[quote=Attiyah Zahdeh;815821]Why would you want to do that? The bulk of this makes very little sense as it stands, so why bring more obfuscation into the mix?
Oh.
Yes, that is understood. Your terminology is vague, however. "Skylight" is not a very recognizable atmospheric or astronomical reference to anything; to me, it is a plexiglass-covered hole in the roof. But you use this term in reference to the general blue color of the earth's sky. You don't deny Rayleigh scattering in it's own right, but you do deny that direct sunlight is the source of the scattering. General low-energy aurora is your explanation for the blue we (even those around the equator) see in the sky when the sun is up. Somehow you've connected this with the 'midnight sun', even though, when asked, will not admit visiting the regions where this event is commonplace. I've asked for references to data, but the answer was "find it yourself". However, you've given no indication that you've studied the accepted physics behind aurorae, nor the amount of solar particle flux needed to generate a "normal" auroral phenomenon (and the intensity of light given off there-in) nor have you proffered any ideas about the physics of a "global" aurora capable of giving off sufficient "white" light to subsequently spread, through Rayleigh scattering, throughout the "daytime" hemisphere of the planet, so producing the familiar blue sky. (I may edit the above for grammar and syntax later, but not for content)
I'm sorry: the above was rant-like, and I try not to indulge in that sort of thing. Yet, here I go again: Attiyah, your idea is a natural one. By 'natural', I refer to the 'natural' philosophies. You've noted one phenomenon, and have then tried to relate it to another. That is natural! Science, on the modern other-hand, does its best (with the help of many millions of persons) to demystify what our ordinary perceptions might consider 'extraordinary'. Science depends on objective data, the rigorous examination of that data, the review of the examination of that data, and then, if there is some anomaly noted in the data that doesn't fit with accepted theory, a review of that data (again) and a review of the theory (which has probably been reviewed, scrutinized, reviewed, adjusted, reviewed, laughed over, reviewed, and finally, maybe, prior to all this hoo-hah with the anomalous data, accepted), all of which could take several years. There is no theory that is inviolate.Then why did you instruct me to google "solar irradiance on the moon"? Reflected solar light off of the earth's moon should have no place in your theory.
Why do you think some people are confused about your proposal, Attiyah? You label your idea "sun theory", but it has very little to do with the sun itself. When asked about data, you sidestep.

Two questions:
(1) Can you declare that you are fully sure that the midnight Sun does not mean a sunny midnight?
(2) Can you prove hat there are no auroras in the whole sunward hemisphere?

Let me parse the phrase "midnight Sun" for you: midnight Sun means that it is midnight and the Sun is above the horizon. The time is midnight, yet it is sunny because the Sun is above the horizon. The sky is as bright as it usually is at any place where the Sun has an equal altitude above the horizon. If the Sun is, say, 10 degrees above the horizon the sky is just as bright as it is at any place where at noon or midnight or 9 a.m. or 3 p.m the Sun happens to be at 10 degrees altitude. The time of day does not matter, only the altitude of the Sun. Sun above the horizon -- blue sky. Sun more than 12 degrees below the horizon -- dark sky. Got it?
Don't have to. Besides, how are we going to see them through all that scattered sunlight? But we do know that:

1) Night-time auroras are rarely seen more than about 20 degrees from the Earth's magnetic poles. They are rarely seen near the equator, for example.

2) There are satellite images of the auroral loop in the polar regions. This loop completely surrounds the magnetic pole on both the sunlit and dark portions of the Earth. Again, if not for all that scattered sunlight, the people underneath the auroral loop would be seeing an aurora. This loop only covers a limited area of the Earth.

3) Auroral loops have been seen above Jupiter and Saturn, and again, these loops cover only a very limited area.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Yes. The term refers to the sun being visible at midnight; it's what it means.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Gillianren,please reread my second question.
Do you have any answer to the first question?

No. I'm not a scientist. I do, however, have a very strong grounding in etymology, which is how I know what "midnight sun" is intended to mean. Can you answer the question I asked you earlier now?

Okay, having reread your post, I'm confused. I answered the first question; I didn't answer the second. The answer to the first question is that "midnight sun" means "sun above the horizon at midnight." The second is the one that requires a scientist, not an etymologist.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Your terminology and syntax is confusing. The term "midnight sun" is a vernacular (i.e. regional) expression. Usage of the term "sunny midnight" shows a personal bias towards your theory. The term "midnight" is just a common word, and nothing more, that refers to 00:00 local time. Sunset and sunrise are often not twelve hours apart, so the term "midnight" is really just an accepted term to mean "00:00 hours where I live". You've used "midnight" as an absolute, which is not justifiable.
Many people have already stated this: it is up to you to show that aurorae can, and do, behave in this fashion.

Why not visit Lapland or Alaska and see for yourself?

It's not some exotic abstract astronomy theory we are talking about, its the fact that the sun doesn't go below the horizon and it doesn't get dark!! If you can't getthere why not ask someone who lives there or has visited?

How come the sunlight is brighter on the moon if it isn't providing all the light?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

[QUOTE=Attiyah Zahdeh;808390]Attiyah's Sun Theory

Attiyah Zahdeh SNIPPET:
==============

1- The Spacecraft observations from outside the geomagnetosphere do not show any spectra emitted by neutral atoms, neutral molecules and molecular ions. Therefore, the Sun's composition is void of neutral atoms such as O1 and H1, neutral molecules such as N2, and molecular ions such as N2+.

Attiyah. Not true. Neutral atoms can emit electromagnetic radiation outside the visible portion of the spectrum..it depends which part your instrumentation is sensitive to.
The far reaches of the sun's corona does contain neutral atoms that have recombined with their electrons. As the solar spectrum passes through them, some of the wavelengths that excite electrons to quantized levels are strongly absorbed, and then re-radiated away, not necessarily along the original line-of-sight-to-the-sun, but to other spatial directions. Consequently, these wavelengths are dimmed or attenuated, and are seen as dark absorption bands in the expanded solar spectrum (see Kitt Peak), exactly matching the positions of bright line spectra from the hotter gases closer in. How else would you explain the dark line spectra? Pete.

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

[QUOTE=Attiyah Zahdeh;815821]There seems to be an inconsistency in the last two statements (my bold).

For example, the Moon is a "celestial body", yet its apparent brightness, to us, here on the surface of the Earth, varies greatly, as a function of time.

Please clarify.

Also, in the "Attiyah's Sun Theory", what is the relative contribution of light, in the visible part of the spectrum, on the surface of the Earth, from "the skylight", compared with "the direct solar light"? I guess it will be a function of time - what? Is it also a function of location on the Earth's surface (assume a cloudless sky)?

"Attiyah's Sun Theory does not deny that the Sun is a luminous body wherein nuclear fusion reactions are occurring".
"Accordingly, my idea does not expect any difference in the expected brightness for any celestial body as a function of time".

Concerning these two statements of Attiyah Nereid said:"There seems to be an inconsistency in the last two statements".

I mean that there is no difference in the expectation of my theory for this brightness as a function of time from the expectation of the traditional theory. The time variations of the brightness remain the same thing because Attiyah's Sun Theory does not deny that the Sun is a luminous body wherein nuclear fusion reactions are occurring.
As well, my theory does not deny the presence of spatial variations in the visible part of the spectrum, on the surface of the Earth. These spatial variations are latitude dpendent.

To be honest, I've been having a lot of trouble following your arguments. If I'm reading this correctly, you aren't arguing for a luminosity difference of any kind. So a question: What are the distinct observations that support the "Attiyah Sun Theory"?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

If this is so, then how can the "Attiyah's Sun Theory" be tested, even in principle?

Also, you have not answered my other question (in that same post):

[QUOTE=Nereid;817663]If this is so, then how can the "
Attiyah's Sun Theory" be tested, even in principle?
It can be tested by TERRELLA EXPERIMENTS (Birkeland's terrella experiments).
The so-called "Active Experiments" can also help in testing it.


===========

Concerning the relative contribution in the visible spectrum of the skylight(mainly aurora-produced) compared with the visible direct solar light, I say that its measurements or estimations will be hard and complicated. However, there are many visible spectra which are completely or nearly completely from auroras. For example, the visible emissions of the neutral nitogen molecules are from aurora origin since the Sun's composition is void of such neutral molecules.

[QUOTE=Attiyah Zahdeh;817921]Calculating the spectra of skyshine is difficult if you want it to be done well. The fact is that we can do this well, using physics based radiative transfer models, that don't involve the phenomena that you are claiming.

[QUOTE=Attiyah Zahdeh;817921]What are these?Can you give an OOM (order of magnitude) estimate of the relative contribution of light, in the visible part of the spectrum, on the surface of the Earth, from "the skylight", compared with "the direct solar light"?

For example, integrated over a whole, cloudless, day (sunrise to sunset), is "the skylight" ~<1%, ~1%, ~10%, ~equal, ~10 times, ~100 times, ~>100 times as intense as "the direct solar light"?

Hello Nereid

===============
Birkeland's Terrella Experiments

In their efforts to explain the auroral phenomenon, some geophysicists in the last decade of the 19th century introduced a hypothesis that auroras are a result of the collision of solar charged particles with the Earth's magnetic field. In order to verify this hypothesis empirically, Birekland designed an experiment wherein he used a special, magnetized little ball and bombarded it with directed streams of electrons.
(Stormer, C., The Polar Aurora, Oxford, 1955, pp. 206-213).

Well, "terrella" is the Latin for little Earth. Factually, Birkeland's Terrella produced two rings of light one around each pole. Since then the scientists developed more sophisticated models than the first Birkeland's terrella.
(Malmform's experiments, Villard's experiments, Bruche's experiments, Alfv'en's experiments, Podgorny's experiments, Danielson-Lindberg's experiments, etc.)
On operating Birkeland's terrella itself and the afterwards developed models, not only two rings of light, one around each pole, appeared, but also a dome of light connecting them appeared almost in all cases. (Podgorny, I.M. et al., Space Research, COSPAR Series, vol. XVI, 1976, p. 651).

Until now, scientists still exert hard efforts to get highly sophisticated models of Birkeland's terrella.


Comments On the Results Of Birkeland's Terrella Experiments

I consider that the results of all the simulation experiments of Birkeland's terrella or its developed models can give an empirical, decisive evidence fully capable of verifying Attiyah's Sun Theory. Thus, such experiments alone are sufficient to prove not only the plausibility of the above-mentioned postulates, but even that they are right.

1- No doubt, the two light rings which usually appear around the two poles of Birkeland's terrella or its developed models are the simulation analogue of the so-called auroral ovals. In other terms, the auroral ovals are the natural analogue of the two light rings which usually appear around the two poles in such experiments.
2- No doubt, not only the two light rings which usually appear around the two poles in Birkeland's terrella experiments are a result of the interaction between the bombarded charged particles and the magnetic field, but the light of the dome itself is also a result of this interaction. In other words, the mechanism that produces the light of the two rings is necessarily and inevitably the same mechanism that produces the light of the dome.
3- Since the auroral ovals are the natural analogue of the two light rings in Birkeland's terrella experiments, then it is acceptable to ask: what is the natural analogue of the light dome of these experiments?
Only the dome of the daylight can represent this analogue or at least can involve it.
4- In some of Birkeland's terrella experiments a seemingly focused light appeared above the light dome without being merged in it. However, it could be said that the focused light looked like a solar corona.
(Stormer, C., The Polar Aurora, Oxford,1955, p. 213).
5- In the simulation experiments, in both the rings and dome, the upper limits of the light appear field-aligned. In nature, also the upper limits of the dome of the daylight appear field-aligned. As well as, all the auroras show the field-alignment property.
(Chang & Huang – as editors – Proceedings of the Plasma Space Science Symposium, 1965, p.136 & p. 154).
(Podgorny, I.M., as a participant, Venus, 1983, p. 994).

Accordingly, there must be a natural analogue of this seemingly focused light.

So far, do you agree that Birkeland's terrella experiments are fully capable of supporting attiyah's postulates? If your answer is negative, then how do you justify that Birkeland's terrella experiments are not acceptable to verify Attiyah's postulates empirically meanwhile they are acceptable to verify the hypothesis that the auroras are a result of the precipitation of the charged particles upon the ionosphere?

I'm not even sure what Attiyah's postulates are yet.

__________________
My son is my universe.

I grew up near the polar circle, and aurorae were far from a regular sight. Pretty cool when they did happen, but at the most we saw them about once a month during winter (summers were too bright to see anything. Lousy for astronomy).

Fortunately, the daytime sky showed no such erratic behaviour.

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

(my bold) Answer: No, I do not agree that "Birkeland's terrella experiments are fully capable of supporting attiyah's postulates"

Some aspects:
* there has been ~five decades of in situ observation (and some direct experimentation), of the relevant regions of the Earth's upper atmosphere (and beyond) - it would seem none of this huge amount of observational and experimental data has been included in the work you cite
* with the advent of low-cost computing power, the role of 'hardware models' such as the terrella, has become rather different - how well has the 'dome of light' been reproduced in computer simulations?
* these experiments are a simulation - the universe cares nothing for simulations.

Attiyah Zahdeh has requested some time to prepare answers to questions that have been posed so far.

Accordingly, this thread will be locked, tomorrow, for 10 days.

Between now and when it is locked, BAUT members have the opportunity to challenge the ATM ideas, as presented in this thread, and to ask questions.

Attiyah Zahdeh, or any other BAUT proponent of these ideas, has the opportunity to provide clarifications, additional background, etc.

When the thread is re-opened, Attiyah Zahdeh will answer all relevant, open questions, about the Attiyah Zahdeh idea, as presented in this thread.

Indeed. Much of what I've seen of such experiments only arrive at a conclusion based on, "it looks similar, so therefore it is similar!"

__________________
My son is my universe.

Hey! I've seen this exact post on more than one thread. Isn't this spamming?

__________________
My son is my universe.

I have a question.

If I understand the premise properly, it's saying that the sky gives off its own light. Is this correct? If so, why does it get dark at night?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Hello Gilli,
Attiyah's Sun theory has more postulates. This is the fifth one. I hope it helps answer you.
(5) The original solar light itself, i.e. the initial light from the Sun by its virtue of emitting EUV spectra and X-rays, plays the main role in driving the global, daytime auroral activities.

Okay, if there is a dome of light which creates the daylight sky, the night time sky should be as brightly blue as the daylight sky.
MMMM last night when I was outside, the night time sky was suspiciously dark ........

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Gillian, please.

Okay, "main role," fine. What about the rest of it? I admit it doesn't really get all the way dark here, or back in Los Angeles, where I grew up, but that's manmade light. When I've been in the desert or mountains, it's been really dark. How is that possible if the sky also produces light?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Hello Gilli,
The brightness of the diurnal, global auroras is of a visual degree while the brightness of the nocturnal,global auroras is of a subvisual degree. I think that when you are in the E-layer itself during a moonless night you can easily read a book with the help of the light of its nighttime auroras. The average distance from the ground to the E-layer is about 120 km, hence its nighttime auroras are almost subvisual especially far from the polar regions.

OK so how about some evidence?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Gillian. Not Gilli.

I've never seen an aurora live in my life. Why would they change in intensity from day to night?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"