Gust

The coca cola dispenser didn't even need to be edited. I've used that stuff as a solvent for engine block corrosion more times than I can count

Pedantically, I think you could call muon tomography an antimatter imaging method. It doesnt explicitly use antimatter as a probe, but you do often measure products of antimatter decay or decay products that are antimatter themselves when doing it (depending on how much fidelity you need on the structure being imaged). I say pedantically because I assume you meant medical imaging methods and muon tomography doesnt have medical applications afaik

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how magnetic fields and the forces they induce work. Attract and guide are both words that mean the same thing in this context, ie "apply force to." Not sure what else to tell you; I dont feel like teaching you electrodynamics so I wont reply to this thread again.

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.

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.

I dont think you're quite understanding how big 6 orders of magnitude is. 4000000/r2 still falls off way slower than 1/r2.

Also the funnel diagram of the earth's magnetic field you're referring to is a near field effect. In the far field regime the only field components that stay strong enough to be relevant are those parallel to the axis of the dipole; a dipole is functionally identical to a bar magnet if you're measuring it from far enough away. If my understanding of solar wind is correct and the aurora refers to an interaction that occurs between the earth's magnetic field and particles near the sun, we're definitely in the far field regime

I mean, it has a magnetic field 6 or 7 orders of magnitude higher than ours. Id guess that extra strength allows it to pull particles from much further away and possibly from sources much more reticent to give up their particles than solar wind