The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: BlueThen on September 06, 2008, 05:04:51 PM
-
I posted a topic in the "Questions and Clarification" asking how FE'rs can explain The Aurora effect, but a moderator locked it without an explanation or anything.
So, immediately I assumed I was breaking a rule of some sort. I looked for a few seconds, and found no rules. So then I assumed that it was already in the FAQ. Well, this has to be the 10th time I checked it, and I saw no explanation about the Aurora effect.
After that, I'm concluding that I posted in the wrong forum. Although the moderator could've... moved my topic, but I'm only assuming that's poor moderation or something. Maybe I asked it too rudely. So here I am, repeating my question. Can you explain the Aurora effect and how it works on the FE model?
By the way, if you're a moderator, and going to lock this topic or ban me, at LEAST explain why you're doing that, instead of leaving me hanging, capable to make the same mistake again.
-
I locked it because this sort of thing has been discussed extensively, and you seemed to be posting it without using the search function. Plus, considering the outstanding brevity of your post, I thought it fitting to respond with an even shorter retort.
Now, to answer your question: the aurora works in exactly the same way on a FE as it does on a RE.
-
Now, to answer your question: the aurora works in exactly the same way on a FE as it does on a RE.
So apparently, the 32 mile Sun, which emits light in a "spotlight" directly toward the surface of the Earth, has high energy particles that interact with the magnetic field of the Earth after being carried there by solar wind.
Somehow I don't think that the mechanics that work on a RE, with all of the cosmological effects that are required, will explain the aurora on FE. The lack of, or multiple poles, a Southern Magnetic Pole in the FE makes for greatly different field lines than the RE model that would probably not allow the replication of the effect.
I just don't think that this diagram is a sufficient explanation for both models...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Structure_of_the_magnetosphere.svg/669px-Structure_of_the_magnetosphere.svg.png)
There is also this description of the mechanism...
The Earth is constantly immersed in the solar wind, a rarefied flow of hot plasma (gas of free electrons and positive ions) emitted by the Sun in all directions, a result of the million-degree heat of the Sun's outermost layer, the solar corona. The solar wind usually reaches Earth with a velocity around 400 km/s, density around 5 ions/cc and magnetic field intensity around 2–5 nT (nanoteslas; Earth's surface field is typically 30,000–50,000 nT). These are typical values. During magnetic storms, in particular, flows can be several times faster; the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) may also be much stronger.
The IMF originates on the Sun, related to the field of sunspots, and its field lines (lines of force) are dragged out by the solar wind. That alone would tend to line them up in the Sun-Earth direction, but the rotation of the Sun skews them (at Earth) by about 45 degrees, so that field lines passing Earth may actually start near the western edge ("limb") of the visible sun.[8]
Earth's magnetosphere is the space region dominated by its magnetic field. It forms an obstacle in the path of the solar wind, causing it to be diverted around it, at a distance of about 70,000 km (before it reaches that boundary, typically 12,000–15,000 km upstream, a bow shock forms). The width of the magnetospheric obstacle, abreast of Earth, is typically 190,000 km, and on the night side a long "magnetotail" of stretched field lines extends to great distances.
When the solar wind is perturbed, it easily transfers energy and material into the magnetosphere. The electrons and ions in the magnetosphere that are thus energized move along the magnetic field lines to the polar regions of the atmosphere.
It doesn't appear that this mechanism can be in place with the significantly smaller FE Sun.
-
I second this question -- FE explanation please?
-
I second this question -- FE explanation please?
I third it. The FE sun too local. Again the heavens present a problem...
-
Well, it looks like we have disproved the Flat Earth theory. There have been no sound or even mildly convincing articles about how auroras could really work. I did use the search function and I found a lot of very short posts with differing arguments. One of the posts actually used the picture above, but no one ever responded to it. (The post was from summer 2007).
Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.
-
On the Flat Earth the Aurora, also commonly referred to as the southern and northern lights, are a luminous atmospheric phenomenon that generally appear as bright colorful bands of light. Auroras are often visible in the night sky in both the northern and southern hemidisks of the Earth.
Auroras are believed to be caused by charged high energy particles from the solar winds that are trapped within the magnetic field of the Earth. As these charged particles spiral back and forth along the lines of the magnetic field, they become visible nearest to the north and south magnetic poles where these magnetic lines become vertical and disappear into the body of the Earth.
The bright visually pleasing colors commonly associated with auroras are the result of electrons colliding with oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the Earth's atmosphere. As these molecules become energized, then cool from their energized state, they emit actual light that can be seen by the naked human eye.
Auroras, both the northern and southern lights, can most frequently and easily be seen during the winter months within a 2500 km radius of the vertical magnetic field lines. This area is also known as the auroral zone.
-
For clarification: The southern lights are apparent all around the 'southern rim' of the flat Earth before approaching Antarctica right?
-
Auroras are believed to be caused by charged high energy particles from the solar winds that are trapped within the magnetic field of the Earth. As these charged particles spiral back and forth along the lines of the magnetic field, they become visible nearest to the north and south magnetic poles where these magnetic lines become vertical and disappear into the body of the Earth.
Hmm, you say it is a magnetic field? In RE theory Earth Generates a magnetic field by the rotation of earths magnetic iron core. The same process gives us a magnetic north and south pole. What in FE theory creates earths magnetosphere?
-
Hmm, you say it is a magnetic field? In RE theory Earth Generates a magnetic field by the rotation of earths magnetic iron core. The same process gives us a magnetic north and south pole. What in FE theory creates earths magnetosphere?
Hmm, I am going to guess that they don't know.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Structure_of_the_magnetosphere.svg/669px-Structure_of_the_magnetosphere.svg.png)
You're right; that diagram fails to explain anything in FET. It also fails to explain anything in RET, unless you'd like to argue that there are magnetic monopoles in the solar wind.
Hmm, you say it is a magnetic field? In RE theory Earth Generates a magnetic field by the rotation of earths magnetic iron core. The same process gives us a magnetic north and south pole. What in FE theory creates earths magnetosphere?
A rotating core of some sort. It may be cylindrical or spherical; I am not certain.
-
what makes the magnetic south pole?
-
what makes the magnetic south pole?
The rotating core.
-
Auroras are believed to be caused by charged high energy particles from the solar winds that are trapped within the magnetic field of the Earth. As these charged particles spiral back and forth along the lines of the magnetic field, they become visible nearest to the north and south magnetic poles where these magnetic lines become vertical and disappear into the body of the Earth.
Hmm, you say it is a magnetic field? In RE theory Earth Generates a magnetic field by the rotation of earths magnetic iron core. The same process gives us a magnetic north and south pole. What in FE theory creates earths magnetosphere?
The gravitational field of the anti-heavens causes the liquid core (likely disk shaped) to rotate.
-
wow powerful enough to rotate huge amount of metal hundreds of miles under the earth? How do we not get torn apart by the same thing?
-
wow powerful enough to rotate huge amount of metal hundreds of miles under the earth? How do we not get torn apart by the same thing?
The gravitational effect upon the liquid core is weak, but over the eons enough pull and momentum have built up that the core is able to rotate at about one rotation per 24 hours.
-
I actually wonder if perhaps it's the rotation of the core causing the rotations of the heavens and all its associated effects, rather than the other way around. It is an awful big core.
-
Auroras are believed to be caused by charged high energy particles from the solar winds that are trapped within the magnetic field of the Earth. As these charged particles spiral back and forth along the lines of the magnetic field, they become visible nearest to the north and south magnetic poles where these magnetic lines become vertical and disappear into the body of the Earth.
Hmm, you say it is a magnetic field? In RE theory Earth Generates a magnetic field by the rotation of earths magnetic iron core. The same process gives us a magnetic north and south pole. What in FE theory creates earths magnetosphere?
For further clarification, and just to be nit-picky, the magnetic field is caused by the rotation of the liguid core, and the iron core of the Earth at different speeds from one another, not just the rotation of the iron core.
-
I actually wonder if perhaps it's the rotation of the core causing the rotations of the heavens and all its associated effects, rather than the other way around. It is an awful big core.
I thought according to FE earth had no gravitational effect like the other planets and sun? Earth is accelerating right?
The gravitational effect upon the liquid core is weak, but over the eons enough pull and momentum have built up that the core is able to rotate at about one rotation per 24 hours.
The Core is made of denser material than crust (I think), so if the core is being turned by the gravitational effects from the heavens, then why isn't the crust of the earth torn apart by the same thing?
what makes the magnetic south pole?
The rotating core.
Okay, the south pole is in Antarctica, or according to FE, it would be somewhere on the outer rim of the earth disk (ice wall). If there is a rotating cylinder, and the top axis of rotation is the magnetic north pole, then shouldn't the magnetic south pole be at the opposite axis? In this case, the bottom of the cylinder?
-
Auroras are believed to be caused by charged high energy particles from the solar winds that are trapped within the magnetic field of the Earth. As these charged particles spiral back and forth along the lines of the magnetic field, they become visible nearest to the north and south magnetic poles where these magnetic lines become vertical and disappear into the body of the Earth.
Hmm, you say it is a magnetic field? In RE theory Earth Generates a magnetic field by the rotation of earths magnetic iron core. The same process gives us a magnetic north and south pole. What in FE theory creates earths magnetosphere?
For further clarification, and just to be nit-picky, the magnetic field is caused by the rotation of the liguid core, and the iron core of the Earth at different speeds from one another, not just the rotation of the iron core.
LOL thanks nit pick :P. I concede that you are correct. I guess for FE that would mean a liquid outer core (cylinder) and iron inner cylinder.
-
Okay, the south pole is in Antarctica, or according to FE, it would be somewhere on the outer rim of the earth disk (ice wall). If there is a rotating cylinder, and the top axis of rotation is the magnetic north pole, then shouldn't the magnetic south pole be at the opposite axis? In this case, the bottom of the cylinder?
The Earth's magnetic south pole lies in the Arctic Ocean.
-
I actually wonder if perhaps it's the rotation of the core causing the rotations of the heavens and all its associated effects, rather than the other way around. It is an awful big core.
I thought according to FE earth had no gravitational effect like the other planets and sun? Earth is accelerating right?
Actually there are multiple theories regarding this. It might not be the mass so much as the electromagnetic effects of the rotating liquid core that is causing the effects you describe as gravitation.
-
The Earth's magnetic south pole lies in the Arctic Ocean.
Let's see if I can catch this before all hell breaks loose...
OBLsteve is right... The Earth's North Pole (note the caps) is a magnetic south-pole (and vice versa).
(With the exception that the the North Pole is the spot on the earth that corresponds to the North Celestial Pole and is not the same location where compasses point north, but hopefully everyone understands the clarification I'm trying to make.)
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Structure_of_the_magnetosphere.svg/669px-Structure_of_the_magnetosphere.svg.png)
You're right; that diagram fails to explain anything in FET. It also fails to explain anything in RET, unless you'd like to argue that there are magnetic monopoles in the solar wind.
No, that seems to pretty much describes the way that RE aurora work.
-
Actually there are multiple theories regarding this. It might not be the mass so much as the electromagnetic effects of the rotating liquid core that is causing the effects you describe as gravitation.
Well, that is a new one. Then why does gravitation effect non-ferrous materials? Try as I might, I can't pick up an aluminum spoon with a magnet.
-
Okay, the south pole is in Antarctica, or according to FE, it would be somewhere on the outer rim of the earth disk (ice wall). If there is a rotating cylinder, and the top axis of rotation is the magnetic north pole, then shouldn't the magnetic south pole be at the opposite axis? In this case, the bottom of the cylinder?
The Earth's magnetic south pole lies in the Arctic Ocean.
Okay my mistake, but my question should still be valid, except the poles are reversed from what I stated. If the magnetic pole in the arctic ocean is on or around the axis of rotation of the cylinder, shouldn't it's counterpart be at the bottom of this cylinder? Why instead is it found somewhere on the outer part of the disk? Or is it.
-
Actually there are multiple theories regarding this. It might not be the mass so much as the electromagnetic effects of the rotating liquid core that is causing the effects you describe as gravitation.
Well, that is a new one. Then why does gravitation effect non-ferrous materials? Try as I might, I can't pick up an aluminum spoon with a magnet.
Well, it's not really gravitation. My theory is that the rotation of the core is causing the rotation of the heavens and the Coriolis Effect, among other things. It's just having a very subtle effect on the earth and the celestial bodies (which themselves may be ferrous, or composed of something completely alien to us that happens to be subject to electromagnetism). Whatever the case, it's clearly one of the fundamental "forces" of the universe, whether the cause comes from the heavens as Tom postulates or from the core as I postulate.
-
Well, it's not really gravitation. My theory is that the rotation of the core is causing the rotation of the heavens and the Coriolis Effect, among other things. It's just having a very subtle effect on the earth and the celestial bodies (which themselves may be ferrous, or composed of something completely alien to us that happens to be subject to electromagnetism). Whatever the case, it's clearly one of the fundamental "forces" of the universe, whether the cause comes from the heavens as Tom postulates or from the core as I postulate.
This alien material must be radioactive. We are at 110 elements, and we haven't discovered one that fits this description. There is also the problem that matter with these atomic masses are highly unstable with half lives measured in nanoseconds.
So now we need a new class of material that has never been observed, and can not be created in a laboratory, but is so easy to create that it is natural.
-
No, that seems to pretty much describes the way that RE aurora work.
So how do you explain electrically charged particles having a force applied to them which is parallel to a magnetic field, in a situation where the only significant force is electromagnetism?
Okay my mistake, but my question should still be valid, except the poles are reversed from what I stated. If the magnetic pole in the arctic ocean is on or around the axis of rotation of the cylinder, shouldn't it's counterpart be at the bottom of this cylinder? Why instead is it found somewhere on the outer part of the disk? Or is it.
Look up the definition of the South Magnetic Pole (which is a magnetic north pole) and then get back to me.
-
So how do you explain electrically charged particles having a force applied to them which is parallel to a magnetic field, in a situation where the only significant force is electromagnetism?
Well, here is a description from someone that knows more about the subject that I could ever hope to...
Auroras are produced by the collision of charged particles from Earth's magnetosphere, mostly electrons but also protons and heavier particles, with atoms and molecules of Earth's upper atmosphere (at altitudes above 80 km (50 miles). The particles have energies of 1 to 100 keV. They originate from the Sun and arrive at the vicinity of Earth in the relatively low-energy solar wind. When the trapped magnetic field of the solar wind is favourably oriented (principally southwards) it reconnects with Earth's magnetic field, and solar particles enter the magnetosphere and are swept to the magnetotail. Further magnetic reconnection accelerates the particles towards Earth.
Okay my mistake, but my question should still be valid, except the poles are reversed from what I stated. If the magnetic pole in the arctic ocean is on or around the axis of rotation of the cylinder, shouldn't it's counterpart be at the bottom of this cylinder? Why instead is it found somewhere on the outer part of the disk? Or is it.
Look up the definition of the South Magnetic Pole (which is a magnetic north pole) and then get back to me.
[/quote]
No, it is a valid question. Why isn't the pole opposite of the Northern Magnetic Pole, aka Southern Magnetic Pole, at the opposite end of this cylinder, and somehow either curves through the structure of this cylinder?
-
So how do you explain electrically charged particles having a force applied to them which is parallel to a magnetic field, in a situation where the only significant force is electromagnetism?
Well, here is a description from someone that knows more about the subject that I could ever hope to...
Auroras are produced by the collision of charged particles from Earth's magnetosphere, mostly electrons but also protons and heavier particles, with atoms and molecules of Earth's upper atmosphere (at altitudes above 80 km (50 miles). The particles have energies of 1 to 100 keV. They originate from the Sun and arrive at the vicinity of Earth in the relatively low-energy solar wind. When the trapped magnetic field of the solar wind is favourably oriented (principally southwards) it reconnects with Earth's magnetic field, and solar particles enter the magnetosphere and are swept to the magnetotail. Further magnetic reconnection accelerates the particles towards Earth.
Oh, that makes sense. I stand corrected.
No, it is a valid question. Why isn't the pole opposite of the Northern Magnetic Pole, aka Southern Magnetic Pole, at the opposite end of this cylinder, and somehow either curves through the structure of this cylinder?
Did you look up the definition of the South Magnetic Pole?
-
Well, it's not really gravitation. My theory is that the rotation of the core is causing the rotation of the heavens and the Coriolis Effect, among other things. It's just having a very subtle effect on the earth and the celestial bodies (which themselves may be ferrous, or composed of something completely alien to us that happens to be subject to electromagnetism). Whatever the case, it's clearly one of the fundamental "forces" of the universe, whether the cause comes from the heavens as Tom postulates or from the core as I postulate.
This alien material must be radioactive. We are at 110 elements, and we haven't discovered one that fits this description. There is also the problem that matter with these atomic masses are highly unstable with half lives measured in nanoseconds.
So now we need a new class of material that has never been observed, and can not be created in a laboratory, but is so easy to create that it is natural.
Exactly, although I have to ask, if things that are natural should be so easy to create, why can we not duplicate our brain functions in a laboratory yet, or create life?
-
Oh, that makes sense. I stand corrected.
Glad to be of help.
Did you look up the definition of the South Magnetic Pole?
Yes. Here is what I found...
The Earth's South Magnetic Pole is the wandering point on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field lines are directed vertically upwards. It should not be confused with the lesser known South Geomagnetic Pole described later.
For historical reasons, the "end" of a magnet that points (roughly) north is itself called the "north pole" of the magnet, and the other end, pointing south, is called magnet's "south pole". Because unlike poles attract, the Earth's South Magnetic Pole is physically actually a magnetic north pole
There is nothing in there that explains why your cylinder would have those characteristics..
-
Yes. Here is what I found...
The Earth's South Magnetic Pole is the wandering point on the Earth's surface where the geomagnetic field lines are directed vertically upwards. It should not be confused with the lesser known South Geomagnetic Pole described later.
For historical reasons, the "end" of a magnet that points (roughly) north is itself called the "north pole" of the magnet, and the other end, pointing south, is called magnet's "south pole". Because unlike poles attract, the Earth's South Magnetic Pole is physically actually a magnetic north pole
There is nothing in there that explains why your cylinder would have those characteristics..
So that definition is consistent with the South Magnetic Pole not being on the surface of the Earth, is it?
-
So that definition is consistent with the South Magnetic Pole not being on the surface of the Earth, is it?
But the Pole is a geographic location on the surface of the Earth.
-
But the Pole is a geographic location on the surface of the Earth.
Glad we agree.
-
Glad we agree.
Somehow, I doubt that.
-
Somehow, I doubt that.
Well, we both know this to be true:
But the Pole is a geographic location on the surface of the Earth.
Therefore, we agree.
-
On the Flat Earth the Aurora, also commonly referred to as the southern and northern lights, are a luminous atmospheric phenomenon that generally appear as bright colorful bands of light. Auroras are often visible in the night sky in both the northern and southern hemidisks of the Earth.
Auroras are believed to be caused by charged high energy particles from the solar winds that are trapped within the magnetic field of the Earth. As these charged particles spiral back and forth along the lines of the magnetic field, they become visible nearest to the north and south magnetic poles where these magnetic lines become vertical and disappear into the body of the Earth.
The bright visually pleasing colors commonly associated with auroras are the result of electrons colliding with oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the Earth's atmosphere. As these molecules become energized, then cool from their energized state, they emit actual light that can be seen by the naked human eye.
Auroras, both the northern and southern lights, can most frequently and easily be seen during the winter months within a 2500 km radius of the vertical magnetic field lines. This area is also known as the auroral zone.
Tha's all very nice, Tom, but it doesn't really explain how it all works. Could we see a dagram of how the sun's solar wind interacts with the Earth's magnetic field to produce the auroras? Or just a detailed explanation of how this works in FET, rather than just a copy-paste of the RET explanation.
-
But the Pole is a geographic location on the surface of the Earth.
Therefore, we agree.
Ahh, but I believe that those two points are on opposite sides of a sphere, so the analogy of a bar magnet actually makes sense, not two points on the end of an infinite sphere. So, I have to conclude that we most definitely are not in agreement.
-
On the Flat Earth the Aurora, also commonly referred to as the southern and northern lights, are a luminous atmospheric phenomenon that generally appear as bright colorful bands of light. Auroras are often visible in the night sky in both the northern and southern hemidisks of the Earth.
Auroras are believed to be caused by charged high energy particles from the solar winds that are trapped within the magnetic field of the Earth. As these charged particles spiral back and forth along the lines of the magnetic field, they become visible nearest to the north and south magnetic poles where these magnetic lines become vertical and disappear into the body of the Earth.
The bright visually pleasing colors commonly associated with auroras are the result of electrons colliding with oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the Earth's atmosphere. As these molecules become energized, then cool from their energized state, they emit actual light that can be seen by the naked human eye.
Auroras, both the northern and southern lights, can most frequently and easily be seen during the winter months within a 2500 km radius of the vertical magnetic field lines. This area is also known as the auroral zone.
Tha's all very nice, Tom, but it doesn't really explain how it all works. Could we see a dagram of how the sun's solar wind interacts with the Earth's magnetic field to produce the auroras? Or just a detailed explanation of how this works in FET, rather than just a copy-paste of the RET explanation.
Why would the FET explanation be different from the RET explanation? ???
-
Why would the FET explanation be different from the RET explanation? ???
Well, there is the mechanics of how the 32 mile Sun would have energetic enough particles to create the phenomenon.
There are also the differences in the field lines between RE and FE models.
The 3000 mile height of the Sun makes it much more likely that the particles would be impacting on the surface of the Earth rather than 12000 miles away at the pole.
Those are just starters.
-
Why would the FET explanation be different from the RET explanation? ???
Well, there is the mechanics of how the 32 mile Sun would have energetic enough particles to create the phenomenon.
In what way?
There are also the differences in the field lines between RE and FE models.
Can you draw a diagram explaining this? That's not how I understand it.
The 3000 mile height of the Sun makes it much more likely that the particles would be impacting on the surface of the Earth rather than 12000 miles away at the pole.
On what statistics specifically do you base this?
Those are just starters.
Let me know when you come up with something good!
-
The RE Sun has sufficient mass for fusion. It also has sufficient mass to generate the particles that are solar wind without shrinking noticably.
FE's have consistently maintained a yet to be understood mechanism of light/heat generation. It was my understanding that the FE Sun did not emit solar particles. Are you now saying the FE Sun operates by nuclear fusion and that these particles are emitted?
How has your 32mile star not evaporated? What holds it together?
-
The RE Sun has sufficient mass for fusion. It also has sufficient mass to generate the particles that are solar wind without shrinking noticably.
FE's have consistently maintained a yet to be understood mechanism of light/heat generation. It was my understanding that the FE Sun did not emit solar particles. Are you now saying the FE Sun operates by nuclear fusion and that these particles are emitted?
How has your 32mile star not evaporated? What holds it together?
How can you possibly know whether the FE sun has sufficient mass for fusion?
I also fail to see how you can postulate that the FE sun doesn't emit solar particles. Haven't we observed them?
-
32miles across? How dense is it? Are you saying it is a neutron star? We would have died from the radiation.
Gravitational interactions with the moon.
Conventional physics says something like 10% of the Sun's mass is required as the minimum for fusion.
Are we going with conventional physics(aurora mechanism) or more FE magic?
-
32miles across? How dense is it? Are you saying it is a neutron star? We would have died from the radiation.
Do you have the physics knowledge and mathematics skills to show that we'd be dead from radiation?
-
32miles across? How dense is it? Are you saying it is a neutron star? We would have died from the radiation.
Do you have the physics knowledge and mathematics skills to show that we'd be dead from radiation?
No. Can you show we wouldn't?
-
Ahh, but I believe that those two points are on opposite sides of a sphere, so the analogy of a bar magnet actually makes sense, not two points on the end of an infinite sphere. So, I have to conclude that we most definitely are not in agreement.
The analogy of a bar magnet makes perfect sense on a Flat Earth, too.
Do you have the physics knowledge and mathematics skills to show that we'd be dead from radiation?
No. Can you show we wouldn't?
The fact that we aren't is a good start.
-
Ahh, but I believe that those two points are on opposite sides of a sphere, so the analogy of a bar magnet actually makes sense, not two points on the end of an infinite sphere. So, I have to conclude that we most definitely are not in agreement.
The analogy of a bar magnet makes perfect sense on a Flat Earth, too.
Do you have the physics knowledge and mathematics skills to show that we'd be dead from radiation?
No. Can you show we wouldn't?
The fact that we aren't is a good start.
It's a good indication the Earth is round and the massive Sun is millions of miles away.
Besides, my point about the aurora and particle emission wasn't answered.
-
Besides, my point about the aurora and particle emission wasn't answered.
It is my belief that the particles that cause the aurora do not originate from the sun, but from beyond the celestial plane. Perhaps (although this is by no means an opinion, merely a conjecture) they are particles too small to be affected by Dark Energy that we collide with as we accelerate upwards.
-
Why would the FET explanation be different from the RET explanation? ???
In RET, the solar wind consists of parrallel rays, in FET it radiates from a small object.
In RET the solar wind comes from fusion, in FET the sun has insufficient mass to produce the pressures and temperature needed for fusion (we know this because we can't detect a significant change in gravity as the sun moves overhead).
In RET the Earth's magnetic field resembles that of a bar magnet with the with the magnetic poles roughly under the geographic poles. In FET this is not the case (there is no south geographic pole).
Can we have a diagram of how FE solar wind interacts with the FE magnetic field to produce aurora in the observed places?
I also fail to see how you can postulate that the FE sun doesn't emit solar particles. Haven't we observed them?
We have, which is good evidence against FET because it can't explain the origin of these particles.
-
I also fail to see how you can postulate that the FE sun doesn't emit solar particles. Haven't we observed them?
We have, which is good evidence against FET because it can't explain the origin of these particles.
But isn't the origin of these particles the sun? ???
-
I also fail to see how you can postulate that the FE sun doesn't emit solar particles. Haven't we observed them?
We have, which is good evidence against FET because it can't explain the origin of these particles.
But isn't the origin of these particles the sun? ???
I meant FET can explain where they originate, but not how the originate.
-
I meant FET can explain where they originate, but not how the originate.
Yet another thing that they don't have the money for. Add it to cartography and physics.