This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the parker spiral page were merged into Heliospheric current sheet. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Rhat is probably one of the stupidest analogies i have ever heard. have these people ever seen a ballet? do they know anything about ballet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.3.108.140 ( talk) 13:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I really dont get why they call it a ballerina's skirt: see the examples at Ballet_tutu and at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costume_de_ballet . I think a flamenco dancer's dress (when in motion), is much closer to the idea: Flamenco and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijRrDHeAcTg Phantom in ca ( talk) 09:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I and a few other editors are attempting to gather together the scattered articles dealing with the heliosphere into one big article that takes on the topic whole. The current sheet is an important part of the heliosphere's structure and it seems logical that it be merged. Serendipodous 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, I was wondering if the 'photo' of the heliospheric current sheet is an actual photo of it or is it a representation of the sheet?? If it is a real photograph, where would the sun actually be within this sheet?? I appologize if it is in the article and that I missed it. Mylittlezach ( talk) 20:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The Heliospheric current sheet is described by a number of sources as the largest structure in the heliosphere. Unless you have some sources that say otherwise, this is not ambiguous. If you have a problem with the wording, then by all means clarify it, but leave the meaning. -- Iantresman 00:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It is stated that the current is 5 microTeslas; shouldn't that be 5 nanoT? Chrystomath ( talk) 11:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
68.188.203.251 ( talk) 00:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I note the first reference is to NASA A Star with two North Poles in reference to SC 23 in which there was a period where the two hemispheres of the sun were not in sync and there were two North magnetic poles on the sun. I feel this article had a lot more info to offer. Particularly since the North pole of the sun abrogated 2011 sydneyobservatory.com.au/2011/harry-reports-on-the-latest-exciting-development-on-the-sun-the-disappearance-of-the-magnetic-hole-at-its-north-pole/ Material from LockheedMartin Solar and Astrophysics Lab which has a real time solar page. The material from NASA says the two NP changed the shape of the current sheath to one of a 'conch shell.' That implies there is a change with the sun having two SP. http://lmsal.com/solarsoft/latest_events/ In reading the Nasa 'two NP' I also am confused as to the 'normal' shape of the sheath. A ballerina tutu is a frill of up and down so how it "waviness increased." is beyond me. And the accompanying picture actually shows the sheath nearly flat. Since the cosmic rays flow alongside the sheath, a flatter one means less exposure and the 'shell' a continual bath. Also the info as to the south pointing magnetic field tends to cancel E's own magnetic field has been reversed? Wonder if there is solar info as to past magnetic reversal that also had a delay in hemispheric action? Since we now have both SC 24 and SC 23 with this glitch.
The image at the top of the article ( Heliospheric current sheet) shows a double spiral, having 2 'arms', but the second image ( Parker spiral) shows a single spiral, and the article describes a Parker spiral as a form of Archimedean spiral, which only have 1 'arm'. So which image is correct? I suggest that the other be removed. nagualdesign ( talk) 23:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
hey in the section LITERALLY titles "Ballerina Skirt Spiral" or whatever, y'all introduce this guy "Eugene Parker" and then repeatedly call the Ballerina Skirt Spiral a "Parker Spiral".
idk, it seems kinda odd that it's referred to at the opening of multiple paragraphs as a "Parker Spiral" rather than a "Ballerina Skirt Spiral", while the latter is a rather descriptive term for the spiral sheet, "Parker Spiral" doesn't tell us anything besides some dude named "Parker" had something to do with it. please stop referring to things with rather descriptive names as "X's {object/concept/whatever}" with X being some dude who we don't really talk about that much in the article and who actually didn't even first describe the phenomenon... sure maybe he predicted it based off theoretical models or something, but does that really give him precedent to have hus name slapped all over something that we already headed with a substantially more descriptive title?
just askin 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:9D17:5DED:8873:8522 ( talk) 21:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the parker spiral page were merged into Heliospheric current sheet. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Rhat is probably one of the stupidest analogies i have ever heard. have these people ever seen a ballet? do they know anything about ballet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.3.108.140 ( talk) 13:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I really dont get why they call it a ballerina's skirt: see the examples at Ballet_tutu and at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costume_de_ballet . I think a flamenco dancer's dress (when in motion), is much closer to the idea: Flamenco and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijRrDHeAcTg Phantom in ca ( talk) 09:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I and a few other editors are attempting to gather together the scattered articles dealing with the heliosphere into one big article that takes on the topic whole. The current sheet is an important part of the heliosphere's structure and it seems logical that it be merged. Serendipodous 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, I was wondering if the 'photo' of the heliospheric current sheet is an actual photo of it or is it a representation of the sheet?? If it is a real photograph, where would the sun actually be within this sheet?? I appologize if it is in the article and that I missed it. Mylittlezach ( talk) 20:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The Heliospheric current sheet is described by a number of sources as the largest structure in the heliosphere. Unless you have some sources that say otherwise, this is not ambiguous. If you have a problem with the wording, then by all means clarify it, but leave the meaning. -- Iantresman 00:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It is stated that the current is 5 microTeslas; shouldn't that be 5 nanoT? Chrystomath ( talk) 11:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
68.188.203.251 ( talk) 00:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I note the first reference is to NASA A Star with two North Poles in reference to SC 23 in which there was a period where the two hemispheres of the sun were not in sync and there were two North magnetic poles on the sun. I feel this article had a lot more info to offer. Particularly since the North pole of the sun abrogated 2011 sydneyobservatory.com.au/2011/harry-reports-on-the-latest-exciting-development-on-the-sun-the-disappearance-of-the-magnetic-hole-at-its-north-pole/ Material from LockheedMartin Solar and Astrophysics Lab which has a real time solar page. The material from NASA says the two NP changed the shape of the current sheath to one of a 'conch shell.' That implies there is a change with the sun having two SP. http://lmsal.com/solarsoft/latest_events/ In reading the Nasa 'two NP' I also am confused as to the 'normal' shape of the sheath. A ballerina tutu is a frill of up and down so how it "waviness increased." is beyond me. And the accompanying picture actually shows the sheath nearly flat. Since the cosmic rays flow alongside the sheath, a flatter one means less exposure and the 'shell' a continual bath. Also the info as to the south pointing magnetic field tends to cancel E's own magnetic field has been reversed? Wonder if there is solar info as to past magnetic reversal that also had a delay in hemispheric action? Since we now have both SC 24 and SC 23 with this glitch.
The image at the top of the article ( Heliospheric current sheet) shows a double spiral, having 2 'arms', but the second image ( Parker spiral) shows a single spiral, and the article describes a Parker spiral as a form of Archimedean spiral, which only have 1 'arm'. So which image is correct? I suggest that the other be removed. nagualdesign ( talk) 23:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
hey in the section LITERALLY titles "Ballerina Skirt Spiral" or whatever, y'all introduce this guy "Eugene Parker" and then repeatedly call the Ballerina Skirt Spiral a "Parker Spiral".
idk, it seems kinda odd that it's referred to at the opening of multiple paragraphs as a "Parker Spiral" rather than a "Ballerina Skirt Spiral", while the latter is a rather descriptive term for the spiral sheet, "Parker Spiral" doesn't tell us anything besides some dude named "Parker" had something to do with it. please stop referring to things with rather descriptive names as "X's {object/concept/whatever}" with X being some dude who we don't really talk about that much in the article and who actually didn't even first describe the phenomenon... sure maybe he predicted it based off theoretical models or something, but does that really give him precedent to have hus name slapped all over something that we already headed with a substantially more descriptive title?
just askin 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:9D17:5DED:8873:8522 ( talk) 21:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)