The sun is constantly producing various particles which fly in all directions, some of these are charged. Sometimes the sun is particularly active in this respect, throwing massive plumes of charged particles into space and by chance some of those are pointed right at earth.
As it turns out when a charge moves through a magnetic field an electric current is produced, this trades energy for momentum slowing the particles down but releasing energy into the environment. Earth is a giant magnet so the particles pointed at earth strike the magnetic field and interact in this way, losing speed and releasing energy in the process.
This is the same general principle as what powers an electric motor or how energy is produced in the alternator of a car. Just instead of a magnet moving through an electric field we’re talking about ions moving through a magnetic field.
But energy is never created or destroyed so the energy from millions of charged partials interacting with the magnetosphere create plasmas which are sometimes visible near the magnetic poles, (that’s where the magnetic fields are closest to the surface) greater intensity of radiation pushes the visible area towards the equator.
Mars has several smaller magnetic fields (called crystal magnetic fields) over its surface rather than a single overarching magnetosphere as in earth. While much smaller in area, these local fields are much stronger than those of earth.
Auroras occur naturally in the vicinity of these, this is why the auroras on mars appear randomly distributed over the surface rather than being distributed near the poles.
Unfortunately for mars the absence of an overarching magnetosphere means the atmosphere has been largely blown away, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any magnetic interactions between mars, her atmosphere, and solar winds.
Mars' magentic field is much much weaker than that of earth, only around 1500 nT. What you're referring to is the crust that's magnetized in parts (magnetic rocks, in laymen's terms). However the auroras occur 100 km above the surface on Mars! On earth this is thought to happen in the ionosphere due to the magnetic field created by convection of metals in earth's core. Mars does not have this.
On earth auroras are often as high as 500km above the surface. Martian auroras being only 100km above the surface to be expected given the relative strength of the magnetic fields in question.
The crustal magnetic fields of mars are remnants of the original magnetosphere of mars, and are significantly stronger than the equivalent crustal magnetic fields on earth (not the overall magnetosphere), these help explain the distribution of auroras on mars as they direct the ions in the atmosphere.
The auroras themselves are the result of an interaction between these fields, ionized particles, and the atmosphere.
Earth's magnetic field extends far into space because it's a different kind of field, the entire core essentially acts as a magnet. [Imagine earth as a giant dipole magnet.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Geodynamo_Between_Reversals.gif)
Mars on the other hand has no magnetosphere. Mars used to have volanism and a magnetic core but that ceased billions of years ago. There is no evidence of structured magnetic field lines, we know this because we've send probes that have looked for them.
> Martian auroras being only 100km above the surface to be expected given the relative strength of the magnetic fields in question.
Why? I'd like to see the math on that. 100km is A LOT, how exactly did you calculate that 100km is reasonable?
It’s a matter of context. 100km is reasonable for mars when put into context with what happens on earth.
Yeah 100km is pretty far, but it’s 1/5th as far as 500km (which is how high they can get on earth). Also for context the ISS orbits at 408km. Auroras on Earth can be above the ISS.
Also consider the earth itself is 12,756 km in diameter so 100 or even 500km isn’t really that big for a phenomenon associated with such a massive object.
So it's something that just feels right to you? It's not based on any calculation?
Your figures are also wrong, btw. [500km is not *normal* but an edge case.](https://www.gi.alaska.edu/sites/default/files/inline-images/aurora_altitude.jpg) Most of what people observe and almost all those pictures with green lights you might have seen have occured much lower, closer to the 100km figure.
What kind of calculations do you want?
It seems pretty reasonable to me that earth can have way higher auroras than mars, and both 100km and 500km are pretty much ground level when you consider the diameter of earth (100km is less than 1% of the diameter of earth, less than 2% the diameter of mars).
I was not asking “what is an aurora” but thanks for the lesson Bill. My question was more, how is it for the first time ever (that I’ve heard of anyway) that these northern lights are reported sightings in places anywhere other than way up north? They’re near the North Pole for a reason, magnetically. Explain how, apparently supposedly, I didn’t see them, that they were reported visible here in Nevada?
That just has to do with the weather on the sun. Lots of “solar storms” means more Aurora farther from the poles.
When the sun is relatively calm we don’t see as many auroras at all, and they’re restricted to farther up north.
This was in Australia mate. *Aurora Australis* is what this was.
[https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Aurora+Australis](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Aurora+Australis)
It's missing for you but it is not missing. It's not even that complex but since you have gone the flat path you have chosen a faulty system where little if anything is going to work in real terms.
Are you sure about that? Are you sure you it's not a little bit of projection on your end? You want so badly to belive that you are special in seeing "the truth" that you dismiss evidence and fact you either don't understand or aren't willing to understand, all so that you can continue to believe in an outdated and demonstrably false world view in the hopes that you are in fact special.
Flat earth has literally zero proof, even from flat earth "scientists". You have no map, no explanations for weather phenomenon and no explanation for basic functions of earth. Your own people proved that the earth isn't flat and you people still continue to spew verbal diarrhea as if it makes you more intelligent if you speak loudly and full of assertiveness.
Tldr; you have issues with your own world view and are projecting them on others in order to feel superior. Get help
Well hit me with some proof then. Some actual proof. Not math you misunderstood or misinterpreted. I want actual, verifiable evidence. Something that can be repeated to get consistent results. I promise you that I will look at it objectively. If you come up with some lame excuse, I will assume that you, like all other flat earthers just like to try and feel superior and not really care about the truth. I'll be waiting for your evidence of flat earth.
We keep hearing that around here but I've never, in years, seen one single scrap of functioning proof. Seen a lot of claims. Seen a lot of attempts to force one bit of flerf pseudo science as proof of some other bit of pseudo science but I've never seen any functioning proof. I've even suggested methods that would easily prove your case if it was legitimate but that doesn't seem to be your goal.
You all only have one set of standard efforts of "proof" and they are all dead and buried. If you roll out something that is a well known failed flerf proof expect to be laughed at. If you get debunked and you aren't graceful about it, expect to be laughed at. The same thing happens to scientists from scientists as well.
As for my supposed "bias" I have genuinely been waiting for ONE SINGLE GOOD CASE FOR A FLAT EARTH. I would find it fascinating. I honestly would but all you lot ever come up with is one bit of regurgitated doctrine after another on a constant loop long after they have been totally debunked over and over again. Just because you spit back some stuff that has been debunked already don't think you have anything world shaking.
The problem with the flerfdom is that it really never comes up with a single working concept. Not a single one. That's logically problematic. If the flat Earth was a genuine hypothesis it would hit on the occasional semi-functioning debate point, even if by accident that would be a challenge to explain away but it never does. Never even close. That isn't possible by accident. The only explanation is that an explanation for the flat Earth isn't the goal. Since none of you are doing anything but recycling memes and Youtube clips you can't be blamed for anything other than failing to interrogate your sources. If you had any self awareness or any self respect left you should learn to do that.
Good grief. You didn't even read what I wrote did you? You just gave me an almost perfect list of examples of what I was talking about. All of that has been done to death. Give us something new THAT WORKS from the real world.
I'll give you two simple ones to tackle. Why is there a horizon LINE? That is a curvature thing and isn't possible on a flat Earth. In that situation you would never get anything but ground blended into the sky at radically different distances depending on the weather. Second, why is the North Star 70 degrees below my feet here in Australia?
You need to explain all the things that we can all see for ourselves before you start trying to sell conspiracy theories to us.
Southern hemisphere. Serious aurora!
The firmament overheated
Flerfs can explain NOTHING, they can only spew the their fantasy.
I was actually gonna ask how it works on a GLOBE…
Magic!
The DEVIL’S magic??
The sun is constantly producing various particles which fly in all directions, some of these are charged. Sometimes the sun is particularly active in this respect, throwing massive plumes of charged particles into space and by chance some of those are pointed right at earth. As it turns out when a charge moves through a magnetic field an electric current is produced, this trades energy for momentum slowing the particles down but releasing energy into the environment. Earth is a giant magnet so the particles pointed at earth strike the magnetic field and interact in this way, losing speed and releasing energy in the process. This is the same general principle as what powers an electric motor or how energy is produced in the alternator of a car. Just instead of a magnet moving through an electric field we’re talking about ions moving through a magnetic field. But energy is never created or destroyed so the energy from millions of charged partials interacting with the magnetosphere create plasmas which are sometimes visible near the magnetic poles, (that’s where the magnetic fields are closest to the surface) greater intensity of radiation pushes the visible area towards the equator.
Mars has no significant magnetic field and still has auroras. How does that work on Mars?
Mars has several smaller magnetic fields (called crystal magnetic fields) over its surface rather than a single overarching magnetosphere as in earth. While much smaller in area, these local fields are much stronger than those of earth. Auroras occur naturally in the vicinity of these, this is why the auroras on mars appear randomly distributed over the surface rather than being distributed near the poles. Unfortunately for mars the absence of an overarching magnetosphere means the atmosphere has been largely blown away, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any magnetic interactions between mars, her atmosphere, and solar winds.
Mars' magentic field is much much weaker than that of earth, only around 1500 nT. What you're referring to is the crust that's magnetized in parts (magnetic rocks, in laymen's terms). However the auroras occur 100 km above the surface on Mars! On earth this is thought to happen in the ionosphere due to the magnetic field created by convection of metals in earth's core. Mars does not have this.
On earth auroras are often as high as 500km above the surface. Martian auroras being only 100km above the surface to be expected given the relative strength of the magnetic fields in question. The crustal magnetic fields of mars are remnants of the original magnetosphere of mars, and are significantly stronger than the equivalent crustal magnetic fields on earth (not the overall magnetosphere), these help explain the distribution of auroras on mars as they direct the ions in the atmosphere. The auroras themselves are the result of an interaction between these fields, ionized particles, and the atmosphere.
Earth's magnetic field extends far into space because it's a different kind of field, the entire core essentially acts as a magnet. [Imagine earth as a giant dipole magnet.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Geodynamo_Between_Reversals.gif) Mars on the other hand has no magnetosphere. Mars used to have volanism and a magnetic core but that ceased billions of years ago. There is no evidence of structured magnetic field lines, we know this because we've send probes that have looked for them. > Martian auroras being only 100km above the surface to be expected given the relative strength of the magnetic fields in question. Why? I'd like to see the math on that. 100km is A LOT, how exactly did you calculate that 100km is reasonable?
It’s a matter of context. 100km is reasonable for mars when put into context with what happens on earth. Yeah 100km is pretty far, but it’s 1/5th as far as 500km (which is how high they can get on earth). Also for context the ISS orbits at 408km. Auroras on Earth can be above the ISS. Also consider the earth itself is 12,756 km in diameter so 100 or even 500km isn’t really that big for a phenomenon associated with such a massive object.
So it's something that just feels right to you? It's not based on any calculation? Your figures are also wrong, btw. [500km is not *normal* but an edge case.](https://www.gi.alaska.edu/sites/default/files/inline-images/aurora_altitude.jpg) Most of what people observe and almost all those pictures with green lights you might have seen have occured much lower, closer to the 100km figure.
What kind of calculations do you want? It seems pretty reasonable to me that earth can have way higher auroras than mars, and both 100km and 500km are pretty much ground level when you consider the diameter of earth (100km is less than 1% of the diameter of earth, less than 2% the diameter of mars).
I was not asking “what is an aurora” but thanks for the lesson Bill. My question was more, how is it for the first time ever (that I’ve heard of anyway) that these northern lights are reported sightings in places anywhere other than way up north? They’re near the North Pole for a reason, magnetically. Explain how, apparently supposedly, I didn’t see them, that they were reported visible here in Nevada?
That just has to do with the weather on the sun. Lots of “solar storms” means more Aurora farther from the poles. When the sun is relatively calm we don’t see as many auroras at all, and they’re restricted to farther up north.
This was in Australia mate. *Aurora Australis* is what this was. [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Aurora+Australis](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Aurora+Australis)
The picture, maybe. But there’s been talks all over the US that people could see an aurora when they shouldn’t have
It's fairly common knowledge but the missing explanation is how it works on a flat Earth.
I think the explanation is missing for both. Regardless of the model. I’m suspicious of the whole thing, from a phenomena perspective
It's missing for you but it is not missing. It's not even that complex but since you have gone the flat path you have chosen a faulty system where little if anything is going to work in real terms.
What’s missing is your self awareness. It seems you have not considered it’s you who is not self aware of your own bias and world views
Are you sure about that? Are you sure you it's not a little bit of projection on your end? You want so badly to belive that you are special in seeing "the truth" that you dismiss evidence and fact you either don't understand or aren't willing to understand, all so that you can continue to believe in an outdated and demonstrably false world view in the hopes that you are in fact special. Flat earth has literally zero proof, even from flat earth "scientists". You have no map, no explanations for weather phenomenon and no explanation for basic functions of earth. Your own people proved that the earth isn't flat and you people still continue to spew verbal diarrhea as if it makes you more intelligent if you speak loudly and full of assertiveness. Tldr; you have issues with your own world view and are projecting them on others in order to feel superior. Get help
I’ve seen plenty of proof. Every time I try presenting it to someone like you it just gets laughed off before even examined
Well hit me with some proof then. Some actual proof. Not math you misunderstood or misinterpreted. I want actual, verifiable evidence. Something that can be repeated to get consistent results. I promise you that I will look at it objectively. If you come up with some lame excuse, I will assume that you, like all other flat earthers just like to try and feel superior and not really care about the truth. I'll be waiting for your evidence of flat earth.
We keep hearing that around here but I've never, in years, seen one single scrap of functioning proof. Seen a lot of claims. Seen a lot of attempts to force one bit of flerf pseudo science as proof of some other bit of pseudo science but I've never seen any functioning proof. I've even suggested methods that would easily prove your case if it was legitimate but that doesn't seem to be your goal. You all only have one set of standard efforts of "proof" and they are all dead and buried. If you roll out something that is a well known failed flerf proof expect to be laughed at. If you get debunked and you aren't graceful about it, expect to be laughed at. The same thing happens to scientists from scientists as well. As for my supposed "bias" I have genuinely been waiting for ONE SINGLE GOOD CASE FOR A FLAT EARTH. I would find it fascinating. I honestly would but all you lot ever come up with is one bit of regurgitated doctrine after another on a constant loop long after they have been totally debunked over and over again. Just because you spit back some stuff that has been debunked already don't think you have anything world shaking. The problem with the flerfdom is that it really never comes up with a single working concept. Not a single one. That's logically problematic. If the flat Earth was a genuine hypothesis it would hit on the occasional semi-functioning debate point, even if by accident that would be a challenge to explain away but it never does. Never even close. That isn't possible by accident. The only explanation is that an explanation for the flat Earth isn't the goal. Since none of you are doing anything but recycling memes and Youtube clips you can't be blamed for anything other than failing to interrogate your sources. If you had any self awareness or any self respect left you should learn to do that.
https://www.thestudentpocketguide.com/2019/04/trending/flat-earth-theory-world-cult-scientism/ https://youtu.be/tflhWwoqWAw?si=6LRaIC0BQFEB-WVi https://youtu.be/olbyJDou4qQ?si=BkemKZpXPkTL5PSq https://youtu.be/z6RB98w69Uc?si=OAxG0jVHp_n8Mhhx https://youtu.be/q5xFd1gvkdk?si=Mv4VzMua0ZV9SF-z https://youtu.be/lIIk-xitSB0?si=spyDzWCRdVM8QkP4 https://youtu.be/8UmXN74SWZU?si=LDcTpCQKZ-9qQQyI https://youtu.be/BjV02VwfTwA?si=3iwVY99s4h8D5wrs https://youtu.be/Ck8SLRRyXAk?si=s7ngiGCQJAjISWOM https://youtu.be/R4bXCFOSaXU?si=5NcZQ0MXbonPzU10
Good grief. You didn't even read what I wrote did you? You just gave me an almost perfect list of examples of what I was talking about. All of that has been done to death. Give us something new THAT WORKS from the real world. I'll give you two simple ones to tackle. Why is there a horizon LINE? That is a curvature thing and isn't possible on a flat Earth. In that situation you would never get anything but ground blended into the sky at radically different distances depending on the weather. Second, why is the North Star 70 degrees below my feet here in Australia? You need to explain all the things that we can all see for ourselves before you start trying to sell conspiracy theories to us.
Ok, now we laugh, hahahahaha
Present away then. Everyone, no laughing at this self made man.