Indeed, I was off the mark; the radio flux is comprised of bosons after all.

The lapse is quite like that of your own detailing the consequence of tidal forces:

“and the gravitational forces are precisely balanced by centrifugal forces. This is easiest seen for the case of two stars with equal masses in large circular orbits…Both stars will continue to circle forever ”

Of course, the orbit must decay (and the stars eventually coalesce) by gravitational quantum mechanics.

I allowed at the time you were “confused”. A bit more measured response, ya’ think?

GR = General relativity. I used both in my first reply to you. I’ll make sure to be more specific in the future.

I never said to ignore the issue because it is a non-issue. I said solve the equations and prove it to yourself. Curiosity is good. Blind faith is bad.

REPLY: Thanks for the kind words, copy at will. -Anthony
credit: Anthony Watts, http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

David G. Mills (07:59:40) :
I’m chuckling. On another blog I made the argument a few days ago that if you couldn’t trust one piece of evidence, then it caused all other evidence of a similar nature to be questionable as well.
What interests me is if my was compelling for you.

The ’scientist” insisted that this was not science and that indeed each video should be proven to be legitimate or a fake, and that was the scientist’s job to be skeptical of all and prove the validity or invalidity of each one.
There is some truth to this as well. For the case at hand, my comment showed a lack of basic scientific understanding and that carries over to all the rest.

Oh well. I can’t win.
Well, if you accept the strong plausibility that the paper was indeed bunk, then we both win.

It isn’t a controversial issue, it really is a non-issue. However, I do beleive it is understandable that you may feel that there is something to it.

The best way to investigate is to solve the GR equations and show yourself the extra forces do not exist. If your math skills are not up to the task, ask someone who has solved them and (provisionally) accept their answer until you develop the skill to show yourself.

I’m chuckling. On another blog I made the argument a few days ago that if you couldn’t trust one piece of evidence, then it caused all other evidence of a similar nature to be questionable as well. I was told by a scientist that my argument was very “anti-scientific.” The issue at hand was videos, and I pointed out that if one video was proven to have been faked, then one should be skeptical of all other videos on the subject.

The ‘scientist” insisted that this was not science and that indeed each video should be proven to be legitimate or a fake, and that was the scientist’s job to be skeptical of all and prove the validity or invalidity of each one.

Oh well. I can’t win.

I also see the other side of this discussion. If what we want to measure is our Earth’s interaction with what the Sun is doing, we would want to measure things from Earth’s perspective. That is why so many are working on sending instruments towards our atmosphere to measure CO2, ozone, cosmic rays, UV, etc, as well as here on the ground.

Climatologists need objective information about the Sun. But they also need that same information as it travels through our atmosphere so that they can hypothesize theoretical constructs and test them in the lab. I believe rudimentary cloud chambers tried this and now these scientists are on to bigger chambers.

Two separate scientific fields of inquiry. I get it. The argument for or against adjusted TSI falls due to the cross purposes of the data in question. One side is arguing for apples, the other side oranges, and the apple group is insisting that you, the orange group, measure the Sun from Earth so that we can all be happy apples. I can see that you want information about the Sun, regardless of what planet you are standing on. I can see that the apple group wants data about the Sun that is measured through Earth so that we can continue the discussion of the Sun’s influence on our climate.

I would think that our solar systems travels through space would have more to do with the suns behavior and ultimately our climate than the current science accounts for.
We ( the solar system) are traveling through space and minute by minute are influenced by forces that have yet to be realized, we are not stationary but traveling through space and are continually entering and leaving other terrestrial bodies sphere of influence, to give some idea to the problem, sprinkle some iron filings on a glass top table, then try and predict the form they will take after you pass a magnet under the table at various speeds and distances.

Those four little words made me… interested… so I looked further, and indeed, IMHO you cannot dismiss that easily the work of people of such obvious excellence as the five authors of this study. And when I looked further I found… once again, the “heretical” thesis involving the solar system barycentre that I’ve just flagged up TWICE now. Raphael, thanks for words that alerted me to this being a controversial issue. Leif, thanks for showing that people working right now take it seriously. This is the stuff of science…

I’m going to investigate this business further… beam me up Scottie…!

I suppose one could presume that Dr Hathaway continued to monitor the speed post 2003 – although I think he said in the article that he used the drift of sun spots to measure the speed, which must be a little tricky when there aren’t any sun spots!

If, as you say, this is how they determine the strength of the next solar cycle – or one of the factors – then I suppose the question should be – what is the conveyor doing now and if they have stopped measuring it post 2003 – then why?

Perhaps it is “normal” again – but if they won’t reveal the data how can anyone know?

To demonstrate why I’m not a scientist I tried using your idea to predict the length of the next cycle – Length (years) = 200 / (speed in m/s) – and came up with 400 years! Seems a little long to me ;) – why 200 by the way? Even with normal speed of 1 m/s that would be 200 years. And I don’t know about anyone else, but I walk a damn sight faster than 1 m/s