# Thread: Why does the sun have differential rotation rates

Solar rotation is able to vary with latitude because the Sun is composed of a gaseous plasma. The rate of rotation is observed to be fastest at the equator (latitude φ=0 deg), and to decrease as latitude increases. The differential rotation rate is usually described by the equation:

\omega=A+B\,\sin^2(\varphi)+C\,\sin^4(\varphi)
where ω is the angular velocity in degrees per day, φ is the solar latitude and A, B, and C are constants. The values of A, B, and C differ depending on the techniques used to make the measurement, as well as the time period studied.[1] A current set of accepted average values[2] is:
A= 14.713 deg/day (± 0.0491)
B= -2.396 deg/day (± 0.188)
C= -1.787 deg/day (± 0.253)

What makes it rotate faster at the equator?

2.

3. Originally Posted by dan hunter
What makes it rotate faster at the equator?
A very interesting question. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't similar to the prograde rotation of the gasses on Venus and Jupiter. (I have a theory, that might be applicable, but I'll wait till someone else gives an answer first, for my reasoning was based on a fact that is hardly ever discussed but I have spent at least 30 years looking for evidence for it.)

4. Since the equator is larger than the poles, there's more room for the invisible pink unicorns to get a good running start when they pull on it.

5. Originally Posted by AlexG
Since the equator is larger than the poles, there's more room for the invisible pink unicorns to get a good running start when they pull on it.
If you really don't know something there is no reason to make yourself into an ignorant troll.

6. Invisible pink unicorns are a staple on this forum. After all, they make the world go round.

7. Originally Posted by AlexG
Invisible pink unicorns are a staple on this forum. After all, they make the world go round.
Do you know the answer or not AlexG?

8. Originally Posted by AlexG
Invisible pink unicorns are a staple on this forum. After all, they make the world go round.
They are not a staple with me, and you should know better.
I gave a wiki quote on this so people would have an idea of what I was asking about.
The differential rotation of the sun is a well reported observation from many observatories and space agencies.

From you I get what? Some weird comments about pink unicorns? Like you are suggesting I am some sort of crank!

Do you like being ignorant? Does it make you feel like you are a somebody?
All you did was display that you are both rude and ignorant with your response.

9. They are not a staple with me, and you should know better.
Is there a reason why I should care what you think?

You simply demonstrated that you have no sense of humor.

According to wiki, no one knows why there is differential rotation.

Do you think you know?

10. Originally Posted by AlexG
Is there a reason why I should care what you think?

You simply demonstrated that you have no sense of humor.

According to wiki, no one knows why there is differential rotation.

Do you think you know?
Wiki does not say that nobody knows why.
Nice move.

My sense of humour is fine, but your comment was not a joke, it was an insult.

BTW, it wasn't wiki, it was yahoo.answers which stated no one knows why.

But if you're maintaining that wiki has the answer, why ask the question?

12. Originally Posted by AlexG
Why would you expect me to have the answer?
I am the one asking the question, or are you so dense you didn't notice that?

13. Why would you expect me to have the answer?
You've stated that wiki does not say 'no one knows'. This implies that wiki has the answer. Or are you so dense you don't see that?

As far as density goes, the insulting one here is you. So you might as well join the ignore list.

14. Originally Posted by dan hunter
Originally Posted by AlexG
Is there a reason why I should care what you think?

You simply demonstrated that you have no sense of humor.

According to wiki, no one knows why there is differential rotation.

Do you think you know?
Wiki does not say that nobody knows why.
Nice move.

My sense of humour is fine, but your comment was not a joke, it was an insult.
Dan I think this demonstrates the situation I found myself in, when must have been 20-30 odd years ago I came up with this idea and I have been looking for the proof of it in real life, and I kept seeing examples of situations which I thought could add weight to my theory but no one has ever said exactly as I have thought.

But I don't want to get banned for saying unproven scientific facts, for I can't say it is a fact, but the logic seems close to being right.

Start with a moving gas cloud and heat it up what happens to the average kinetic energy of the molecules?
So remember with a moving gas cloud the net motion has a direction. As opposed to a stationary gas cloud that is heated, which will just increase in pressure but not move in a over all direction, i.e.the center of mass stays the same.
Tell me what will happen if you heat a moving gas cloud?

15. Originally Posted by AlexG
Why would you expect me to have the answer?
You've stated that wiki does not say 'no one knows'. This implies that wiki has the answer. Or are you so dense you don't see that?

As far as density goes, the insulting one here is you. So you might as well join the ignore list.
If Wiki gave the answer I would not be asking the question.

Thank you for putting me on your ignore list because I like it when trolls like you ignore me.

16. Originally Posted by AlexG

BTW, it wasn't wiki, it was yahoo.answers which stated no one knows why.

But if you're maintaining that wiki has the answer, why ask the question?
You really are dumb.

Adding you to my ignore list too.
So far you are the only person on it.

17. Originally Posted by dan hunter
Originally Posted by AlexG

BTW, it wasn't wiki, it was yahoo.answers which stated no one knows why.

But if you're maintaining that wiki has the answer, why ask the question?
You really are dumb.

Adding you to my ignore list too.
So far you are the only person on it.
AlexG hates me and that is why he has gone like this. It was some sort of knee jerk reaction to my post.

18. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
....
Dan I think this demonstrates the situation I found myself in, when must have been 20-30 odd years ago I came up with this idea and I have been looking for the proof of it in real life, and I kept seeing examples of situations which I thought could add weight to my theory but no one has ever said exactly as I have thought.

But I don't want to get banned for saying unproven scientific facts, for I can't say it is a fact, but the logic seems close to being right.

Start with a moving gas cloud and heat it up what happens to the average kinetic energy of the molecules?
So remember with a moving gas cloud the net motion has a direction. As opposed to a stationary gas cloud that is heated, which will just increase in pressure but not move in a over all direction, i.e.the center of mass stays the same.
Tell me what will happen if you heat a moving gas cloud?
Did you miss this question Dan?

19. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by dan hunter
Originally Posted by AlexG

BTW, it wasn't wiki, it was yahoo.answers which stated no one knows why.

But if you're maintaining that wiki has the answer, why ask the question?
You really are dumb.

Adding you to my ignore list too.
So far you are the only person on it.
AlexG hates me and that is why he has gone like this. It was some sort of knee jerk reaction to my post.
Don't go paranoid Robby. Something to remember is that it isn't always about you.

By the way, I have no idea about that question of yours in post 13 about heating a moving gas cloud.

20. Originally Posted by dan hunter
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by dan hunter
Originally Posted by AlexG

BTW, it wasn't wiki, it was yahoo.answers which stated no one knows why.

But if you're maintaining that wiki has the answer, why ask the question?
You really are dumb.

Adding you to my ignore list too.
So far you are the only person on it.
AlexG hates me and that is why he has gone like this. It was some sort of knee jerk reaction to my post.
Don't go paranoid Robby. Something to remember is that it isn't always about you.

By the way, I have no idea about that question of yours in post 13 about heating a moving gas cloud.
AlexG and I have been fighting for 4 years now.

To answer that question I always thought that to conserve energy when the kinetic energy of a gas increased (which is equivalent to saying its temperature increased) the transfer of energy must be predominantly in the direction of motion. Now that was my theorem. That is the bit I have never heard another physics person say. So is it true or not? Can a molecule's kinetic energy be increase by an addition of energy opposed to its direction of motion? (I'm implying energy has a direction. Is it is like a force (E (work)= force times distance) For if it did there would be a slowing of the molecule and hence a loss of kinetic energy, so that would violate a principle that energy can't be created or destroyed.
So heat energy only (or predominantly) interacts with molecules going in the direction of that energy. (That is sort of my theorem again. Note: I haven't formulated the exact wording of it.)

21. In my theory a heated moving gas speeds up. I am saying could the heating of the equatorial regions of the Sun be the reason it turns faster than the core (and the polar regions)? The gas on the Sun was all moving at the same rotation (or in fact the inner part was originally spinning the fastest) but in my theory once the Sun became thermonuclear the gas on the surface is energized and the faster it goes.

22. ~ Climbing down from my fence post.. or from ( the safety ) behind the couch.. I fail to see why such sarcasm was evident.. ? where and why ? did that come from.. It's a question of some complexity that goes without a great understanding.. I will talk of it with you and try to establish a answer.. Not definitive, but helpful I hope.
A gaseous mass held in siutu by it's own gravity force. and rotating about it's central core..The higher density core.. That the distance from the rotating core makes the equatorial region move around the center of mass at a greater velocity. Just as with the massive gas giant planets. At the polar regions the velocity drops as the distance from the central mass fulcrum is less.. Now that I can see this but find it hard to express clearly.. My language skills are flawed.. I hope to have touched the litmus.. not blurred the view..

# and to Bobs point; The heat is related to gravity and pressure. The thermal nuclear fusion is a result of the gravity mass. Not the reverse.

NB; Please do not snap at each other like children.. It detracts from the conversation.. not adds to it..

23. Originally Posted by astromark
NB; Please do not snap at each other like children.. It detracts from the conversation.. not adds to it..
Let me be childish enough to say that I didn't start it.

Thanks for trying to answer the question.

24. I am not certain my answer is the correct answer. I just can't see how that mechanism would operate on the Sun,even though the elements are there namely a heat source and gas. But the concept then seems to violate relative motion issues. I'm thinking it through again.

25. I don't follow this topic. The earth is much smaller than the sun, and the earth rotates around the sun and the earth spins and the equator of the earth more directly and constantly faces the sun during it's spinning orbital movements around the sun. The sun in a sense is like the nucleus of an atom and the earth like an electron spinning around it.

26. The sun shows differential rotation in the sun itself.
I am not asking about the simple difference in the surface speed you would expect, like how the person standing at the earth equator moves faster than a person standing near the poles does. Earth does not have differential rotation.

This is more like if you spun a beach ball around one time and the top and bottom went around 360 degrees once but the middle went around 360 degrees twice.

This is an observed fact about our sun, but I am having a very hard time finding an explanation for it, anywhere.

27. Originally Posted by dan hunter
The sun shows differential rotation in the sun itself.
I am not asking about the simple difference in the surface speed you would expect, like how the person standing at the earth equator moves faster than a person standing near the poles does. Earth does not have differential rotation.

This is more like if you spun a beach ball around one time and the top and bottom went around 360 degrees once but the middle went around 360 degrees twice.

This is an observed fact about our sun, but I am having a very hard time finding an explanation for it, anywhere.

For the Earth the middle would have traveled 360 in the spin and so would have the ends, but the middle (on the surface) would have traveled a greater distance. I am guessing the equator is considered the surface of the earth on a horizontal center of its spin? Now, the movement of the sun is probably more influenced by greater gavitational and perhaps others pulls than those of the earth?

28. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Now, the movement of the sun is probably more influenced by greater gavitational and perhaps others pulls than those of the earth?
What?
Earth is subjected to gravity from everything in the Solar system except itself.
The Sun, everything but itself.
You're arguing, therefore, that the Earth masses more than the Sun which is patently false.

29. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Now, the movement of the sun is probably more influenced by greater gavitational and perhaps others pulls than those of the earth?
What?
Earth is subjected to gravity from everything in the Solar system except itself.
The Sun, everything but itself.
You're arguing, therefore, that the Earth masses more than the Sun which is patently false.
Not sure how you could get that inference when I said the Sun is probably influenced by much greater masses than those of the Earth?

30. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Now, the movement of the sun is probably more influenced by greater gavitational and perhaps others pulls than those of the earth?
What?
Earth is subjected to gravity from everything in the Solar system except itself.
The Sun, everything but itself.
You're arguing, therefore, that the Earth masses more than the Sun which is patently false.
I cannot see the logic here. "everything but" and "everything except" mean the same thing.

31. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Now, the movement of the sun is probably more influenced by greater gavitational and perhaps others pulls than those of the earth?
What?
Earth is subjected to gravity from everything in the Solar system except itself.
The Sun, everything but itself.
You're arguing, therefore, that the Earth masses more than the Sun which is patently false.
I cannot see the logic here. "everything but" and "everything except" mean the same thing.
The logic is clear. Analogy: You have five stones in your pocket, if you take a small stone out the bag, the bag will weigh more than if you take a large stone from your bag.

32. Originally Posted by shlunka
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Now, the movement of the sun is probably more influenced by greater gavitational and perhaps others pulls than those of the earth?
What?
Earth is subjected to gravity from everything in the Solar system except itself.
The Sun, everything but itself.
You're arguing, therefore, that the Earth masses more than the Sun which is patently false.

I cannot see the logic here. "everything but" and "everything except" mean the same thing.
The logic is clear. Analogy: You have five stones in your pocket, if you take a small stone out the bag, the bag will weigh more than if you take a large stone from your bag.
Well actually the bag will weigh the same, but will contain one less stone. Some bags may be empty with one less stone. Don't confuse the weights of the contents with the weight of the container unless you are in a space far enough from gravitation pulls.

34. Reasonable enough as I have been giving answers that answer no questions. I am still working on the difference of what it means for one celestial body to be influenced by everything but itself and another being influenced by everything except itself.

35. *facepalm*

36. Originally Posted by Mayflow
I cannot see the logic here. "everything but" and "everything except" mean the same thing.
Correct.
The Earth is subject to gravity from Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and the Sun.
The Sun is subject to gravity from Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

I.e. they are both subject to the same gravitational influences with one difference: Earth has to contend with the Sun but not itself, the Sun with Earth but not itself.
So, simplifying (since you obviously need it), the Earth is subject to gravity from (X plus the Sun), and the Sun to (X plus Earth). (X, of course, being everything in the Solar system except Earth and the Sun).
Which do you think is thus influenced more?
Which is subjected to "greater masses"?
The ONLY way the Sun could be the one is if Earth massed more than the Sun.

37. Originally Posted by dan hunter
Nice enquiring post Dan. It's got me rummaging. It certainly goes against intuition regarding angular momentum of rigid bodies.

Would there be a differential time lag between light observed from the poles versus light received from the equator and given the size of the sun, could this effect be material to create an optical illusion of differential plasma rotation rates and thus be applicable to any sufficiently large stellar body. This is where a relativistic expert comes in handy? *grabs popcorn and sits back waiting*

38. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Reasonable enough as I have been giving answers that answer no questions. I am still working on the difference of what it means for one celestial body to be influenced by everything but itself and another being influenced by everything except itself.
Don't worry about it. I understood what you meant just fine.
I am going to ignore this thread, for some reason the people posting on it just seem to be looking for fights.

39. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Now, the movement of the sun is probably more influenced by greater gavitational and perhaps others pulls than those of the earth?
What?
Earth is subjected to gravity from everything in the Solar system except itself.
The Sun, everything but itself.
You're arguing, therefore, that the Earth masses more than the Sun which is patently false.
Not sure how you could get that inference when I said the Sun is probably influenced by much greater masses than those of the Earth?
The Sun's surface gravity is 28 times that of Earth and the magnetic field would be much greater than the Earth too (I have not yet researched this for the actual figures)
Sun's surface gravity = 274 m/sec^2 and the Earth = 9.78 m/sec^2 => 28 times as great.

40. It wouldn't make any difference.
What's being timed is the period of rotation i.e. how long it takes for whatever's used as the "datum" (sunspots are usual I think) to transit the visible arc of the Sun.
Regardless of how slowly the light reaches us, that slowness wouldn't affect the overall time for something to rotate from A to B on the "surface" of the Sun.
All you'd have to do is select a sunspot at a given laititude and time that, then select another at different latitude.
So long as the timings are independent any light speed lag is eliminated as a source of error.

41. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
It wouldn't make any difference.
What's being timed is the period of rotation i.e. how long it takes for whatever's used as the "datum" (sunspots are usual I think) to transit the visible arc of the Sun.
Regardless of how slowly the light reaches us, that slowness wouldn't affect the overall time for something to rotate from A to B on the "surface" of the Sun.
All you'd have to do is select a sunspot at a given laititude and time that, then select another at different latitude.
So long as the timings are independent any light speed lag is eliminated as a source of error.
OK but what causes the equatorial parts to move at a higher rotation rate?

42. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I cannot see the logic here. "everything but" and "everything except" mean the same thing.
Correct.
The Earth is subject to gravity from Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and the Sun.
The Sun is subject to gravity from Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

I.e. they are both subject to the same gravitational influences with one difference: Earth has to contend with the Sun but not itself, the Sun with Earth but not itself.
So, simplifying (since you obviously need it), the Earth is subject to gravity from (X plus the Sun), and the Sun to (X plus Earth). (X, of course, being everything in the Solar system except Earth and the Sun).
Which do you think is thus influenced more?
Which is subjected to "greater masses"?
The ONLY way the Sun could be the one is if Earth massed more than the Sun.
Duck - I said I think the Sun is subject to greater masses than the Earth, and its own solar sysem (which revolve around it, for it has the greatest mass in that system) - Like the Galaxy for intance. There is probably a massive black hole in the galaxy?

43. Thanks Dywyddyr. It's got me beat.....*scratches head*

44. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Duck - I said I think the Sun is subject to greater masses than the Earth
And I showed that you're wrong.

and its own solar sysem (which revolve around it, for it has the greatest mass in that system) - Like the Galaxy for intance. There is probably a massive black hole in the galaxy?
And you think that the Earth isn't ALSO subject to "the Galaxy" or that black hole?
All we have to do is extend the definition of X to mean "everything in the universe that could possibly have an influence - including the unicorns, pixies and Elvis 1 - except the Sun and Earth".
They are BOTH in the Solar system. And the galaxy. And the universe.
To think that either is subject to gravitational influence that the other isn't (excluding themselves on themselves) is inventing your own cosmology.

1 Because he's not on Earth any more and thus doesn't count as part of overall Earth.

45. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
It wouldn't make any difference.
What's being timed is the period of rotation i.e. how long it takes for whatever's used as the "datum" (sunspots are usual I think) to transit the visible arc of the Sun.
Regardless of how slowly the light reaches us, that slowness wouldn't affect the overall time for something to rotate from A to B on the "surface" of the Sun.
All you'd have to do is select a sunspot at a given laititude and time that, then select another at different latitude.
So long as the timings are independent any light speed lag is eliminated as a source of error.
OK but what causes the equatorial parts to move at a higher rotation rate?
If the Earth rotates around a NORTH/SOUTH pole, the center of the circumference has the greatest distance to travel in every revolution and travels the greatest distance in the same time frame.

46. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
It wouldn't make any difference.
What's being timed is the period of rotation i.e. how long it takes for whatever's used as the "datum" (sunspots are usual I think) to transit the visible arc of the Sun.
Regardless of how slowly the light reaches us, that slowness wouldn't affect the overall time for something to rotate from A to B on the "surface" of the Sun.
All you'd have to do is select a sunspot at a given laititude and time that, then select another at different latitude.
So long as the timings are independent any light speed lag is eliminated as a source of error.
OK but what causes the equatorial parts to move at a higher rotation rate?
If the Earth rotates around a NORTH/SOUTH pole, the center of the circumference has the greatest distance to travel in every revolution and travels the greatest distance in the same time frame.
That is the not the speed we are discussing. Is is the speed of rotation not their instantaneous velocity.

47. Originally Posted by Mayflow
If the Earth rotates around a NORTH/SOUTH pole, the center of the circumference has the greatest distance to travel in every revolution and travels the greatest distance in the same time frame.
Which part of "how long it takes for whatever's used as the "datum" (sunspots are usual I think) to transit the visible arc of the Sun" did you not understand?
Regardless of radius of rotation, on planets and all other objects (the Sun - and presumably other stars - excepted) any given point on the surface takes the same time to do a full rotation as all other points.
That's why it's a 24 hr day on Earth wherever you live.

48. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Duck - I said I think the Sun is subject to greater masses than the Earth
And I showed that you're wrong.

and its own solar sysem (which revolve around it, for it has the greatest mass in that system) - Like the Galaxy for intance. There is probably a massive black hole in the galaxy?
And you think that the Earth isn't ALSO subject to "the Galaxy" or that black hole?
All we have to do is extend the definition of X to mean "everything in the universe that could possibly have an influence - including the unicorns, pixies and Elvis 1 - except the Sun and Earth".
They are BOTH in the Solar system. And the galaxy. And the universe.
To think that either is subject to gravitational influence that the other isn't (excluding themselves on themselves) is inventing your own cosmology.

1 Because he's not on Earth any more and thus doesn't count as part of overall Earth.
Not on Earth anymore? Was he beamed into the sky? I figure if he was buried he is still on earth, but if cremated probably not on the earth iself but probably still in the atmosphere? - how did this turn into a discussion about Elvis? - Granted I love "Don't be Cruel" and "Good Luck Charm". I am not known for staying on topic, but I can take seeming Unicorns and since to me all of everything inter relates - and fit them into my mind sets.

The gravitational effects of the Earth are small towards those of the Sun - time changes things, and the Sun will one day not shine - does it's gravity change if it becomes a white dwarf or a red giant?

49. Here we go guys. Found something useful about giant convection cells https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...s-plasma-flows

50. Originally Posted by Mayflow
I am not known for staying on topic.
You're not known for your incisive grasp of science either.
Do you accept that you were wrong, or do you want carry on making (ridiculous) objections?

51.

52. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I am not known for staying on topic.
You're not known for your incisive grasp of science either.
Do you accept that you were wrong, or do you want carry on making (ridiculous) objections?
You will have to remind me what you you think I was wrong about and what you think I was objecting to. I still am mystified how you could turn me saying that the Sun must be subject to much greater masses than the Earth into me saying that the Earth has greater mass than the Sun?

53. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I am not known for staying on topic.
You're not known for your incisive grasp of science either.
Do you accept that you were wrong, or do you want carry on making (ridiculous) objections?
How about discussing the science and leaving Mayflow alone? What did you think of the plasma flows?

54. Originally Posted by Mayflow
You will have to remind me what you you think I was wrong about
the Sun must be subject to much greater masses than the Earth
The Sun is subject to the masses of everything in the universe except the Sun.
The Earth is subject to the masses of everything in the universe except itself.
Thus, if the Sun is subject to greater masses than the Earth, the ONLY possible way is for the Earth to mass more than the Sun.

One more time: X is "everything except Sun and Earth".
Your claim is that Sun is subject to mass greater than the Earth is.
The Sun is subjected to (X+Earth).
The Earth is subject to (X+Sun).
Thus, by your "reasoning" (X+Sun) is less than (X+Earth).
The Xs cancels out, leaving "Sun is less than Earth".
Which is wrong.

55. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I am not known for staying on topic.
You're not known for your incisive grasp of science either.
Do you accept that you were wrong, or do you want carry on making (ridiculous) objections?
You will have to remind me what you you think I was wrong about and what you think I was objecting to. I still am mystified how you could turn me saying that the Sun must be subject to much greater masses than the Earth into me saying that the Earth has greater mass than the Sun?
Put him on ignore Mayflow.

56. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Put him on ignore Mayflow.
Yeah.
It's be much easier than understanding why she's wrong, wouldn't it?

57. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Put him on ignore Mayflow.
Yeah.
It's be much easier than understanding why she's wrong, wouldn't it?
We can all tell she is wrong scientifically but why make a song and dance about it, old chap.

58. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
We can all tell she is wrong scientifically but why make a song and dance about it, old chap.
Because she's also wrong in her assertions/ suppositions and her "thinking".
(And - much like you - frustratingly obtuse when it comes grasping the basics of logic).

59. I will re enter the conversation to attempt to help.. Not any ridicule or remark of what others have interpreted from this..
To picture a why to the question asked.. As I understood it;
~ That the apparent rotational velocity of the equatorial region is much faster than nearer to the poles of the Sun..
Image the ice skater spinning on her toe.. her rotational velocity increases as she pulls her arms in.. That as the young solar mass first formed and coalesced into the Sun we now know.. That it's a gaseous mass through out.
~ Image that in your mind and sleep will envelope you peacefully... Zzz... Mark.

60. Originally Posted by astromark
I will re enter the conversation to attempt to help.. Not any ridicule or remark of what others have interpreted from this..
To picture a why to the question asked.. As I understood it;
~ That the apparent rotational velocity of the equatorial region is much faster than nearer to the poles of the Sun..
Image the ice skater spinning on her toe.. her rotational velocity increases as she pulls her arms in.. That as the young solar mass first formed and coalesced into the Sun we now know.. That it's a gaseous mass through out.
~ Image that in your mind and sleep will envelope you peacefully... Zzz... Mark.
No it is not as simple as that sorry. If that was the case the Sun would be spinning much much faster than it does.

61. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
We can all tell she is wrong scientifically but why make a song and dance about it, old chap.
Because she's also wrong in her assertions/ suppositions and her "thinking".
(And - much like you - frustratingly obtuse when it comes grasping the basics of logic).
It must be so difficult when you are a genius. Her thinking is rather terrible but let's keep to the topic.

62. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I cannot see the logic here. "everything but" and "everything except" mean the same thing.
Correct.
The Earth is subject to gravity from Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and the Sun.
The Sun is subject to gravity from Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

I.e. they are both subject to the same gravitational influences with one difference: Earth has to contend with the Sun but not itself, the Sun with Earth but not itself.
So, simplifying (since you obviously need it), the Earth is subject to gravity from (X plus the Sun), and the Sun to (X plus Earth). (X, of course, being everything in the Solar system except Earth and the Sun).
Which do you think is thus influenced more?
Which is subjected to "greater masses"?
The ONLY way the Sun could be the one is if Earth massed more than the Sun.
Duck, I mean isn't the sun subjected to greater masses outside of the solar system that orbits around it? There are also maybe other forces which we are either not aware of yet or only dimly aware of, such as maybe dark energy - which may relate to the theory of a cosmological constant.

63. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by astromark
I will re enter the conversation to attempt to help.. Not any ridicule or remark of what others have interpreted from this..
To picture a why to the question asked.. As I understood it;
~ That the apparent rotational velocity of the equatorial region is much faster than nearer to the poles of the Sun..
Image the ice skater spinning on her toe.. her rotational velocity increases as she pulls her arms in.. That as the young solar mass first formed and coalesced into the Sun we now know.. That it's a gaseous mass through out.
~ Image that in your mind and sleep will envelope you peacefully... Zzz... Mark.
No it is not as simple as that sorry. If that was the case the Sun would be spinning much much faster than it does.
Wrong... It is as found.. because it is as found. Rotational velocities balanced against mass of object and rotational velocities..
Stop looking for what is not real.

64. Originally Posted by astromark
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by astromark
I will re enter the conversation to attempt to help.. Not any ridicule or remark of what others have interpreted from this..
To picture a why to the question asked.. As I understood it;
~ That the apparent rotational velocity of the equatorial region is much faster than nearer to the poles of the Sun..
Image the ice skater spinning on her toe.. her rotational velocity increases as she pulls her arms in.. That as the young solar mass first formed and coalesced into the Sun we now know.. That it's a gaseous mass through out.
~ Image that in your mind and sleep will envelope you peacefully... Zzz... Mark.
No it is not as simple as that sorry. If that was the case the Sun would be spinning much much faster than it does.
Wrong... It is as found.. because it is as found. Rotational velocities balanced against mass of object and rotational velocities..
Stop looking for what is not real.
Wrong again. The Sun had to lose momentum as it pulled itself in. It wasn't a matter of of just balancing mass and object rotational velocities. And we weren't talking about conservation of angular momentum either.

65. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Duck, I mean isn't the sun subjected to greater masses outside of the solar system that orbits around it?
It is not, and CANNOT, be subjected to those masses without the Earth ALSO being affected by them.
Which part of "entire universe" do you not understand?

There are also maybe other forces which we are either not aware of yet or only dimly aware of, such as maybe dark energy - which may relate to the theory of a cosmological constant.
Right.
Hand-wavey crap.

66. This is what Wikipedia has to say:
Since the Sun consists of a plasma and is not solid, it rotates faster at its equator than at its poles. This behavior is known asdifferential rotation and is caused by convection in the Sun and the movement of mass, due to steep temperature gradientsfrom the core outwards. This mass carries a portion of the Sun’s counter-clockwise angular momentum (as viewed from the ecliptic north pole), thus redistributing the angular velocity. The period of this actual rotation is approximately 25.6 days at the equator and 33.5 days at the poles.
So as I understand that is that the plasma is heated deep within the Sun but as it thermally moves up to the surface for some reason it ends up turning to the "counter-clockwise" direction.
I would them propose that the friction of this large body of plasma moving in that direction is slowed by the main mass of the Sun so the plasma on the surface isn't continually accelerated. The transfer of energy back from the surface to the body of the Sun assists in keeping the Sun spinning.
But the question that needs a simple answer is why does it turn to in the "counter-clockwise" direction? Previously I assumed it was to do with conservation of kinetic energy. If the heating of the Sun ultimately slowed the rotation of the Sun then you would have a another problem explaining the loss of kinetic energy.

The problem with this explanation is the turning to the "counter-clockwise" direction, i.e. it seems to break the the rules of relative motion. For on Earth if we see a plume of steam rising and it hits the ceiling it spreads to all directions not just to the easterly direction.

67. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
This is what Wikipedia has to say:
Since the Sun consists of a plasma and is not solid, it rotates faster at its equator than at its poles. This behavior is known asdifferential rotation and is caused by convection in the Sun and the movement of mass, due to steep temperature gradientsfrom the core outwards. This mass carries a portion of the Sun’s counter-clockwise angular momentum (as viewed from the ecliptic north pole), thus redistributing the angular velocity. The period of this actual rotation is approximately 25.6 days at the equator and 33.5 days at the poles.
So as I understand that is that the plasma is heated deep within the Sun but as it thermally moves up to the surface for some reason it ends up turning to the "counter-clockwise" direction.
I would them propose that the friction of this large body of plasma moving in that direction is slowed by the main mass of the Sun so the plasma on the surface isn't continually accelerated. The transfer of energy back from the surface to the body of the Sun assists in keeping the Sun spinning.
But the question that needs a simple answer is why does it turn to in the "counter-clockwise" direction? Previously I assumed it was to do with conservation of kinetic energy. If the heating of the Sun ultimately slowed the rotation of the Sun then you would have a another problem explaining the loss of kinetic energy.

The problem with this explanation is the turning to the "counter-clockwise" direction, i.e. it seems to break the the rules of relative motion. For on Earth if we see a plume of steam rising and it hits the ceiling it spreads to all directions not just to the easterly direction.
Well was Astromark on the right track after all? Sun's Ripples Reveal Clues to the Core
Sun's Ripples Reveal Clues to the Core
"The core of the Sun seems to rotate about three to five times faster on average," Garcia told LiveScience.

Current theories of solar formation suggest the original cloud of matter that gave rise to the solar system had a high rate of rotation, a remnant of which "could exist in the deepest regions of the Sun," Garcia said. "It seems that the solar core rotation is slower than expected by those theories," he added.

68. Apparently no-one's bothered to read either of the links I gave in post #50.

69. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Apparently no-one's bothered to read either of the links I gave in post #50.
Must have missed it, but it was much the same as IO's post #48, which I had already looked at. The science was a bit to hard for me sorry but the end statement summed it up
The convergence, at the equator, of the southward transport in the north and the northward transport in the south helps to maintain the Sun’s rapidly rotating equator.

70. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Apparently no-one's bothered to read either of the links I gave in post #50.
Heh.....I did. But then again I have always been a no-one...*sobs hysterically*. I might just go away and ring those bells.

71. Originally Posted by Implicate Order
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Apparently no-one's bothered to read either of the links I gave in post #50.
Heh.....I did. But then again I have always been a no-one...*sobs hysterically*. I might just go away and ring those bells.
We can ring bells! Er, is ringing bells fun and good for us? I probably should not ask this, but what does Implicate order mean?

72. Originally Posted by Mayflow
We can ring bells! Er, is ringing bells fun and good for us? I probably should not ask this, but what does Implicate order mean?
It was a feeble cry from the bell tower of Notre Dame. Where is my Esmerelda?....*continues sobbing* :-)

73. Originally Posted by Implicate Order
Originally Posted by Mayflow
We can ring bells! Er, is ringing bells fun and good for us? I probably should not ask this, but what does Implicate order mean?
It was a feeble cry from the bell tower of Notre Dame. Where is my Esmerelda?....*continues sobbing* :-)
Oh my gosh. Implicate order means different people seeing things from different perpectives then? Don't sob, Esmeralda is fluttering around as a hummingbird now. As attractive as ever.

I hear she has a deep and unrequited love that is forever and makes her eternal. It is rare to find such a Sunburst as her. I am not actually familiar with the story - is it a bit like Beauty and the Beast?

Incidentally, the center of the sun seems to us to rotate like a more solid thingy, but the surface seems to be more plasma like and it seems plasma is more fluid.

74. Please forgive my religious quote if you are an atheist. I study many sciences in the University of Guelph as well as theology, anthropology, quantum and nano science, and more.

17Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, "Come, assemble for the great supper of God,18so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great."…

It has been 'theorized' that the Sun's rays eventually reach every point in time and space, and travels to and from every point in creation. Past, present and future, omnipresently. Eventually to be collected by a black hole, and places every moment at the same point in time and space. This collection has within it every form of knowledge and creation ever created, and has within it Infinite Potential. The void space before creation began, and every moment of creation's expanse. it has been said that the focus on light can produce a two way channel to and from every being that every existed in order to channel or harness any realization, or any life within the totality of creation. This theory is omnipresent time theory, eternalism theory, infinite potential theory, as well as time travel theory.

it has been seen in quantum science that everything is made up of the energies of creation and annihilation, and together they create every way shape and form possible within creation. Through the energies of death, or negative value, contraction, and collection (fission and fusion) all points in time, all outcomes of the potential of creation are met and collected simultaneously in one place. Every vector of light is reached as well as contained within itself.

75. Originally Posted by Mayflow
...Incidentally, the center of the sun seems to us to rotate like a more solid thingy, but the surface seems to be more plasma like and it seems plasma is more fluid.
I would feel uncomfortable if I agreed with that, as if after 5 billion years the core of the Sun is still spinning 3-5 times faster that the surface, what sort of machine does that? Can it be that friction free? Or is it being powered by some force?

76. Originally Posted by serloco
Please forgive my religious quote if you are an atheist. I study many sciences in the University of Guelph as well as theology, anthropology, quantum and nano science, and more.

17Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, "Come, assemble for the great supper of God,18so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great."…

It has been 'theorized' that the Sun's rays eventually reach every point in time and space, and travels to and from every point in creation. Past, present and future, omnipresently. Eventually to be collected by a black hole, and places every moment at the same point in time and space. This collection has within it every form of knowledge and creation ever created, and has within it Infinite Potential. The void space before creation began, and every moment of creation's expanse. it has been said that the focus on light can produce a two way channel to and from every being that every existed in order to channel or harness any realization, or any life within the totality of creation. This theory is omnipresent time theory, eternalism theory, infinite potential theory, as well as time travel theory.

it has been seen in quantum science that everything is made up of the energies of creation and annihilation, and together they create every way shape and form possible within creation. Through the energies of death, or negative value, contraction, and collection (fission and fusion) all points in time, all outcomes of the potential of creation are met and collected simultaneously in one place. Every vector of light is reached as well as contained within itself.
How did that relate to the topic? You'll get your chance to blow your trumpet at the right time.

77. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by serloco
Please forgive my religious quote if you are an atheist. I study many sciences in the University of Guelph as well as theology, anthropology, quantum and nano science, and more.

17Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, "Come, assemble for the great supper of God,18so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great."…

It has been 'theorized' that the Sun's rays eventually reach every point in time and space, and travels to and from every point in creation. Past, present and future, omnipresently. Eventually to be collected by a black hole, and places every moment at the same point in time and space. This collection has within it every form of knowledge and creation ever created, and has within it Infinite Potential. The void space before creation began, and every moment of creation's expanse. it has been said that the focus on light can produce a two way channel to and from every being that every existed in order to channel or harness any realization, or any life within the totality of creation. This theory is omnipresent time theory, eternalism theory, infinite potential theory, as well as time travel theory.

it has been seen in quantum science that everything is made up of the energies of creation and annihilation, and together they create every way shape and form possible within creation. Through the energies of death, or negative value, contraction, and collection (fission and fusion) all points in time, all outcomes of the potential of creation are met and collected simultaneously in one place. Every vector of light is reached as well as contained within itself.
How did that relate to the topic? You'll get your chance to blow your trumpet at the right time.
Well I am not a follower of traditional astrology and consmology, heh. I'll leave my knowledge out of this for now. However different rates of spin axis create different velocities, vectors of the sun's rays, to reach different position, point, outcome and places, so to spread, expand, through this fission, to every possibility, as well as the reactions present within every single ray's trajectory cause and need these different rates, to and from its source.

This is leading to the advancements in the field of spintronics, (spinelectronics or fluxtronics).

the angel was in the sun, seeing it for what it was, and shouting out about what he saw and learned, of this feasting sun of God.

But yes thank you, trumpets indeed, yet I find it hard to remain silent, it's just who I am.

78. Originally Posted by serloco
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
...
How did that relate to the topic? You'll get your chance to blow your trumpet at the right time.
Well I am not a follower of traditional astrology and consmology, heh. I'll leave my knowledge out of this for now. However different rates of spin axis create different velocities, vectors of the sun's rays, to reach different position, point, outcome and places, so to spread, expand, through this fission, to every possibility, as well as the reactions present within every single ray's trajectory cause and need these different rates, to and from its source.

This is leading to the advancements in the field of spintronics, (spinelectronics or fluxtronics).

the angel was in the sun, seeing it for what it was, and shouting out about what he saw and learned, of this feasting sun of God.

But yes thank you, trumpets indeed, yet I find it hard to remain silent, it's just who I am.
Give a baby a drum or a trumpet, there will be a noise, but I wouldn't call it music to my ears.

79. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by serloco
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
...
How did that relate to the topic? You'll get your chance to blow your trumpet at the right time.
Well I am not a follower of traditional astrology and consmology, heh. I'll leave my knowledge out of this for now. However different rates of spin axis create different velocities, vectors of the sun's rays, to reach different position, point, outcome and places, so to spread, expand, through this fission, to every possibility, as well as the reactions present within every single ray's trajectory cause and need these different rates, to and from its source.

This is leading to the advancements in the field of spintronics, (spinelectronics or fluxtronics).

the angel was in the sun, seeing it for what it was, and shouting out about what he saw and learned, of this feasting sun of God.

But yes thank you, trumpets indeed, yet I find it hard to remain silent, it's just who I am.
Give a baby a drum or a trumpet, there will be a noise, but I wouldn't call it music to my ears.
Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder isn't it? Seek and you shall find. Reap and you will surely sow that which you reap. That which one measures others will too be measured onto oneself.

Omnipreence? Omnipotency? Total freedom to be anywhere at any time, be anyone, and create any life and way? yeah thats just noise, aweful racket for sure... lol (rolls eyes)

Personally I can see nothing but beauty when seeing a baby learning music, and the joy within them inspires me greatly! Each to their own.

80. Originally Posted by serloco
Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Give a baby a drum or a trumpet, there will be a noise, but I wouldn't call it music to my ears.
Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder isn't it? Seek and you shall find. Reap and you will surely sow that which you reap. That which one measures others will too be measured onto oneself.

Personally I can see nothing but beauty when seeing a baby learning music, and the joy within them inspires me greatly! Each to their own.
Have you had kids? If you sow thistles you'll get pricked when you harvest. There is a time and place for everything but quotes from Revelation just was right out of place.

81. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Have you had kids? If you sow thistles you'll get pricked when you harvest. There is a time and place for everything but quotes from Revelation just was right out of place.
For you perhaps, but not for all. With my eyes I can see the direct relevance. I can see interconnection plainly, and in all things, especially from a theological text containing wisdom of the Sun, in which this thread is about. Perhaps because I was 'blessed' with a measuring stick of creation, or eyes that see clearly that which is.

Science and God should not be made separate.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” - Albert Einstein.

"all things prove; that which is good hold fast";or "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good". ~1 Thessalonians 5:21

Omnipresence? Omnipotency? Total freedom to be anywhere at any time, be anyone, and create any life and way? yeah thats just noise, aweful racket for sure... lol (rolls eyes)

82. Originally Posted by serloco
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Have you had kids? If you sow thistles you'll get pricked when you harvest. There is a time and place for everything but quotes from Revelation just was right out of place.
For you perhaps, but not for all. With my eyes I can see the direct relevance. I can see interconnection plainly, and in all things, especially from a theological text containing wisdom of the Sun, in which this thread is about. Perhaps because I was 'blessed' with a measuring stick of creation, or eyes that see clearly that which is.

Science and God should not be made separate.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” - Albert Einstein.

"all things prove; that which is good hold fast";or "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good". ~1 Thessalonians 5:21

Omnipresence? Omnipotency? Total freedom to be anywhere at any time, be anyone, and create any life and way? yeah thats just noise, aweful racket for sure... lol (rolls eyes)
You are wearing your starry-eyed rose-tinted glasses today are you?

83. Originally Posted by serloco

Omnipresence? Omnipotency? Total freedom to be anywhere at any time, be anyone, and create any life and way?
and in connection to this

Originally Posted by Robittybob1
You are wearing your starry-eyed rose-tinted glasses today are you?
Brings me to my answer here.

"Each of these living beings had six wings, and their wings were covered all over with eyes, inside and out.". -Revelations 4:8

and this

I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure
the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers.- Rev 11:1

I'll leave it to you if you want to connect the dots here, to see the relevance, if you can see it.

84. Originally Posted by serloco
Originally Posted by serloco

Omnipresence? Omnipotency? Total freedom to be anywhere at any time, be anyone, and create any life and way?
and in connection to this

Originally Posted by Robittybob1
You are wearing your starry-eyed rose-tinted glasses today are you?
Brings me to my answer here.

"Each of these living beings had six wings, and their wings were covered all over with eyes, inside and out.". -Revelations 4:8

and this

I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure
the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers.- Rev 11:1

I'll leave it to you if you want to connect the dots here, to see the relevance, if you can see it.
Are you the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland?

85. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Are you the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland?

but for you I made the time... Good thing I am not stuck a 6:00 forever! Or maybe I am stuck in every time forever..........

Wings are used to travel from one point in creation to another swiftly, and different wings come in different forms, made of various forms of knowledge. interdimensional wings, time-travel wings (before and after creation, all all points within creation as well), wings for 'present travel within the earth plane, from city to city' to name a few. The eyes see clearly these wings, how they are formed, and how to use them. hence eyes inside and out and all over the wings. The reed, or read, refers to the measuring rod, which is also 'eyes' that see or measure the creations present, all creations within the temple of God, as well as the followers. To measure and see, to understand the actual essence of what is, and what the creations are made of, and do. Different forms of eyes exist, seeing varying aspects of creation depending on the eyes. Which is why many angels, beasts, etc, often have many sets of different eyes.

86. Take her to warp 10 Jordi!

87. Warp 11 Scotty - but don't overheat the alcubierre drive.

88. Originally Posted by serloco
Please forgive my religious quote if you are an atheist. I study many sciences in the University of Guelph as well as theology, anthropology, quantum and nano science, and more.

17Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, "Come, assemble for the great supper of God,18so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great."…

It has been 'theorized' that the Sun's rays eventually reach every point in time and space, and travels to and from every point in creation. Past, present and future, omnipresently. Eventually to be collected by a black hole, and places every moment at the same point in time and space. This collection has within it every form of knowledge and creation ever created, and has within it Infinite Potential. The void space before creation began, and every moment of creation's expanse. it has been said that the focus on light can produce a two way channel to and from every being that every existed in order to channel or harness any realization, or any life within the totality of creation. This theory is omnipresent time theory, eternalism theory, infinite potential theory, as well as time travel theory.

it has been seen in quantum science that everything is made up of the energies of creation and annihilation, and together they create every way shape and form possible within creation. Through the energies of death, or negative value, contraction, and collection (fission and fusion) all points in time, all outcomes of the potential of creation are met and collected simultaneously in one place. Every vector of light is reached as well as contained within itself.
This is sheer nonsense.
Please keep it well out of the actual science sub-fora.

89. Perhaps because I was 'blessed' with a measuring stick of creation, or eyes that see clearly that which is.
Or unbalanced psychoactive substance levels.

90. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by serloco
Please forgive my religious quote if you are an atheist. I study many sciences in the University of Guelph as well as theology, anthropology, quantum and nano science, and more.

17Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, "Come, assemble for the great supper of God,18so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great."…

It has been 'theorized' that the Sun's rays eventually reach every point in time and space, and travels to and from every point in creation. Past, present and future, omnipresently. Eventually to be collected by a black hole, and places every moment at the same point in time and space. This collection has within it every form of knowledge and creation ever created, and has within it Infinite Potential. The void space before creation began, and every moment of creation's expanse. it has been said that the focus on light can produce a two way channel to and from every being that every existed in order to channel or harness any realization, or any life within the totality of creation. This theory is omnipresent time theory, eternalism theory, infinite potential theory, as well as time travel theory.

it has been seen in quantum science that everything is made up of the energies of creation and annihilation, and together they create every way shape and form possible within creation. Through the energies of death, or negative value, contraction, and collection (fission and fusion) all points in time, all outcomes of the potential of creation are met and collected simultaneously in one place. Every vector of light is reached as well as contained within itself.
This is sheer nonsense.
Please keep it well out of the actual science sub-fora.
Well I think your awareness is pure garbage actually. And all the limitations you support as well. When I had I my aptitude and IQ tests and full evaluation done the doctors told me they had NEVER seen such a high score ever in their experience. That's MY awareness level.

What I post defined folds in time and space, using absence, or void matter, masslessness, between any and every point of time and space, creating a superfold, or superevent horizon, between every time and creation. Anything can be transformed into anything using my awareness and knowledge. And I actually practice these things. You though, are left not knowing, and claiming my real life is a lie, bounded by your laws, your limitations, and relying on others to set the way for you blindly.

91. When I had I my aptitude and IQ tests and full evaluation done the doctors told me they had NEVER seen such a high score ever in their experience. That's MY awareness level.
Just another religious crank.

92. Originally Posted by AlexG
Perhaps because I was 'blessed' with a measuring stick of creation, or eyes that see clearly that which is.
Or unbalanced psychoactive substance levels.
Right, coming from someone who's signature quote refers to an inability to redefine the values and dimensions of their reality. Again negative value, or 0, can be assigned to any new value. Not to mention your sig also refers to an inability to merge multiple dimensional states into one state, as well as be present in different dimensions simultaneously. Also an inability to be present in one dimensions while speaking and relating to someone else in anotehr dimension. It's pathetic to me, shallow, weak, unevolved.

93. Crankhood hath no remedy.

94. Originally Posted by AlexG
When I had I my aptitude and IQ tests and full evaluation done the doctors told me they had NEVER seen such a high score ever in their experience. That's MY awareness level.
Just another religious crank.
So was Einstein. Yet you are captive in your stereotypes and judgements, a slave to them. And so when someone says three posts only about theology you have to insult them. Besides I am actually not religious although I believe and follow a God, a creator and all knowing presence. I do not preach. By the way have you ever heard of why people insult other people? It's worth checking out, it may help ease your insecurity, remove some of your pity, and self-importance.

95. Originally Posted by AlexG
Crankhood hath no remedy.
For you no, I can imagine you would be hard pressed to find any remedy or cure. First you would have to believe in one.

96. Besides I am actually not religious although I believe and follow a God, a creator and all knowing presence. I do not preach.

97. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Warp 11 Scotty - but don't overheat the alcubierre drive.

Exactly, it's what i am referring to when I speak of negative value to exceed light speed, and fold space. and my exact wording of contraction. These guys here are lame, and stuck in the past, while I am already in the future, setting it. Reminds me of all the greats being dejected by the limits of their day by the peope around them.

Great spirits always encounter hostile resistance from mediocre minds _ Albert Einstein.

btw i didn't know what that drive was, and had to google it just to see it is about what i have been speaking about! Thanks.

98. Originally Posted by AlexG
Besides I am actually not religious although I believe and follow a God, a creator and all knowing presence. I do not preach.
AlexG.. good come backs. i can see the vastness and fluidity, the agility of your mind in motion and WOW! You came up with the same thing twice even, the same thing in your anti-crank statement under your avatar. I'm impressed at your mental agility! Very clever you are, cunning. A smiliy this time! I'm blown away, truly. A broad and expansive scope you have here. I give up man, you win!

99. Crank gets 50 points for comparing himself to Einstein.

100. Thread has degenerated into a trolling contest. Locked.

101. Good move Harold, but for those who actually care about the question and answer, here is the abstract of one of the links provided by the Duck. Please note this is a hypothesis based on specific observations and calculations and is some distance from being well established.

Based on a simple force balance analysis, we propose presence of polarward temperature gradient at the bottom of solar convenction zone due to additional inward magnetic force acting on the lower latitude boundary of convection zone and radiative zone (i.e., the upper part of tachocline). The polarward temperature gradient in a rotational star can trigger (1) an easterly wind to cause latitudinal differential rotation and (2) Rossby waves as well as horizontal circulations on two sides of the Rossby wave. We found that many observed structures and characteristics of prominences, magnetic clouds, Alfven waves, rotational discontinuities, and acceleration of solar wind in the polar coronal hole can be explained based on the presence of these circulations and Rossby waves. Our analysis also indicates an equatorward temperature gradient in the lower part of tachocline, which can result in a westerly wind in the middle latitude of this region. This result is consistent with observed differential rotation profile in the tachocline region. Variations of differential rotation and solar cycle will also be discussed.

The Duck's second link, repeated here, is more recent and more convincing, but I'd like to wait five years for reaction and counter-reaction to the hypothesis to sort itself out.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement