of solar systems until very recently, so we haven't even really checked to see what's in our vicinity.
quote:
You have to show that there is such a current that flows to or from our sun. Our sun, not another sun dozens of parsecs away.
I showed you a paper earlier that talked about the energy from our galactic core. If our universe is electric, then it is likely that currents flow though our our galaxy and EVERY galaxy for that matter. In fact you can explain the structures of space without any need for a black hole using plasma cosmology, and current flow concepts.
quote:
Once you have done that, you still need to explain how such a current can flip a magnetic field. But first, show one near Sol.
I can show you plenty of examples of not only NEAR SOL, but on SOL itself. I think I even recall reading an article a few months back about a star near sol that was also in a similar rotation pattern. I can see I need to start a blog so I can record all the interesting links I find. If I can find that link again, I'll post it for you. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 17:20:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
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.
You mean sort of like "dark energy" and "black holes"?
quote:
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,
How so? |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 17:25:15 [Permalink]
|
I know that there are such currents inside the solar system.
So far you have given evidence of two main types of Birkeland currents. Those wholly inside our solar system, like the heliospheric current sheet or the cause of the aurora borealis. And those far away from our solar system, like the "Orion slinky".
But you haven't shown one between our sun and any extrasolar object. That is the only type of Birkeland current which could concievably affect our sun's mangetic field to such an extend as you are proposing.
And I know we experience no such currents, because they, like the "Orion slinky" would show up as brightly lit streams on all sorts of measurements, possibly even in the visible spectrum. But they are not there. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 17:45:10 [Permalink]
|
How many AU wide is the slinky in Orion?
If a Bierkland Current one percent of the one in Orion goes through the sun, will it encompass Earth? Mars? Jupiter? Alpha Centauri? |
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 17:49:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
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,
How so?
I already wrote why. Didn't you pay attention?
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 18:34:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I think your math is probably (I haven't checked yet) quite accurate, but your assumption that these are not interelated processes is false. In other words, it's the "texture" and "density" of the photosphere and the movement of the photosphere and the processes of the photosphere that the equations apply to. They describe the drift that occurs on a fluid-like surface, and it applies to every pixel.
No it doesn't. The equation (there is only one) applies to the measurement of the rotation of entire thousands-of-km-wide features as they go around the Sun's spin axis. Its only input parameter is the latitude, in degrees. Its only output is a rotation rate, in degrees per day.
If you'd like to dispute this further, you can use whatever data you like about the "texture" and "density" of the photosphere to derive the equation from first principles. That would sure convince me that the processes are related.quote:
That lack of rigidity is what creates this "drift" in the first place.
If the surface of the photosphere were solid, we would not see any differential rotation, that's true.quote:
I didn't necessarily get from that paper that the "breating" was necessarily SUN wide in polar regions as well as equatorial regions.
What else would they mean by "seismic radius?"quote:
Keep in mind that this study is a multiyear study, and over such an extended timeline, whole mountain ranges could come and go. In fact that is exactly what I would have to assume occurs, expecially as the sun reaches it's solar maximum with the magnetic poles pointed just north and south of the equator. During these times we see intense electrical activity at the surface, and active changes in the surface.
Then why is your layer necessarily thicker than the two density stratifications as determined by Kosovichev? The two stratifications, at their widest, are about 17,360 km apart. That's a total volume of 1.009×1026 m3. If it were solid iron, that would be 7.9×1029 kg, which is only 40% of the Sun's mass.
In other words, 51%+ of the Sun's mass, as pure and solid iron, cannot possibly fit into that 17,360 km thick shell, it would have to be at least 22,000 km thick. That means the lower stratification can't be higher than 0.963R.
And that's with pure iron. Mixing in lower-density elements and compounds necessarily would make the layer thicker, further compounding the discrepancy between your model and observations. For example, if the average density of the shell is only half that of solid iron, the lower edge of the shell would have to be at about 0.931R for it to contain 51% of the Sun's mass.
And no matter what, the SOI team found motion within the Sun at all depths between 3,000 km and 14,000 km, so there's still that little problem of having stuff moving around (at upwards of 1,000 km/sec) within your supposedly solid shell.quote:
quote:
That's a conclusion you need to support. I don't accept it as a premise.
I would support it with two different satellites, in two different images, and I would support it using the field of heliosiesmology. That first Lockheed image has shadowed areas and lit areas all over the surface. What casts this shadow? What causes these shadowing effects?
Those are the questions you have to answer to demonstrate that they actually are shadows. I don't accept that premise, either. How can I distinguish between actual shadows and places where (in your model), the 171A light happens to be reflecting away from the camera?quote:
I would also support it with Kosovichev's video of the tsunami in the photosphere. Those are angular structures underneath the photosphere, and the technology that allows us to see the wave also allows us to see those angular structures and shadows along the sides.
No, the MDI cannot distinguish the complete lack of ionized nickel in the area covered by one pixel from ionized nickel that isn't moving relative to the camera in that area. Plus, the MDI relies upon the absorbtion line of singly-ionized nickel, so a "shadow" may simply be a place wherein the nickel is too cool to become ionized (or it's so hot that it's all ionized already).quote:
I would also site that last paper by UCLA and Stanford as evidence that this stratified layer changes by tens of kilometers over the course of an 11 year cycle.
As far as I can tell, that is evidence against a solid surface. Plus, see the analysis of the thickness of that layer, above.quote:
quote:
Nope. What you see in close-ups of the photosphere is due to convection, and not differential rotation.
You are "assuming" that they are not interrelated processes. Why? It's the texture of the penumbral filaments that allow for this "drift". That drift occurs everywhere, not just a little, but all the time, all over the surface. Most filaments drift "around", some of them go left, some go right, and some sort of drifts around in ciosed circles and bump into other individual filaments.
None of which is measured by the differential rotation equation, and all of which suggest zero net movement in a specific direction over time. That is why I don't think they're interrelated processes.quote:
The whole thing is related to the texture of the plasma and it's very fluid and mobile. If there is any "structure" to it at all, that comes from the individual filaments involved. Even still that drift is radical and fluid, and not limited to a couple of pixels here and there, but all over the surfact we see evidence of drift.
Now I know |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 11:39:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
I know that there are such currents inside the solar system.
So far you have given evidence of two main types of Birkeland currents. Those wholly inside our solar system, like the heliospheric current sheet or the cause of the aurora borealis. And those far away from our solar system, like the "Orion slinky".
Put another way, I have given evidence of Birkeland currents INSIDE our solar system, and OUTSIDE of our solar system. I have also provided evidence of fluxuations from our galactic core. There is little doubt that we live in an electric universe. The questions are, how much current flows through our sun from the outside universe. The fact that we do activity at the edge of the shealth of the solar system would suggest that currents do affect our solar system. How they might affect planets inside the sheath will depend on many variables.
quote:
But you haven't shown one between our sun and any extrasolar object. That is the only type of Birkeland current which could concievably affect our sun's mangetic field to such an extend as you are proposing.
The most likely candidate for such currents is the galactic core, and we do see fluxuations from it. We have not spent much time looking for any sorts of currents flowing into our solar system, but we are beginning to analyse the flow of current INSIDE the solar system. Even that is in a very primitive stage at the moment.
quote:
And I know we experience no such currents, because they, like the "Orion slinky" would show up as brightly lit streams on all sorts of measurements, possibly even in the visible spectrum. But they are not there.
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/010114_eit_195.mpg
But we do see plumes coming from the sun that extend WELL out into space.
When you say "they are not there", you are suggesting we've methodically studied every wavelength of energy in an exhastive manner. That's not the case here. We do however see evidence of a flow of energy and mass both outward from the sun, but also in "tadpoles" that are attracted back toward the sun, particularly in the electrically active areas.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/search/Instrument/RHESSI.html
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002462/ar9906-zoom-rotate.mpg |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 13:50:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No it doesn't. The equation (there is only one) applies to the measurement of the rotation of entire thousands-of-km-wide features as they go around the Sun's spin axis. Its only input parameter is the latitude, in degrees. Its only output is a rotation rate, in degrees per day.
But there is a physical "reason" behind that math formula. It is a direct result of the TEXTURE of the PLASMA in the photosphere. If the plasma were rigid, we would see no movement of any sort. Since it is not rigid, but fluid-like in nature, we do see rotation. That rotation plays out in the individual filament level, and even within the individual filament level. It does not occur in "chuncks".
It is specifically the texture of the plasma that allows for this drifting to occur. We have to agree on this point, or there is no way to continue.
This plasma is not rigid. That is what allows for movement to occur in the plasma. It's the texture of the plasma that the math relates to, not some "chunk" of a rigid surface.
You are also assuming that no iron in molten from exists beneath the surface. That is not an assumption I am making. The surface is not homogenously iron, so I would not necessarily expect this layer to have the density of iron.
The movement in and around this layer is going to be affected by surface terrains, both above and below, and surface ruptures which will result in movement of materials through this layer. There are a variety of ways to explain the movement of materials through ALL layers of the sun since matieral does move through all layers.
Before we can go much further however, we have to agree on "drift" and how "drift" is likely to manifest through plamsa that behaves like penumbral filaments.
The drift is a direct result of the fact that the plasma is not rigid, and it's fluidlike in behavior as it relates to movement. We see this fluid like movement in the boiling effect we see at the surface of the penumbral filaments. We see these convection forces move the filaments all over the place even on a filament by filament level. There is no "rigidity" to the surface of the photosphere.
Dr. Kosovichev's video demonstrates the liquid like nature of this plasma, as the wave passes over it. The rigid like nature of the transitional region is quite different in consistancy. That angular structure we see in that tsunami video is unaffected by the movement of the plasma in the photosophere. The same technology that reveals the physical wave in the photosphere also shows us the surface below that wave. The surface below that wave is rigid in three dimensions. We can literally see that in this image, and we can see that in the heliosiesmology data the shows tens of kilometers of change over an 11 year cycle.
There is a vast difference here in consistency. You are trying to suggest that a virtually rigid surface sits on top of a boiling liquid and somehow shows virutally no change in a pixel by pixel level the way we see in images of the penumbral filament level of the photosphere. You need to be able to offer a better explanation than you have offered so far. Even in relative terms, this movement should be VERY noticeable in the TRACE images, just as it is EXTREMELY noticeable at the penumbral filament level. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 14:10:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I already wrote why. Didn't you pay attention?
Either I missed it, or you are refering to a previous discussion about SPEEED rather than ACCELERATION, in which case you weren't paying attention. Perhaps you could provide a link to your argument since I see no rational way to ignore the whole concept of acceleration as it relates to our solar system and ASSUME it has no affect on "density" concepts. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 14:34:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
I know that there are such currents inside the solar system.
So far you have given evidence of two main types of Birkeland currents. Those wholly inside our solar system, like the heliospheric current sheet or the cause of the aurora borealis. And those far away from our solar system, like the "Orion slinky".
Put another way, I have given evidence of Birkeland currents INSIDE our solar system,
Yes, but they are localized, around the poles Jupiter, and Earth.
quote:
and OUTSIDE of our solar system.
Yes, OUTSIDE our system. Way off from our vicinity.
quote:
I have also provided evidence of fluxuations from our galactic core.
That is still in dispute. The "Orion Slinky" seems to be evidence of Birkeland currents of colossal magnitude, but how do you prove it comes from the galactic core?
You did assert that a galactic core current affect the sun: Thus it is you obligation to provide evidence for it. The fact that there exist an "Orion slinky" is not evidence that a similar exist HERE.
The fact that we have identified localized currents within the solar system proves that they are detectable. A current several orders of magnitude larger than that measured at Jupiter is required to affect the sun: such a current shouldn't be hard to find evidence of...
quote:
The questions are, how much current flows through our sun from the outside universe.
That is a rhetoric question based on YOUR assumption that there is one. As such, the question is yours to answer. If you don't or can't, the assumption may be summarily dismissed.quote:
The fact that we do activity at the edge of the shealth of the solar system would suggest that currents do affect our solar system. How they might affect planets inside the sheath will depend on many variables.
Why don't you name a few?
quote:
quote:
But you haven't shown one between our sun and any extrasolar object. That is the only type of Birkeland current which could concievably affect our sun's mangetic field to such an extend as you are proposing.
The most likely candidate for such currents is the galactic core, and we do see fluxuations from it.
Where and how?
quote:
But we do see plumes coming from the sun that extend WELL out into space.
How do you know that those are not the product of the sun, but from the galactic core? And why can't we trace them farther from the sun? At the heliopause there should be ample amount of matter for the current to interact with. Enough to be easily spotted from Earth even if it is only a fraction of intensity compared to the Orion Slinky".
Edit: Spelling |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/17/2006 17:19:41 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
