Re: Sunspots
- From: Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 04:48:58 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 9, 2:53 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sunspots.
Sunspots affect climate and therefore evolution.
There is no correlation between sunspot activity and climate.
I'll try to connect sunspots to the Sun passing through
spurious galatic arms composed of invisible debris.
Like you try to connect gravitational radiation and electromagnetic
radiation through the usage of spurious and outright wrong reasoning?
I estimate the probability of a meteor striking a mass is
simplistcally proportional to it's Area*Mass.
And why is it proportional to mass? An actual computation of the
scattering cross section of a body exerting a 1/r^2 force disagrees
with this.
Working the proportion of Solar meteors/Earth meteors,
in round figures gives using,
Sun dia=100*Earth diameter
Sun Area =10^4 Earth Area
Mass = 3*10^5 Earth mass
Sun Strikes = 3*10^9 Earth Strikes.
I conjecture a Sunmeteor Strike appears as a Sunspot,
Uhhhhh.....this is a "Not Even Wrong" class conjecture. It willfully
ignores observational evidence and is outright stupid.
and a metallic Sunmeteor due to high speed of strike
would react with the solar magnetic field, to create a
very large induction current, and localized magnetic
field, characteristic of Sunspots.
Wrong. Magnetic flux will travel right through the meteor and won't do
anything for the ideal case of infinite conductivity, and will merely
diffuse through in the case of finite conductivity. There will be no
such induction current.
Remember when I pointed out you don't actually understand
electromagnetism, Ken? This is why.
In perspective, a large meteor that strikes the Earth every
100 million years will strike the Sun 30 times per year.
Wrong.
You willfully ignore the fact that an object in orbit around the sun
has to shed a LOT of energy to reach the Sun compared to the Earth.
Plus your simplistic view of scattering cross sections is so
simplistic as to be meaningless.
The solar Sunspot cycle is a known average, with ~11 yr
averages betweens maximums, yet large rogue sunspots
may occur even at the minimums of that cycle, and I think
It doesn't matter what you think. There WERE NO SUNSPOTS at the
minimum of the last cycle. I was watching - were you?
it's exceptionally difficult to explain that and the Maunder
Minimum, based on solar internal dynamics, so therefore
we look for exterior causes.
It's hard because the proper modeling of the solar interior is HARD.
There is ZERO evidence for external causes for sunspots.
We're fairly certain the Milkway is a Barred Galaxy, and
we can only see those bars well condensed to form stars,
however many fingers of invisible bars may also exist.
While complex, these fingers appear to be organized in
Saturn's Rings for a micro example.
Wrong.
Saturn's rings are rings. The arms of the Milky way are...arms.
So as the Solar System revolves around the galaxy it will
periodically intersect these debris fingers.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
- References:
- Sunspots
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Sunspots
- Prev by Date: Sunspots
- Next by Date: Re: Sunspots
- Previous by thread: Sunspots
- Next by thread: Re: Sunspots
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
