The absolute distance is strictly irrelevant given this is a relative comparison between two magnetic fields. The one that is 6 orders of magnitude higher will maintain that 6 orders of magnitude difference exactly the same at a distance of 100m as it will at a distance of 100au. That means that the stronger field will maintain the minimum strength required to “guide” particles towards the dipole at a greater distance than the weaker magnetic field would. I feel you if you’re only trying to argue that it would still need to be within some neighborhood of some star to produce an aurora, but your posts read like you’re claiming 6 orders of magnitude on the magnetic field makes no difference on how close that object would need to be to produce an aurora, which is flatly incorrect.
That is correct. It also has nothing to do with the original claim I made and you disagreed with, which is that the object with the greater magnetic field would be able to attract particles from farther away.
Well, that statement is completely incorrect. The magnetic field doesn’t attract particles, which I stated in my earlier comment. It only guides the particles towards the poles, particles which were already headed towards the planet after being emitted. It does not attract particles (pull, in your words) towards the planet that would otherwise miss it had the magnetic field not existed.
In fact, a stronger magnetic field would be a better shield to deflect particles away from a majority of the planet.
The absolute distance is strictly irrelevant given this is a relative comparison between two magnetic fields. The one that is 6 orders of magnitude higher will maintain that 6 orders of magnitude difference exactly the same at a distance of 100m as it will at a distance of 100au. That means that the stronger field will maintain the minimum strength required to “guide” particles towards the dipole at a greater distance than the weaker magnetic field would. I feel you if you’re only trying to argue that it would still need to be within some neighborhood of some star to produce an aurora, but your posts read like you’re claiming 6 orders of magnitude on the magnetic field makes no difference on how close that object would need to be to produce an aurora, which is flatly incorrect.
The absolute distance is extremely relevant to how many particles reach the planet, which in turn is extremely relevant to how bright the aurora is.
That is correct. It also has nothing to do with the original claim I made and you disagreed with, which is that the object with the greater magnetic field would be able to attract particles from farther away.
Well, that statement is completely incorrect. The magnetic field doesn’t attract particles, which I stated in my earlier comment. It only guides the particles towards the poles, particles which were already headed towards the planet after being emitted. It does not attract particles (pull, in your words) towards the planet that would otherwise miss it had the magnetic field not existed.
In fact, a stronger magnetic field would be a better shield to deflect particles away from a majority of the planet.
No star = no charged particles = no lights. Doesn’t matter how big the magnetic field is.
That’s all he’s saying.