Million-fold increase in the power of waves near Jupiter's moon Ganymede

August 7, 2018, Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres
This natural color view of Ganymede was taken from the Galileo spacecraft during its first encounter with the Jovian moon. North is to the top of the picture and the sun illuminates the surface from the right. The dark areas are the older, more heavily cratered regions and the light areas are younger, tectonically deformed regions. The brownish-gray color is due to mixtures of rocky materials and ice. Bright spots are geologically recent impact craters and their ejecta. The finest details that can be discerned in this picture are about 13.4 km across. The images which combine for this color image were taken 26 June 1996 beginning at Universal Time 8:46:04. Credit: NASA/JPL

Listening to electromagnetic waves around the Earth, converted to sound, is almost like listening to singing and chirping birds at dawn with a crackling campfire nearby. Such waves are therefore called chorus waves. They cause the Northern Lights, but also high-energy 'killer' electrons that can damage spacecraft. In a recent study to be published in Nature Communications, the authors describe extraordinary chorus waves around other planets in our solar system.

The scientists led by Yuri Shprits of GFZ and the University of Potsdam report that the power of waves is 1 million times more intense near the Jovian moon Ganymede, and 100 times more intense near the moon Europa than the average around these planets. These are the new results from a systematic study on Jupiter's wave environment taken from the Galileo spacecraft.

"It's a really surprising and puzzling observation showing that a moon with a can create such a tremendous intensification in the power of waves," says the lead author of the study, Professor Yuri Shprits of GFZ/ University of Potsdam, who is also affiliated with UCLA.

Chorus waves are a special type of radio wave occurring at very low frequencies. Unlike the Earth, Ganymede and Europa orbit inside the giant magnetic field of Jupiter, and the authors believe this is one of the key factors powering the waves. Jupiter's magnetic field is the largest in the solar system, and some 20,000 times stronger than the Earth's.

"Chorus waves have been detected in space around the Earth, but they are nowhere near as strong as the waves at Jupiter," says Professor Richard Horne of British Antarctic Survey, a co-author on the study. "Even if small portion of these waves escapes the immediate vicinity of Ganymede, they will be capable of accelerating particles to very high energies and ultimately producing very fast electrons inside Jupiter's magnetic field."

Jupiter's moon Ganymede was first found to have a magnetic by Professor Margaret Kivelson and her team at the University of California, Los Angeles, and strong plasma waves were first observed near Ganymede by Professor Don Gurnett and his team at the University of Iowa. However, until now, it remained unclear if this was accidental or whether such increases are systematic and significant.

Around Earth, play a major role in producing high-energy 'killer' electrons that can damage spacecraft. The new observations raise the question as to whether they can do the same at Jupiter.

Observations of Jupiter's waves provides a unique opportunity to understand the fundamental processes that are relevant to laboratory plasmas and the quest for , and processes of acceleration and loss around the planets in the solar system. Similar processes may occur in exoplanets orbiting other stars, and the findings of this study may help to detect whether exoplanets have magnetic fields by providing very important observational constraints for theoretical studies to quantify the increase in wave power.

Explore further: Pulsating aurora mysteries uncovered with help from NASA's THEMIS mission

More information: Y. Y. Shprits et al, Strong whistler mode waves observed in the vicinity of Jupiter's moons, Nature Communications (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05431-x

Related Stories

Recommended for you

See a passing comet this Sunday

December 14, 2018

On Sunday, Dec. 16, the comet known as 46P/Wirtanen will make one of the 10 closest comet flybys of Earth in 70 years, and you may even be able to see it without a telescope.

Video: Enjoying the Geminids from above and below

December 14, 2018

On the night of December 13, into the morning of December 14, 2018, tune into the night sky for a dazzling display of fireballs. Thanks to the International Space Station, this sky show – the Geminids meteor shower—will ...

Mars InSight lander seen in first images from space

December 14, 2018

On Nov. 26, NASA's InSight mission knew the spacecraft touched down within an 81-mile-long (130-kilometer-long) landing ellipse on Mars. Now, the team has pinpointed InSight's exact location using images from HiRISE, a powerful ...

38 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rossim22
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 07, 2018
"It's a really surprising and puzzling observation showing that a moon with a magnetic field can create such a tremendous intensification in the power of waves,"


Translation: Standard cosmology has yet again FAILED to predict electromagnetic phenomena in our solar system. Maybe the current paradigm doesn't need to be tweaked, maybe its foundation is just wrong?
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 07, 2018
Translation: Standard cosmology has yet again FAILED to predict electromagnetic phenomena in our solar system. Maybe the current paradigm doesn't need to be tweaked, maybe its foundation is just wrong?
idiot eu cult defender

considering the eu cult abjectly failed to make this prediction as well as failed to make a prediction that would be substantiated by observation, then that makes your own "current paradigm" defending something that is "just wrong", doesn't it?

PS - prediction = https://en.oxford...ediction

it doesn't mean posting an "I told you so" on a news aggregate like PO after the fact
nor does it mean that by linking a study yall don't understand explaining what [insert name here] meant was [insert explanation here] this somehow means [inserted name] was predicting [inserted explanation]

if ya can't do the science, leave it to those who can
rossim22
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018

considering the eu cult abjectly failed to make this prediction as well as failed to make a prediction that would be substantiated by observation, then that makes your own "current paradigm" defending something that is "just wrong", doesn't it?

PS - prediction = https://en.oxford...ediction

it doesn't mean posting an "I told you so" on a news aggregate like PO after the fact
nor does it mean that by linking a study yall don't understand explaining what [insert name here] meant was [insert explanation here] this somehow means [inserted name] was predicting [inserted explanation]

if ya can't do the science, leave it to those who can


I didn't link any study nor did I offer any support for EU theory. I'm just saying the Standard Model vastly failed in this instance and it just so happens to be involving a remarkable electromagnetic phenomenon... yet again.
691Boat
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 07, 2018
I didn't link any study nor did I offer any support for EU theory. I'm just saying the Standard Model vastly failed in this instance and it just so happens to be involving a remarkable electromagnetic phenomenon... yet again.

So any time the standard model doesn't specifically call out or predict in some way any variation or new phenomenon we find, it vastly fails? that's impressive. It's almost like science can't be updated.
Does the standard model tell us at what exact time and direction the next CME will occur? nope. doesn't mean it failed though.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018
@rossim
I didn't link any study nor did I offer any support for EU theory
you have in the past
you will again
the implication is obvious with your "yet again" quip of ignorance (rather, it is stupidity, considering)
I'm just saying the Standard Model vastly failed in this instance and it just so happens to be involving a remarkable electromagnetic phenomenon... yet again
I would point out the abject stupidity of this comment, but @691Boat already beat me to it

at least cantdrive owns his stupidity
john berry_hobbes
4 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2018
Get a life, man. Surely you have something better to do than to argue with complete idiots for 10 years. Yeah, I know. Setting the record straight for the unwary. Hey. No one buys that crap for more than five minutes if they have any intelligence at all. And...how are you going to prove a point to someone with no intelligence? Ever succeed? 10 years. Can you cite ONE posting on here where you made any progress with an EU idiot? Climate denier? Creationist? No. I'm sure you do have a life, though. So, only one conclusion. You like it. QED: You are also a troll.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2018
I'm sure you do have a life, though. So, only one conclusion. You like it
@ohn berry_hobbes
there are other options

why do pseudoscience believers react the way they do?
why do they cling to a belief regardless of the evidence?
why don't they all give the same replies to the same points?

it isn't just a matter of ignorance or Dunning-Kruger - there is something deeper that may be more related to religion and a need to believe in something
Old_C_Code
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2018
EU, climate, and creationists are not related... you dope.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2018
EU, climate, and creationists are not related... you dope.
@old Cnut
actually, they are

the electric loonies, climate deniers and creationists all have a firm belief in something that is repeatedly proven to be false by evidence (repeatedly validated evidence)

the willful refusal to accept validated evidence that demonstrates your belief is false is a common problem and they're all related in that way, you illiterate crank
rossim22
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2018

Does the standard model tell us at what exact time and direction the next CME will occur? nope. doesn't mean it failed though.

This is a common straw man fallacy. You can't compare the inability to predict the direction of CME's with the failure to recognize the powerful electric circuitry in the local cosmos.

Of course science can be updated. Ad hoc hypotheses will overlay the current dogma without question. I get it.

But can science also be wrong? The world's most influential thinkers have been fundamentally incorrect in the past, misled by the order of observations made and instruments available at the time.
Are we simply past that now?

Imagine what the Standard Model may look like if we knew the extent to which EM phenomena played a role in nearly every aspect of cosmology PRIOR TO the invention of dark matter, black holes, and neutron stars.

So much has been 'confirmed' but hardly any foundational theory can be falsified.

I think that's a problem.
Cryptodiamond
5 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2018
The Jupiter system is a strong magnetic source in our solar system. And we see here how the moons interact and enhance this. Is there a possible way of radio imaging the numerous extra-solar gas giants found by Kepler Mission? Would "bleeps" in such signals strongly suggest moons?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2018
@rossim
But can science also be wrong? The world's most influential thinkers have been fundamentally incorrect in the past, misled by the order of observations made and instruments available at the time.
Are we simply past that now?
This is a common straw man fallacy

You can't compare the past and it's inefficient movement of information to today.

the biggest, most limiting factor in the past has been the speed of information and the failure of acceptance of evidence due to ignorance on most parts

though there have been problems of refusal to accept evidence, one of the greatest things about modern science is its ability to adapt and change, especially given new evidence

mind you, the scientific method is relatively new as well

mistakes will always be made
but to claim it's a problem when the peer review process is quite effective overall and we are still in our infancy seems to be lunacy, IMHO
theredpill
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2018
@ Captain Stumpy

I don't think he was saying anything about the "movement of information" so much as the assumptions derived from previous assumptions. When the initial assumption is observed to be wrong, or more complicated than first thought, the options for how to handle that become a choice of possibilities. Selecting one possibility of many, even if there is mass consensus, doesn't make it automatically correct.
"though there have been problems of refusal to accept evidence"
From what I have seen, the rifts between theories aren't a result of accepting evidence but the interpretation of an observation that is claimed as evidence of something. Motion.....is what we observe evidence of missing matter or evidence of an incomplete understanding of how visible matter interacts on astronomical scales? Both are plausible.
Anyways, thank you for making your last reply to Rossim more discussion like, and less of a verbal berating because he thinks differently than you.

rossim22
2 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2018
@theredpill

Thanks for that sensible response, I think you have it spot on. "Assumptions derived from previous assumptions" can work in science but it can also be devastatingly misleading.

With all of the incredibly smart scientists working collaboratively and dedicating huge sums of money and time towards a better understanding of our world, how could I think they have it so wrong?
I understand the dilemma I'm facing, same as any supporter of an alternative theory at any point in history.

It's the interpretation of DIRECT observations that separates EU/PC ideas vs the mainstream. GR is dominated by gravity, that's the only tool in the box. When we observe an energetic event, even when matter is being expelled at a furious rate (blackholes), gravity 'must' be the energy source.
PC uses charge separation as the source of energy, e.g. plasma with diff temps, diff densities, diff elements, etc.
Any charge separation in space was believed to be impossible in GR's infancy.
theredpill
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2018
@Rossim22

You are welcome. I have been finding that in the sections here where conflict isn't the prime driver of the comments, people actually talk and there is the potential to learn.
"When we observe an energetic event, even when matter is being expelled at a furious rate (blackholes), gravity 'must' be the energy source."
They have figured out the jets are driven by an EM field, but they do claim the gravity of the object creates the conditions for the field. It kind of breaks down at that point because of how accretion disk material would have to move to create that kind of field...we don't observe it. If gravity is set aside for a moment, all stable particle interactions result from charge and there is no EM radiation that is generated by anything but the external field of a particle interacting with another field. I also believe a clue lies in that a proton and an electron will not combine into a neutron without help. Opposing charges still repel at close range.

theredpill
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2018
My take on the whole thing is that we still have to learn far more than we know. But my solution would be to study what we have, not hope to find the answer we've committed to because we assume we're right up to this point.

"mind you, the scientific method is relatively new as well

mistakes will always be made"

Perfectly stated and 100% true, although I doubt any mistakes will be made in the calculations, math by it's nature is absolute. The mistakes are in the interpretation....but when new evidence changes our interpretations, we learn. I come here to do that, and yes I do have a pre-conceived viewpoint based on my interpretations, but another thing I am 100% sure of is that I am not correct in more cases than I am.

There are two kinds of debate, constructive and destructive...the latter employs conflict as a driving force and seldom resolves anything. Again, thank you all for the discourse
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2018
Anyways, thank you for making your last reply to Rossim more discussion like, and less of a verbal berating because he thinks differently than you
@theredpill
we've had good discussions in the past
I know r is competent (moreso than some), but there are times that r holds to the eu/pc dogma far too strong
like this
GR is dominated by gravity, that's the only tool in the box
surely even a cursory check of the facts demonstrates the fallacy here?

.

"Assumptions derived from previous assumptions" can work in science but it can also be devastatingly misleading
@rossim
this is where the strength of evidence-based science works best
when something derived from previous assumptions doesn't provide a match to observation/testing, science works out the reason why

however, I have to note: when said derivation comes from a highly tested and repeatedly validated source like GR/SR, you don't immediately jump to any random argument as a fix
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2018
@rossim
I understand the dilemma I'm facing, same as any supporter of an alternative theory at any point in history.

It's the interpretation of DIRECT observations that separates EU/PC ideas vs the mainstream
I am going to have to challenge you here
you can't "interpret" direct observations and evidence with random terminology and make up your own lingo without just cause (like no historical nomenclature)

That is like using "klingon" because it's on TV and popular with fanatics
GR is dominated by gravity, that's the only tool in the box
sigh
this is one belief where you ignore the empirical evidence because eu/pc tells you what to believe
https://www.pppl.gov/

https://www.color...-physics

https://web.stanf...oup/pdl/

https://www.psfc.mit.edu/

that is just to name a few that spring to mind easily
don't forget DARPA and the MIL also have their own labs that contribute to research in plasma physics
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2018
There are two kinds of debate, constructive and destructive...the latter employs conflict as a driving force and seldom resolves anything. Again, thank you all for the discourse
@theredpill
just so you know - the latter is sometimes necessary

when you're limited to certain input types, you sometimes require certain types of stimulation to elicit responses that break barriers to the pat answers or feedback promoted by or taught by certain belief systems allowing the respondent to open up

this type stimulus allows the reader to view behaviour, mental agility, intellect as well as provides markers that indicate background, experience and more

just something to consider
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2018
"It's a really surprising and puzzling observation showing that a moon with a magnetic field can create such a tremendous intensification in the power of waves,"

They are detecting the electric currents flowing between Jupiter and Ganymede, Birkeland currents. Those Birkeland currents are likely responsible for Ganymede's strong magnetic field. As usual, the astrophysicists have got the tail wagging the dog.
They cause the Northern Lights, but also high-energy 'killer' electrons that can damage spacecraft.

Double layers are part and parcel with Birkeland currents. All Birkeland currents will have double layers, the electric fields associated with the double layers will be the source of the accelerated electrons. It isn't caused by "waves escaping" Ganymede. LOL!
691Boat
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2018
"It's a really surprising and puzzling observation showing that a moon with a magnetic field can create such a tremendous intensification in the power of waves,"

They are detecting the electric currents flowing between Jupiter and Ganymede, Birkeland currents. Those Birkeland currents are likely responsible for Ganymede's strong magnetic field. As usual, the astrophysicists have got the tail wagging the dog.


What is the measured voltage differential between Jupiter and Ganymede which allows for these currents? Why don't we see these strong currents between Jupiter and all of its moons? Did someone disconnect the ground wire for the other several dozen moons? If Ganymede is at a lower potential than Jupiter, why doesn't the solar wind "current" simply bypass Jupiter and go straight for Ganymede? Path of lowest resistance, right?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2018
What is the measured voltage differential between Jupiter and Ganymede which allows for these currents?

Which mission did we land on Ganymede to take these measurements?
Why don't we see these strong currents between Jupiter and all of its moons?

Well, they mentioned the currents between Europa and Jupiter. We already know of currents between Io and Jupiter. If we keep looking we may find even more.
If Ganymede is at a lower potential than Jupiter, why doesn't the solar wind "current" simply bypass Jupiter and go straight for Ganymede?

A little thing called Jupiter's magnetic field...
For someone who claims knowledge of EM theory you sure do rely on complete BS when you pose your nonsense.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2018
It's the interpretation of DIRECT observations that separates EU/PC ideas vs the mainstream.


EU/PC has no ideas. No scientifically valid ones, anyway. Due to having nobody involved capable of having such ideas. If you think differently, point us to the official bible of EU/PC.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2018
They are detecting the electric currents flowing between Jupiter and Ganymede, Birkeland currents. Those Birkeland currents are likely responsible for Ganymede's strong magnetic field


Piffle. Not a single detection of a current, specifically Birkeland currents. Or was the paper beyond you? They are seeing whistler mode waves, the generation of which is explained in the paper. And Ganymede's magnetic field is intrinsic. It likely has a molten core.

691Boat
5 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2018

If Ganymede is at a lower potential than Jupiter, why doesn't the solar wind "current" simply bypass Jupiter and go straight for Ganymede?

A little thing called Jupiter's magnetic field...
For someone who claims knowledge of EM theory you sure do rely on complete BS when you pose your nonsense.


knowing that magnetic fields fall off at 1/r^3, why would the currents shoot past Earth and go to Jupiter if we have a stronger magnetic field as seen from the Sun? Otherwise, using your horrible logic, Jupiter's magnetic field should be felt over ours, which it isn't. I'm glad you have never claimed to understand EM.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2018
@Rossim
...
I understand the dilemma I'm facing, same as any supporter of an alternative theory at any point in history.

It's the interpretation of DIRECT observations that separates EU/PC ideas vs the mainstream
here is a good article you should read: https://www.forbe...917b7e2d

if you recognizing the successes and failures of the leading theory and want to replace it with your eu/pc, then your *replacement theory* must:

1: reproduce all the successes of the leading theory

2: succeed where the prior theory did not

3: you must make new, testable predictions that differ from the original theory's

cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2018
Not a single detection of a current, specifically Birkeland currents.

The whistler waves are created by electric currents/discharges, they aren't there magically.
They are seeing whistler mode waves, the generation of which is explained in the paper.

Explained by plasma ignoramuses. Explanations that can be discarded due to their ignorance.
And Ganymede's magnetic field is intrinsic. It likely has a molten core.

Assumed to have molten core, long after it would have cooled according to the standard guesswork.
Ganymede's magnetic field is due to the Birkeland currents which we know connects it to Jupiter. Only your ignorance blinds you from the obvious.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2018
The whistler waves are created by electric currents/discharges, they aren't there magically.


No, they aren't. Read the paper, or learn plasma physics. Either way, stop talking crap.

Ganymede's magnetic field is due to the Birkeland currents which we know connects it to Jupiter. Only your ignorance blinds you from the obvious.


Idiot. There is no current from Ganymede to Jupiter, sad sack. Please show me where this bollocks is written up. Otherwise, again, stop talking crap.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2018
Explained by plasma ignoramuses. Explanations that can be discarded due to their ignorance.


Lol, the irony in the scientifically illiterate, mythology believing, unqualified morons from EU calling anyone an ignoramus! Ha. Get back to Velikovsky, woo boy, you haven't got a bloody clue, you loon, and neither has anyone else in your cult.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2018
There is no current from Ganymede to Jupiter, sad sack. Please show me where this bollocks is written up. Otherwise, again, stop talking crap.

Willful ignorance is bliss, eh jonesdumb.
https://www.scien...3913.htm

No, they aren't. Read the paper, or learn plasma physics. Either way, stop talking crap.

LOL, at least your willful ignorance is consistent.
Shootist
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2018
"It's a really surprising and puzzling observation showing that a moon with a magnetic field can create such a tremendous intensification in the power of waves,"


Translation: Standard cosmology has yet again FAILED to predict electromagnetic phenomena in our solar system. Maybe the current paradigm doesn't need to be tweaked, maybe its foundation is just wrong?


what you are reading isn't cosmology you maroon.
yep
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2018
Modern cosmology is creationism based on the immaculate conception of the Big Bang.
Faith in it's non-falsifiable dark matter, rivals any zealot of the Abrahamic religions. Funny reading the dispersion cast by half wit consensus stooges who's gravity driven gas light era nonsense requires physics to be thrown out the window.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2018
Modern Scientific Terminology
yep> Modern cosmology is creationism based on the immaculate conception of the Big Bang.
Faith in it's non-falsifiable dark matter, rivals any zealot of the Abrahamic religions. Funny reading the dispersion cast by half wit consensus stooges who's gravity driven gas light era nonsense requires physics to be thrown out the window.

You might be onto something there yep!
Consider the following Scientific Terminology

Lol, the irony in the scientifically illiterate
The whistler waves are created by electric currents/discharges, they aren't there magically
LOL, at least your wilful ignorance is consistent
Scientifically illiterate, mythology believing, unqualified morons from EU
Get back to Velikovsky, woo boy, you haven't got a bloody clue
What you are reading isn't cosmology you maroon
You loon, and neither has anyone else in your cult

Would you think this is a discussion on Ganymede's magnetic field?

And so it continues….
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2018
Would you think this is a discussion on Ganymede's magnetic field?

The discussion is electric currents and the resulting EM waves and magnetic fields. You are in the same boat as the researchers by putting the cart in front of the horse.
It is a fact that Ganymede is impinged upon by electric Birkeland currents which connect to Jupiter, Ganymede's observed aurora are validation of this idea. The whistler waves, electric energy from the Birkeland currents, are evidence of the currents.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2018
@gran
Would you think this is a discussion on Ganymede's magnetic field?
1 - you absolutely cannot, and I repeat *cannot*, have a scientific discussion with cantdrive or any of the other fervent acolytes of the electric universe

this is proven here: https://phys.org/...ggs.html

this is also proven all over this site alone

2- advocacy of the electric looney-verse with "might be onto something" is nonsensical of any legitimate scientist unless they're completely ignorant of basic physics

this is especially true when the eu acolyte makes a derisive comment about the religious nature of science which is totally unsubstantiated by any evidence

when the eu cult can produce an *actual hypothesis* that is substantiated by evidence, makes predictions that can validate or falsify the hypothesis and can then argue from a point of logic and evidence combined, then you can advocate for their nonsense
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2018
Whistler waves
A whistler is a very low frequency or VLF electromagnetic (radio) wave generated by lightning Frequencies of terrestrial whistlers are 1 kHz to 30 kHz, with a maximum amplitude usually at 3 kHz to 5 kHz. Although they are electromagnetic waves, they occur at audio frequencies, and can be converted to audio using a suitable receiver. They are produced by lightning strikes (mostly intracloud and return-path) where the impulse travels along the Earth's magnetic field lines from one hemisphere to the other https://en.wikipe..._(radio)
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2018
Whistler waves - Whistling in the wind
C.S.> 1 - you absolutely cannot, and I repeat *cannot*, have a scientific discussion with cantdrive or any of the other fervent acolytes of the electric universe

There's no point in continuing, more to the point there's even less point starting in the first place!
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2018
They are produced by lightning strikes (mostly intra cloud and return-path) where the impulse travels along the Earth's magnetic field lines from one hemisphere to the other

This implies the whistler waves are travelling the poles of a magnetic field which means where ever Whistler waves exist in the vacuum whether its sunspot magnetic fields, planetary magnetic fields or interplanetary magnetic fields, Whistler waves travel pole to pole.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.