Leif Svalgaard (09:55:35) :

Geoff Sharp (08:08:47) :
This is not about AM transfer, more about how AM is generated outside of the normal l=mvr.

The l=mvr is the definition of AM, so there is no AM outside of that [calculated correctly as Carsten does, as a vector quantity; the number plotted is the length of the vector]. This is my point all along that you are not doing physics.

Indeed, AM has a very clear definition, so there is no room for confusion on how to calculate it.

…

Right: But the radius (distance to center of rotation of the plasma ball) is changing with time, and the circulating currents are getting deflected by their ever-changing distance from the theorectical “neutral” axis of the entire sun’s “generator” – but then that neutral axis is itself not straight (it is warped or bent) and the amount of the bend is also changing with time.

—

Right – But that’s my fundamental disagreement with your conclusion that the planets could NOT have an influence on the sun because their tidal effect (the movement of the sun) is so small.

Start with a static sun, no planets. No rotation. Simple fusion reactor = Overall, the energy released by each fusion in the center is balanced by the force inwardly by gravity. The particles forcing their way out must oppose the movement of new atoms inward under gravity, and the whole may get a “boiling” movement, but nothing steady. (No steady currents or magnetic forces.)

OK, fine. Now, rotate this model of the sun about its axis. Steady,consistant rotational movement around the sun’s centerline creates the steady magnetic loops and conter emf electric currents I see in the big electric power station generators. But the situation is “stable” after many billion years: loops of plasma conduct electric currents which rotate themselves and create magnetic fields that twist the rising plasma “bubbles” into streams and predictable, if chaotic, circulating loops.

Add to that model the different rotation rates of the sun at the equator and poles. More complex patterns, but they could be “stable”. Streams rise “up” in elevation from the center of the sun, get twisted and bent as they loop towards and away from the equator, fall back “down” in towards the center. Fusion still is stablely balanced (overall) by the (overall, average) weight the upper sun. But is it exactly the same all the time? Or does the fusion rate change based on the amount of “looping” and inward pressure? If the fusion rate changes with time (based on the changing loops) what would be the time delay from the fusion region “up” and to the surface where it can radiate away?

But …. Unlike my nice stable fixed-axis power plant generators, comfortably rotating as a single solid mass around a single straight axis with a convenient center of gravity on the same axis as the rotating fields and currents … the real sun is that rotating plasma (so it (the sun, the fusion center, and the rising gas streams ARE moved by gravity and all of them RESPOND to nearby magnetic fields and moving electric currents.

Therefore, as the sun rotates every few days around an axis that is “bent” and “warped” by the net CG of the entire solar center, the currents/magnetic fields try to to follow their new path back around the new center. (They have to change: the magnetic fields are trying to “loop” but their rotation and distance from the “zero point” has moved each hour, each day, each year.) So the interior fusion center and all the rising twisting gas (plasma) streams that make the circulating currents get slowly CHANGED over time. They have to: the sun is rotating rapidly, but the axis of the overall generator it represents is moving slowly, so the net axis is “bent” from pole to equator to pole (or near-pole). The CG (some years) is near the center. Three, four (eleven ??) years later the CG is much further away and the then later still, the CG is outside the rotating mass entirely.

Your post espouses a standard false argument in this discussion, along with another popular one: that the laws of gravity only applies to bodies that are ‘gravitationally bound’ to the Sun.

What does a BB gun and the id have to do with the price of tomatoes??????

BB is narrowly linked to the price of tomatoes because the latter gets “boom” at an exponential rate but deflates at a linear pace, like the BB… Another coincidence between the BB and the price of tomatoes is that they follow the mainstream, i.e. consensus among experts; same as on the current state of climatology. :)

From the Shirley quote…

“In rotation, the constituent particles of a subject body move in concentric trajectories with velocities that depend upon their position in relation to the axis of rotation (equation 1). In revolution, the particles of the body move in parallel trajectories with identical velocities (aside from small differences produced by the gradients that give rise to the tides).”

Maybe you can make these assumptions when it’s a white dwarf but considring convection, gravity waves, differing rotation rates at different lattitudes (even diameter changes over time), I just can’t see how one can ignore the fact that the Sun is not a solid but treat it as a solid for the purposes of using simple equations.

If we drove a stake into the Earth, it would follow these assumptions. If we placed a buoy on the ocean we better be able to track it because it’ll be on the move. If we have balloon that can float in the atmosphere, it’s going on a trip too. Similarly, the little solar particles are not behaving perfectly either. (I could have used a Jupiter analogy as well)

Reply: Talk of ID, pro or con stops now. Other moderators take note ~ charles the moderator

Nasif Nahle (18:37:08) :
Leif… Neither astrophysics nor I need of a BB for explaining the origin of the Universe
This is not the place to discuss this, but what you describe sounds to me like the bigger miracle…
Of course, there is the even bigger one: “let there be light; and there was light…”

Well… I agree with you on that this is not the place to discuss the origin of the Universe without a BB. I have to point out that there is no place in the theory for a miracle because the Universe could has been percolated into another wider Universe. It’s a matter of our scope shortness on this issue. The solution is going further from our sight after each light second.

BTW, I’m not adhered to ID philosophy. Are you? :)

Nasif Nahle (13:16:33) :
At least, I’ve demonstrated that HSG are correlated to TSI, which was the primary objective of our dialogue.
You cannot make any conclusion based on six data points [with large scatter].

Of course I could make a conclusion based on six data points, particularly if there are thousands of years among the scatters and the correlation persists after those thousands of years and other proxies allows me to find the same solution. The correlation exists for those “six” data points. Nevertheless, I’ve not still got a definite conclusion. Just be patient.

Nasif Nahle (13:09:06) :
I don’t accept it is the best portion of the Sun, and still thinking 71% of Hydrogen is almost all the stuff composing the Sun.
Be careful that your bank does not adopt the same attitude towards the money you deposit in your account and will only allow you to take 71% out again, saying you have got almost all your money…

that something is space, void, false vacuum, true vacuum, whatever it could be. I don’t believe in miracles (singularities).
The total energy content of the Universe may be zero, so no miracle necessary…

Hi, got back to my office few hours before the expected hour.

Leif… Neither astrophysics nor I need of a BB for explaining the origin of the Universe:

http://www.biocab.org/Symmetry_Asymmetry.html#anchor_29

that something is space, void, false vacuum, true vacuum, whatever it could be. I don’t believe in miracles (singularities).
The total energy content of the Universe may be zero, so no miracle necessary, c.f. for example http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

Nasif Nahle (11:57:05) :
The HSG database goes so far as 35500 years ago up to date, and the TSI database only covers the ridiculous timescale of the last 308 years. Not my fault… ;

Of course, not. But it also means that the statement that HSG is a very good proxy for TSI is on very shaky ground. Maybe it is, and maybe it is not. The ridiculously small overlap [with only 6 data points] does not allow one to make a very strong statement. It is even very likely that the climate [clouds, insolation, etc] is what really determines the HSG, rather than the Sun.

I’ve not given my conclusions… yet. Nonetheless, it could be that proxies for TSI should include iron stained grains for covering those gaps which cannot be filled with more accurate data. Don’t tell me that it is not a scientific way of knowing approximations of TSI. At least, I’ve demonstrated that HSG are correlated to TSI, which was the primary objective of our dialogue.

Correction to my previous post: “Aren’t we traveling onto another ring?”

The l=mvr is the definition of AM, so there is no AM outside of that [calculated correctly as Carsten does, as a vector quantity; the number plotted is the length of the vector]. This is my point all along that you are not doing physics.

Indeed, AM has a very clear definition, so there is no room for confusion on how to calculate it.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/angular_momentum.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

It seems this thread is starting to take on a life of its own, trying to replicate or compete with the “monster thread” in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/the-sun-double-blankety-blank-quiet/ …. :-)

I can only confirm (rather than repeat) what Leif has said relating to the validity of the calculations and how I did them.

It is indeed true that the AM must be treated as a vector quantity, anything else is incorrect. If you do, the sum of orbital AM remains constant over time, just like physics says it should. If you only compute with scalars, you get a discrepancy, as this is an incorrect approach.

When using a vector formulation for AM, the AM scalar value can then be taken as the vector length. The AM vector directions (x,y,z in a suitable reference coordinate system) are normal to the respective orbit planes for each planet. The vector sum for the Sun+planets defines the normal of the solar system invariant plane
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/invariant_plane.html

Anyone proposing that the sum of orbital AM is not constant might ask themselves if both the scalar value (the vector length) and the normal (the vector direction) are variable. If the scalar is not constant as it is claimed [but this is shown to be untrue], you will have to explain how the direction can remain constant, as the scalar is the length of the sum of the vectors.

The implication for a non constant AM direction would be that the whole solar system would “wobble along” like a failing gyro, with a “variable invariant plane”. Clearly, it isn’t happening.

Nasif Nahle (11:39:51) :
What I did was to push you to show the real composition of the Sun, which is, from my view, almost pure hydrogen with only 27% of helium.”
No, you did not, you said that you didn’t think the ‘quarter Helium’ was correct. If you like a number, just ask. And almost pure is not 29% other stuff: My drinking water is almost pure, it only has 29% sewer effluent in it.

That’s Svalgaards emerging again. :) The quarter Helium is correct, that’s right; nevertheless, I don’t accept it is the best portion of the Sun, and still thinking 71% of Hydrogen is almost all the stuff composing the Sun.

Do you believe the Big Bang is the origin of the observable Universe?
Not just the observable, but the whole shebang.

Aren’t we traveling to other ring? Before any conjecture on a BB which could have given origin to the Universe from nothing, it must (forcibly) be something over there; that something is space, void, false vacuum, true vacuum, whatever it could be. I don’t believe in miracles (singularities).

Of course, not. But it also means that the statement that HSG is a very good proxy for TSI is on very shaky ground. Maybe it is, and maybe it is not. The ridiculously small overlap [with only 6 data points] does not allow one to make a very strong statement. It is even very likely that the climate [clouds, insolation, etc] is what really determines the HSG, rather than the Sun.

Do you believe the Big Bang is the origin of the observable Universe?
Not just the observable, but the whole shebang.

Nasif Nahle (10:40:13) :
But they aren’t averages of the 70 years, but the percentages of HSG found in a sedimentary layer from 70 years ago.
Again you are squirming. So, you have data for [say] the years 2000, 1930, 1860, 1790, 1720, 1650 and you plot that data and the TSI values for the very same years? So, you have 6 data points.

No, I’m not squirming, you are looking for three feet to the cat knowing that it has four feet. I understand the results are amazingly contrary to what one could be expect; however, the results are there. Again, I won’t do the work of solar physicists. The HSG database goes so far as 35500 years ago up to date, and the TSI database only covers the ridiculous timescale of the last 308 years. Not my fault… ;)