.
Those glorious Southern Skies!
Not long ago I visited Chile for the first
time and observed the night sky there. At that latitude, the centre of the Milky
Way passes overhead, where it makes a grand show...
Why is there such a difference between Southern and Northern Hemisphere?
Is it because of the 23 1/2 degree tilt?
Reply
Why such a difference between the southern and northern hemisphere?
Because from the point of view of the Earth, all stars are so distant
that they appear as if they were attached to a tremendously large
sphere, with us in the middle.
At night, standing on the ground, you only see HALF the sphere. If you stood
at the NORTH pole, half the sphere would be all you ever saw, appearing to spin
around the point right overhead, the zenith. Standing at the SOUTH pole,
you would see the other half, spinning around the point overhead, which
is on the OPPOSITE end of the sphere from the overhead point at the north
pole.
If you lived on the equator, the two poles of the sky would be on opposite
sides of the horizon, and as the sphere of the heavens rotated around
them, you would in principle see ALL the stars, sooner or later. In
practice, those close to the poles will be near the horizon and not easy
to see.
Maryland, where I live, is somewhere between the north pole and the
equator, so the stars near the north pole are easily seen, and we get to
see some stars of the southern hemisphere as well, though not those
near the southern pole of the heavens (like the Southern Cross and
Alpha Centauri), and many southern stars are only seen here near the horizon.
Similarly, from Chile you won't see the Pole Star, the Big Dipper
or Cassiopeia, but the bright stars near the southern pole more than
make up for them, and yes, the brightest part of the Milky way is there,
too. North of the equator, the best view of the Milky Way is in
mid-summer.
The 23 1/2 degree tilt has to do with the way the Sun, Moon and planets appear to move--not with the apparent motion of the distant stars.
.
Should we fear big solar outbursts?
I have a question pertaining to your studies in the upcoming year,
particularly surrounding the forecast Solar Maximum.
I have heard about the upcoming Solar Maximum starting soon (CNN.com
article, Nov. 11, 1999). I have also heard (unofficially), that there could be a very large solar storm near the end of April.
Finally, it is relatively commonly known that there is going to be an
unusual alignment of the planets in our solar system at the beginning
of May, 2000. Has there been an in-depth study to determine effects of the
combination of these phenomena, and the potential impacts on both our
solar system, and our planet?
The real question; could this combination of phenomena:
1.) Promote a solar flare, or SME, significantly larger than
previously experienced in recorded history?
---I have heard of Super flares emitting from G Class
Stars, and the theory describes large planets in a close orbit (Jan.
8th Article, Sun-like stars said to emit super flares,
CNN). Now, I don't expect this size of phenomena to happen here, but
with the unusual planetary alignment, I do believe that this could
create larger effects than normal, like a significant Solar-Magnetic
Ejection, especially with the excitation of the Solar Phenomena. I'm
just curious as to how much larger.
2.) Disrupt the crust of our planet, creating a significant
amount of tectonic activity, and if so, by how much?
---Now, I know our planets are very far apart, but if
the magnetic attractions are larger than normal, and these magnetic
attractions promote significant SME activity, this could promote some
strange tectonic happenstance, especially with the fragility of our
planet and its crust.
3.) Potentially disrupt our magnetic field severely with the
combination of solar magnetic and gravitational forces?
---I am aware of changes in our earth's history of the
magnetic poles, could this happen here with the combination of a large
SME and gravitational forces?
No calculations, or in-depth study
has occurred, but I have a hunch this should be looked at more closely,
and by qualified people.
Reply
Your message made me once more appreciate
the amount of misleading and loose information circulating on the web.
I have spent a great deal of time and thought on creating a web site
describing what is known about the magnetic field of the Earth and
the Sun's effects on it, and for a real understanding, you better
look there:
http://www.phy6.org/Education/Intro.html
To answer your questions in brief: The solar maximum is already here [December 1999]. It is not an abrupt event you can date, but the crest of a wave whose width is at least several years. From what I have heard, the current peak is lower than expected.
No one can predict a large solar storm months ahead of time--the best
we can say is that they are more frequent near the peak of the sunspot
cycle. Some big ones cause little disturbance near Earth--depends on
factors like the precise orientation of the interplanetary magnetic
field. Planetary alignments have no effect whatsoever. [See also next item.]
The large planets you read about are unlike anything in the solar system
--usually Jupiter-size or bigger, and very close to the star (this has to
do with the method of detection--it's hard to detect long-period planets).
No solar eruption has ever been found to affect the solid Earth. Their
energy is too small, and almost all of it is dissipated outside the
breathable atmosphere. No earthquakes follow CMEs.
I have no control over CNN. But if you seek to understand nature,
look up my site and sources linked or cited there.
Happy new century
.
Planetary line-up and the sunspot cycle
Enjoyed browsing through some of your efforts on the Web. I am hoping
you could help settle some of my thoughts before I make a fool of
myself.
In your experience, has anyone tried to correlate lineups of the sun,
earth and major planets' magnetospheres with the sunspot cycles? My
spare-time effort found some correlation between lineups and cycles in a
number of years. My wonderment centers around the possibility that
some forces of the planets when lined up, possibly relating to their
magnetospheres, impact the suns magnetosphere causing a solar max. I've
also considered the possibility that related magnetosphere effects could
be the cause of previous polar reversals on the earth. Additionally,
ringing of our magnetosphere might impact charged tectonic plates...but
that is again another direction. Only if you have time, please comment.
Reply
There exists a tempting closeness between the length of the solar
cycle and the orbital period of Jupiter, but I don't think the two
are related. I cannot imagine any mechanism coupling the two--
especially since the Sun rotates in about 27 days, so the relative
period of Jupiter going around the Sun is of that order. Furthermore,
the solar wind moves with supersonic speed, which means that solar
disturbances can (and do) travel downstream with it, but disturbances
from a planetary magnetosphere (whatever they might be) don't easily
propagate sunward.
Above and beyond all these, there is always the question of energy--
the currency in which the price of any physical process must be paid.
The energy required in the solar cycle is much bigger than anything
planetary magnetospheres can supply.
So what causes the cycle? The Sun rotates unevenly, slower near the
poles, faster near the equator, probably because of the way gas flows
in it (Jupiter also has such a difference). In a magnetized hot gas,
this difference deforms and amplifies the magnetic field, and there
exist some general theories of the sunspot cycle based on this, al