Re: Sunspots II.

On Feb 17, 7:21 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My intent here is to evolve the original conjecture
given in to Sunspots II,

The horse is dead. Let it rest in peace.


In Sunspots I, below, a few minor corrections
have been suggested by esteemed colleagues
and have been ordered into the improved...

It is curious to see that you have completely ignored every issue I
pointed out. Actually, at this point in time, it is more predictable
and unsurprising than curious.


Sunspots II

Sunspots affect climate and therefore evolution.

Only in a very loosely defined meaning for "climate" since a large
number of sunspots modulates the solar luminosity by fractions of a
percent. A far more interesting question would be to ask what the
effects of the higher frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that
spike during solar events [not just sunspots] have on climate or
evolution.

But you aren't here to ask interesting questions, are you, Ken?

I'll try to connect sunspots to the Sun passing through
galactic arms composed of invisible debris.

Since sunspots follow an eleven year cycle and the Sun orbits through
the galactic plane in a time period on the order of ten million years,
this will be challenging. Maybe I'll see evidence that the Sun is
actually moving at an appreciable fraction of c wrt the galactic
plane, or maybe I'll simply see spurious reasoning. I know what I have
my money on!


I estimate the probability of a meteor striking a mass is
simplistically proportional to it's Area*Mass.

Is the scattering cross section for point source too hard for you,
Ken? It's a standard treatment in every mechanics text I have ever
seen. Would you like some references so you could catch up with
undergraduate mechanics?

Working the proportion of Solar meteors/Earth meteors,
in round figures gives using,

....a number that is so simple as to be worthless since this model
deliberately ignores the fact that the Sun is far deeper in the solar
gravity well [in fact, its' the source!] than the Earth and that the
Earth will be impacted more often simply because an incoming body
doesn't need to shed that much angular momentum to reach the Sun.

The concept of potentials is explained in the same textbooks that
derive scattering theory. Might want to brush up on that, too.


Sun dia=100*Earth diameter
Sun Area =10^4 Earth Area
Mass = 3*10^5 Earth mass

Sun Strikes = 3*10^9 Earth Strikes.

Our conjecture is a Sunmeteor Strike appears as a
Sunspot, 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.

"Our" conjecture? The only person who thinks this idea isn't daft as
hell is you.

A meteor wouldn't have huge, much less significant, induction
currents. You'd be wise [laffo] to go back to the intro E&M texts
which you so desperately need to study and look up how induction
works.

Where's the wire loop, Ken? B.dA over the surface is gonna be ZERO.

How does your magic induction current create a localized magnetic
field that is an order of magnitude or three larger than the
surrounding medium? How does that explain how the localized region is
thousands of degrees COOLER than the surrounding medium?



In perspective, a large meteor that strikes the Earth every
100 million years will strike the Sun 30 times per year,
but with a much higher kinetic energy due to escape
velocity differences of Earths surface compared to
the Suns surface.

Exercise for kids who know a little scattering theory: Compute the
scattering cross sections of two point masses - one for the Earth, one
for the Sun. Integrate over a region equivalent to surfaces of both
bodies. Pick the photosphere for the solar "surface", because defining
a surface for a ball of gas is subjective.

Compare and contrast. I have an assumption about what the answer would
be, but I haven't computed it.


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's exceptionally difficult to explain that and the Maunder
Minimum, based on solar internal dynamics, so therefore
we look for exterior causes.

Solar minimum is DEFINED as a period of no sunspots, ignoramus. We [a
graduate space physics course] watched for sunspots over the entire
period of time between September and early December. Towards December
- the minimum of the cycle - there were zero sunspots. If there are
sunspots, it ain't the minimum.

The Maunder Minimum is a huge fucking red herring that is completely
irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is how you don't know what you
are talking about.


We're fairly certain the MilkyWay is a Barred Galaxy, and

Astronomers call it "spiral", but it just wouldn't do for you to
actually know the terminology now would it?

we can only see those bars well condensed to form stars,
however many fingers of invisible bars may also exist.

Made of....?

While complex, these fingers appear to be organized in
Saturn's Rings for a micro example and are commonly
termed as "spokes".

Not even close. Saturn's rings are a result of gravitational
resonance. There is no such process going on at the galactic level.


As the Solar System revolves around the galaxy it will
periodically intersects these debris fingers.

Where "periodically" is a very, very long time. The galaxy is 100,000
light years across - give or take.

The debris fingers are evidentally composed of
metallic debris, suggesting a Supernova origin.

+1 obvious. Everything with an atomic number rivaling Lithium is
guaranteed to be of supernova origin.

A glance at the Crab Nebula confirms this unique
spoking process, which, by observation suggests
a force stronger than simple gravitation, more likely
magnetic forces are involved.

Where "confirms" means "I didn't bother looking and it makes sense to
me."

The spoking phenomena is absent in the Ring nebula
as that was likely a nova phenomena that released
gas with no metalic content.

Where "likely" means "fuckall if I know."

The words "asymmetric supernova" and "elapsed time" come to mind. God
forbid I be rational.


We are close to evolving the conjecture into a theory
with predictive capability able to detail more refined
observational techniques aside from those that have
already confirmed the hypothesis.

What about the observations that utterly smash the conjecture?

Do those not count?

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

.