No star = no charged particles = no lights. Doesn’t matter how big the magnetic field is.
That’s all he’s saying.
Comment on A rogue object so strange, scientists aren’t sure what to call it.
Gust@piefed.social 2 days agoThe absolute distance is strictly irrelevant given this is a relative comparison between two magnetic fields. The one that is 6 orders of magnitude higher will maintain that 6 orders of magnitude difference exactly the same at a distance of 100m as it will at a distance of 100au. That means that the stronger field will maintain the minimum strength required to “guide” particles towards the dipole at a greater distance than the weaker magnetic field would. I feel you if you’re only trying to argue that it would still need to be within some neighborhood of some star to produce an aurora, but your posts read like you’re claiming 6 orders of magnitude on the magnetic field makes no difference on how close that object would need to be to produce an aurora, which is flatly incorrect.
wewbull@feddit.uk 2 days ago
deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
The absolute distance is extremely relevant to how many particles reach the planet, which in turn is extremely relevant to how bright the aurora is.
Gust@piefed.social 1 day ago
That is correct. It also has nothing to do with the original claim I made and you disagreed with, which is that the object with the greater magnetic field would be able to attract particles from farther away.
deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Well, that statement is completely incorrect. The magnetic field doesn’t attract particles, which I stated in my earlier comment.
Gust@piefed.social 1 day ago
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how magnetic fields and the forces they induce work. Attract and guide are both words that mean the same thing in this context, ie “apply force to.” Not sure what else to tell you; I dont feel like teaching you electrodynamics so I wont reply to this thread again.