robert wrote:
Didn't Greg Neill write on my glowing screen in such colourful
language:


You only have to stand outside on a clear night under
non light-polluted skies to know that the average light
flux differs from place to place in the sky. The Milky
Way has a much higher average illumination per square
degree than, say, directions galactic-poleward.


Ahhaa, but the sphere is a conceptual one, and based on _total_ flux
of the night sky. Its radius is only 0.18 - light year compared to a
30,000 light year distance to the centre of our galaxy. So whether you
are 0.18 light-year out from the sun in a direction _opposite_ to the
galactic core or _toward_ the galactic core, the point of flux
equivalence will be the same.

Check his vanity art--
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagen...erstellar.html

My other Q, is does the sun radiate _equally_ equatorially as polar?
That could change the dimensions of this sphere of light.

Good question! I don't know the answer :-)
However, I suspect there might be a slight bias toward the equatorial
regions because of sunspots during the peak in the solar cycle.
But there are also strong solar flares that occur during this time near
the equatorial regions.

Also, I understand that the solar wind from the polar regions of the Sun
is almost twice as fast as from the equatorial regions during the
solar cycle minimums (not sure how this affects the radiated flux though).


Rob