Thread: Attiyah's Zodiacal Light

Attiyah's Zodiacal Light

Attiyah's zodiacal light theory is four propositions:

1- Due to its contents of the plasma and different systems of electric currents, including the ring current, the Earth's magnetic tail forms a theatre rich in continuous electric discharges and magnetic field-plasma reactions.

2- The zodiacal light is due mainly to the electric discharges that occur continuously in the Earth's magnetic tail.

3- The major portion of the zodiacal light is generated in the plasma sheet.

4- Only very small ratio of the zodiacal light is solar light reflected from on the plasma contents of the tail especially the plasma sheet.


N.B.

According to Attiyah's Zodical Light Theory, the gegenschein is produced mainly in the neutral sheet of the magnetic tail. An effective system of electric currents flows in this region.

This is nonsense. The zodiacal light is scattered light from dust particles in the plane of the solar system. It is clearly aligned with it. You can see it - if you are lucky - a few hours after sunset in the direction of the ecliptic.

Nut job.[img][/img]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap990625.html

Explanation: If you look carefully enough, you can even see the glow of the Sun in the opposite direction. At night this glow is known as the gegenschein (German for "counter glow"), and can be seen as a faint glow in an extremely dark sky, as pictured above. The gegenschein is sunlight back-scattered off small dust particles. These dust particles are millimeter sized splinters from asteroids and orbit in the ecliptic plane of the planets. The gegenschein is distinguished from zodiacal light by the high angle of reflection. At day, a phenomenon similar to the gegenschien called the glory can be seen in clouds opposite the Sun from an airplane.

How do NASA's scientists justify that the asteroids themselves couldn't be seen by the naked eye while a dust splintered from them could be seen?

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap990625.html

Explanation: If you look carefully enough, you can even see the glow of the Sun in the opposite direction. At night this glow is known as the gegenschein (German for "counter glow"), and can be seen as a faint glow in an extremely dark sky, as pictured above. The gegenschein is sunlight back-scattered off small dust particles. These dust particles are millimeter sized splinters from asteroids and orbit in the ecliptic plane of the planets. The gegenschein is distinguished from zodiacal light by the high angle of reflection. At day, a phenomenon similar to the gegenschien called the glory can be seen in clouds opposite the Sun from an airplane.

How do NASA's scientists justify that the asteroids themselves couldn't be seen by the naked eye while a dust splintered from them could be seen?

As already mentioned several times: Pictures alone are not evidence. Even more so, when you don't know how they are taken or processed.

If you break up an astroid in many pieces, the sum surface is much larger. This is why it is easier to see. Most of the material is inside or on the opposite side of the asteroid. Of course, you don't see a single dust grain, but millions of them are easy. It is also a matter of size of the particles that can be much smaller than millimetres. The closer the size of the particles reaches the wavelength of the scattered light, the more efficient it is. This applies to the zodiacal light and the gegenschein. Zodiacal light analogues have been observed numerous times toward dust discs around young stars. Explain: Why is it, that mist and fog are seen more easily (even on large distances) than their condesend equivalent of a bucket full of water?

Ah, and by the way: please note that NASA is not the only astronomical organisation in the world. Their interest is manifold, one of which is attract public interest by pretty pictures.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap990625.html

Explanation: If you look carefully enough, you can even see the glow of the Sun in the opposite direction. At night this glow is known as the gegenschein (German for "counter glow"), and can be seen as a faint glow in an extremely dark sky, as pictured above. The gegenschein is sunlight back-scattered off small dust particles. These dust particles are millimeter sized splinters from asteroids and orbit in the ecliptic plane of the planets. The gegenschein is distinguished from zodiacal light by the high angle of reflection. At day, a phenomenon similar to the gegenschien called the glory can be seen in clouds opposite the Sun from an airplane.

How do NASA's scientists justify that the asteroids themselves couldn't be seen by the naked eye while a dust splintered from them could be seen?

As already mentioned several times: Pictures alone are not evidence. Even more so, when you don't know how they are taken or processed.

If you break up an astroid in many pieces, the sum surface is much larger. This is why it is easier to see. Most of the material is inside or on the opposite side of the asteroid. Of course, you don't see a single dust grain, but millions of them are easy. It is also a matter of size of the particles that can be much smaller than millimetres. The closer the size of the particles reaches the wavelength of the scattered light, the more efficient it is. This applies to the zodiacal light and the gegenschein. Zodiacal light analogues have been observed numerous times toward dust discs around young stars. Explain: Why is it, that mist and fog are seen more easily (even on large distances) than their condesend equivalent of a bucket full of water?

Ah, and by the way: please note that NASA is not the only astronomical organisation in the world. Their interest is manifold, one of which is attract public interest by pretty pictures.

You yourself said that you want numbers!
Please show us that the surface size of that dust is so greater than of the asteroids.

That's easy. The volume of a body is proportional to its radius cubed (r^3), the surface is proportional to its radius squared (r^2). Let's keep it easy and take a cube with an edge length of a: Volume=a^3, Surface=6*a^2
The ratio of Volume/Surface is: a/6
This means: The bigger the body, the larger is its volume with regard to its surface. Or for our problem: The smaller a body the larger is its surface in comparison to its volume. But it is even easier. Let's take again a cube with a volume of a^3 and a surface of 6*a^2. Now cut it in half. Then you get two cuboids. Each has a volume of a^2*(a/2)=(a^3)/2, i.e. the sum volume of both cuboids stays the same. But the surface increases. Each cuboid has a surface of 2*a^2+4*a*a/2=4*a^2. So the sum is 8*a^2, bigger than before. Now imagine what happens, if you cut the cuboids down to tiny pieces. Additionally, if you break up an asteroid, all the stuff that is hidden inside and not contributing to its surface, is then visible and has its own surface that can reflect light.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

That's easy. The volume of a body is proportional to its radius cubed (r^3), the surface is proportional to its radius squared (r^2). Let's keep it easy and take a cube with an edge length of a: Volume=a^3, Surface=6*a^2
The ratio of Volume/Surface is: a/6
This means: The bigger the body, the larger is its volume with regard to its surface. Or for our problem: The smaller a body the larger is its surface in comparison to its volume. But it is even easier. Let's take again a cube with a volume of a^3 and a surface of 6*a^2. Now cut it in half. Then you get two cuboids. Each has a volume of a^2*(a/2)=(a^3)/2, i.e. the sum volume of both cuboids stays the same. But the surface increases. Each cuboid has a surface of 2*a^2+4*a*a/2=4*a^2. So the sum is 8*a^2, bigger than before. Now imagine what happens, if you cut the cuboids down to tiny pieces. Additionally, if you break up an asteroid, all the stuff that is hidden inside and not contributing to its surface, is then visible and has its own surface that can reflect light.

Why do you neglect that the geomagnetic tail is rich in plasma dust (dusty plasma)?
Without doubt, you can remember that the size of the particles of the dusty plasma of the geomagnetic tail is as large as that estimated for the interplanetary dust which some people supposed its presence to explain the zodiacal light and gegenschein.

However, the plasma sheet and the tail plasmoids are rich in "clouds" of dusty plasma.

Attiyah,
welcome to the forum. Do you think you could try using a normal sized font and black colour for your posts, except when you wish to emphasise a word or phrase.

It would also be nice if you could acknowledge when a poster has fully addressed one of your questions - as Dishmaster did - rather than launching into yet another question.

Thank you.

Ophiolite

Just wanted to add a few nice images related to this topic.

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p...hot-12-08.html