New paper says 'No evidence of planetary influence on solar activity'

SCheesman says:
September 7, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Quick typo: the opening should say “is proven to be nothing more…”
Perhaps ‘is shown to be nothing more’ would be better. Proof and disproof are big words.

RockyRoad says:
September 7, 2013 at 1:24 pm
“Lots of evidence of solar influence on planetary climate”
Yeah, turn off the Sun and see what you get.
How about staying on topic…

Oh, c’mon, Leif thinks it’s possible the Sun controls the Earth’s climate. He just doesn’t know how yet, nor whether either.
===============

I like seeing papers like this. As a professional statistician/meteorologist/money manager (this most recent profession of mine because I left the atmospheric sciences in disgust over its pseudo-religious takeover), I know all too well the temptation to find significant statistical associations that seem to confirm a hypothesis. The problem – when you have too many potential data series to explore, you will eventually find SOMETHING, especially if you want to find it. And it can fool you and others if you are not careful.
In general, statistical “proof” of a claim generally only holds up in one of the following two cases:
1) If the results are extreme, lead to a casual mechanism that can be separately investigated, AND that control/factor for the find-something-by-random-chance bias problem.
2) If they are the results of a rigorously controlled experiment that can be reproduced, follow a hypothesis, and in which aliased effects/causes can be ruled out (the discovery of the Higgs boson being a recent good example of this).
The statistical discovery by chance problem is all that much worse because of publication bias – namely that only “significant” findings are published, negative findings are not, and the development of conformity thinking within a field that can exacerbate the publication bias problem (a great example of this is the association of sodium intake with blood pressure within the medical sciences). So whenever papers come out that challenge a “statistical finding”, I am glad to see them. It helps to keep science honest and free from fooling itself.

This reminded me of one of my favorite quotes illustrating the difficulties of understanding the Sun:

Solar Magnetohydrodynamics is one of the most difficult fields in physics because it’s basically fluid mechanics, but the fluid is on fire, and made of magnets. ~Buugipopuu

kim says:
September 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm
Oh, c’mon, Leif thinks it’s possible the Sun controls the Earth’s climate. He just doesn’t know how yet, nor whether either.
===============
_________________________
I think you have it…
It seems to me, Leif spends a good deal of time correcting the errors made by those who claim that the sun influences our climate. Turning off the sun would definitely influence our climate, but how has it been shown that observed changes in solar output have changed our climate?

Why would someone be looking for solar barycenter signals in isotopic records? The barycenter signal is seen in the long term climate changes as evidenced by long term cooling and heating of the Earth. Each time the barycenter transits the surface of the Sun, as opposed to moving perpendicular to the surface, solar activity declines and a cooling phase on Earth soon follows.

RockyRoad says:
September 7, 2013 at 3:18 pm
since, according to this paper, there “is no evidence of planetary influence on solar activity”, the only meaningful point that isn’t null and void is the alternative position I stated.
Your are still off-topic. The logic is also false: ‘No evidence of A on B’ does not imply ‘evidence of B on C’. Go away, please.

Regarding the planets’ possible influence on solar activity, I came to a similar conclusion in 2009:
http::/arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/
The current paper appears to be saying there is no statistical evidence. I say there is also no known physical mechanism involving the planets, other than tides, that could influence the Sun, and the tides are miniscule in the extreme.

Max™ says:
September 7, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Wait, I can’t tell if people are being ironic here or not… obviously the sun is the dominant influence on the climate, it is the energy source after all.
_____________________________
This part of the discussion is way off topic, but No one is being ironic. Saying the sun is the primary energy source is meaningless to the discussion- it’s a given. No one is going to turn off the sun. However, the changes in the sun which we have observed have not been shown to cause any climate change.
This article is about a lack of observed changes in the sun due to planetary gravitational pull.

Back in 1980, the Presidency of Jimmy Carter was a joke, Ronald Reagan won the election.
Around 1991, the George H. W. Bush presidency was not well loved, between the Persian Gulf War, “No New Taxes”, “War on drugs”, etc.
About 2002, George W. Bush had his presidency defined by the 9/11 attacks and subsequent retaliation. Axis of Evil, No Child Left Behind, etc.
2013, we have Obama.
Also in 1980 we had a joke of a Democrat President with a no-policy energy policy, with surging extremist Muslims threatening Americans and world peace. 2013, the same. Except there is an alternation, Carter worked to prevent war, while Obama is hellbent to start one (that will strangely coincide with 9/11).
There it is. An ~11-year repeating cycle, obviously a sign of solar influence. Plus there are also indications of something three solar cycles long, possibly a harmonic, although the alternation shows that may be a half-cycle.
Now where’s my grant money?

The energy we receive today from the sun supposedly left the core of the sun some 150,000 years and 8.5 minutes or so ago [± a few millenia or so for margin of error].
If barycentrism has any validity, it seems to me that its purveyors should base their assertions on the positions of the planets at that point in time?
Just wondering.

David Thomson says:
September 7, 2013 at 3:36 pm
The solar barycenter would be acting on the solid core of the Sun and causing it to move within the surrounding gases and liquids. It is this movement of the core that is supposed to drive the magnetohydrodynamics of solar behavior.

The barycenter is not “solar”. The Barycenter is the center of mass of the solar system. It is not physical in any other way. It cannot “act” on the core of the Sun, being it solid or not. In fact the barycenter cannot act on anything, much like the barycenter of the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy cannot act on anything

Sun 2 x 1030kg
Jupiter 2 x 1027kg
Given that Jupiter is 1/1000 the mass of the sun, how much effect does anyone seriously think it has on the sun? It’s trivially obvious that there will be some effect but why would anyone think it would even be measurable?

Carsten Arnholm says:
September 7, 2013 at 4:53 pm
The barycenter is not “solar”. The Barycenter is the center of mass of the solar system. It is not physical in any other way. It cannot “act” on the core of the Sun, being it solid or not. In fact the barycenter cannot act on anything…
If the center of the solar system is not at the center of the Sun, then why would you not think the Sun would be gravitationally moved? The Sun has no choice, except to be pulled toward the center of the solar system’s gravity. The Sun orbits the center of the solar system the same as the planets do.
Look at the Earth – Moon system. The center of gravity of these two bodies is neither in the Earth nor the Moon, yet both orbit the barycenter. The Sun does the same thing.
The Sun is not in a simple binary system as are the Earth and Moon. The Sun’s orbit around the solar barycenter is wildly variable on the scale of hundreds of years. The variability is what shakes up the Sun’s core and modulates its magnetohydrodynamic systems.

Why is proposing that the solar sytem works as a ‘sytem’ with the planets infuencing the solar cycles, such a challenging idea?
just asking

Yes, the route and the effect of the wandering barycenter, I know, it can’t, we’ll say the wobbling of the sun around the barycenter, though tidally only millimeters(as in a butterfly wingflap), might modulate magnetodynamic effects, which might modify the earth’s atmos & biospheres, by some as yet unknown mechanism(s). Polished words, Leif examines and finds the worm, a ghost mechanism.
====================

Look at the Earth – Moon system. The center of gravity of these two bodies is neither in the Earth nor the Moon, yet both orbit the barycenter. The Sun does the same thing. ~David Thompson

Uh, the Earth-Moon system orbits a point within the Earth, it is displaced from the center a bit, but it is definitely inside the planet.
Pluto-Charon orbit a point outside either body, and periodically the Sun-Jupiter system is orbiting a point above the surface of the Sun, with the other planets tagging along for the ride.
Now, there are magnetic field lines threaded through the insides of that big ball of fusing hydrogen and plasma, applying torque to magnetic field lines embedded in a ball of magnetic fluid is going to do something… I don’t think that something will be obvious, but I posted the quote about Solar Magnetohydrodynamics for a reason, fluid mechanics is pretty freakin’ complex, never mind when said fluid is made of magnets AND on fire.

“”””””…….Max™ says:
September 7, 2013 at 7:20 pm
Look at the Earth – Moon system. The center of gravity of these two bodies is neither in the Earth nor the Moon, yet both orbit the barycenter. The Sun does the same thing. ~David Thompson
Uh, the Earth-Moon system orbits a point within the Earth, it is displaced from the center a bit, but it is definitely inside the planet……..””””””
So what does the track of the rest of the universe look like relative to the barycenter ?

David Thomson says:
September 7, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Oliver Manuel (omatumr.com) has shown physical evidence that the Sun has a solid core, rather than being a gas ball of hydrogen and helium.
Manuel is a crank and has shown no such thing. The tidal forces do not care what material the Sun is made of.
neillusion says:
September 7, 2013 at 4:10 pm
Isn’t this tantamount to a spoof article
No spoof, but [granted] just a bit difficult.
Ian W says:
September 7, 2013 at 4:38 pm
The noted astronomer William Herschel first put this forward.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/grl50846-Herschel.pdf
“measured correlations between sunspot number and wheat price and wheat yield data would be very likely realizations of random data; these correlations are “insignificant.” Therefore, Herschel’s hypothesis must be regarded with skepticism.”
I presume someone has thought to follow Landscheidt and track what the barycenter path was in Dalton and Maunder and compare its motion then to its motion now?
It doesn’t matter what it was or is. The barycenter has no influence on anything.
Dan Griswold says:
September 7, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Geoff Sharp has a new paper published. Has anyone looked at it?
Yes, it does not pass muster
David Thomson says:
September 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Look at the Earth – Moon system. The center of gravity of these two bodies is neither in the Earth nor the Moon, yet both orbit the barycenter. The Sun does the same thing.
The Sun is not in a simple binary system as are the Earth and Moon. The Sun’s orbit around the solar barycenter is wildly variable on the scale of hundreds of years. The variability is what shakes up the Sun’s core and modulates its magnetohydrodynamic systems.
William Astley says:
September 7, 2013 at 7:00 pm
The fundamental model that is assumed for what creates the solar magnetic field and field variance is not correct.
Well, contrary to what you claim, it is reasonably well understood.
Leif have you noticed that the solar large scale magnetic field intensity has dropped by 50%? What is your explanation, random noise?
It falls to zero every 11 years…
A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years
Did not happen: http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf
Werner Brozek says:
September 7, 2013 at 7:17 pm
If there were no planets around the sun, the sun would rotate around its centre, but even if Jupiter were the only planet, the centre of mass would be at the surface of the sun that both would revolve around.
Orbital revolution and axial rotation are two different things and cannot be mixed: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Shirley-MNRAS.pdf

David Thomson says:
September 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Look at the Earth – Moon system. The center of gravity of these two bodies is neither in the Earth nor the Moon, yet both orbit the barycenter. The Sun does the same thing.
Great confusion here. The Earth+Moon orbits the center of the Sun as do all other planet+moon systems. You do not need to understand the theory [although it is simple enough]. We have very precise measurements of the Earth’s orbit and they show that the E+M orbit the center of the Sun. A simple consequence hereof is the measured value of TSI which varies with the square of the distance to the center.

Walter J Horsting says:
September 7, 2013 at 9:19 pm
Alexander, Hydrologist For South Africa, was planning four dams on the Nile for 500 year flood level. He found a flood gauge that was 1500 years old and tied sun cycles driven by planetary gravity influences in the attached link..
Figure 10 in the link illustrates the flaw in his logic. Here is the Figure http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png it shows what TSI should be at various points of the Earth’s orbit. On this Figure http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA11.png those points are plotted [red points] versus what is actually observed [black curve].
There is so much confusion about what orbits what. The barycenter of the Earth and the Moon is somewhere within the Earth moving around just under the Moon. Now, think of the International Space Station. Does it orbit the center of the Earth or does it orbit the [moving] barycenter of the Earth and the Moon? After answering consider this: the ISS orbits at an altitude of 415 km above the surface of the Earth. Consider a [hardy] spacecraft sent to orbit at an altitude above the surface of the Sun of 10,000 km. Does it orbit the center of the Sun or the distant barycenter? Slowly move the spacecraft out a bit to 20,000 km and ask if it still orbits the Sun [now at 20,000 km altitude]. Now, move it out to 100,000, 1000,000, 100,000,000 km. At all times it still orbits the center of the Sun, regardless of where the barycenter is. Or do you think the spacecraft at some point decides not to orbit the sun anymore, but switches to orbit the barycenter instead?

The title of this article is wrong.
If isotopes don’t correlate with the solar system barycentre, fine, but it doesn’t follow that there’s ” No evidence of planetary influence on solar activity “ .
The solar cycle is electro-magnetic in nature. It isn’t a gravitational phenomena. So looking at gravitational centre of mass of the solar system and finding no correlation with the isotope reconstruction of the solar cycle is poor grounds to conclude ” No evidence of planetary influence on solar activity’ “
If you are looking for correlation between the solar cycle and the planets, why not look at electromagnetic aspects of planets ?
I’ve found some evidence to suggest planetary influence on solar activity :
Jupiter has the strongest magnetic field of any planet in the solar system. Jupiter’s orbital period is 11.9 years, similar to the length of the schwabe solar cycle.
Considering how many papers on newly discovered electromagnetic activity in the solar system are written these days, and how little attention it gets on this blog ( i.e.zero ), can’t help think this article is bent towards Leif’s Chapmanian’s dream of minimal electromagnetic interaction in space physics.
REPLY: The title stays, tough noogies if you don’t like it. – Anthony

meemoe_uk says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:13 pm
can’t help think this article is bent towards Leif’s Chapmanian’s dream of minimal electromagnetic interaction in space physics.
You know not whereof you speak. I was one the scientists who first showed [back in 1968] that the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields are linked together at all times proving an interaction between the two space plasmas [it is called the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect – google it]

Paul Westhaver says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:45 pm
Well I guess the science is settled now.
I think it is premature to make such an absolute statement, but perhaps that is just me…
The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the largest object in the solar system aside from the sun
Yet is tiny compared to the heliosphere, occupying only 1/50,000 the of the sky seen from the Sun [like a quarter seen from a distance of 100 feet].

vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 12:13 am
Forget about the Newton’s mechanics here, the sun is an electromagnetic cauldron, its electromagnetic tentacles envelope all the planets, and those with strong magnetic fields do bite back.
They cannot because the supersonic solar wind prevents magnetic fields to penetrate upstream. You can’t get upstream by rowing at 1 knot in a river flowing at 11 knots. Your inability to learn this is boundless.

The sunspot cycle is a nonlinear oscillator. Like other such systems eg the heartbeat and the unforced Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, these systems are repeatedly driven away from equilibrium toward periodic resetting perturbations. There is a good Wikipedia description:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system
Nonlinear oscillators can be unforced, strongly or weakly forced. In weak forcing there can be a complex relationship between the forcing frequency and the responsive system oscillation. This paper has maybe achieved its objective of failing to find obvious simple strong forcing. But if it did not look for weak nonlinear forcing from planetary orbits especially that of Jupiter then this cannot be ruled out.
It is interesting that one phenomenon of nonlinear oscillators is amplitude death- maybe solar cycle minima could fall into this category?

Leif Svalgaard says: September 8, 2013 at 12:31 am
They cannot because the supersonic solar wind prevents magnetic fields to penetrate upstream.
Doc
You are misleading your readers. Your analogy is wrong, it is not ‘puddle boat up the river’, it is puddle boat in a whirlpool.
It is an electromagnetic close circuit, and you know it far better than I do, but for those interested in the matter, rather than quote numerous papers on the ‘magnetic flux ropes’, or ‘magnetic clouds’ emanating from the sun, here is pictorial set of links .
However, I would single this one from the US navy (the people who know)
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
Close Electromagnetic Circuit not a ‘paddle boat up the river’ is operative mechanism here. Until you consider the science of the ‘solar magnetic flux ropes’ as it is currently understood any discussion on the subject is a waste of time.

Solar Magnetohydrodynamics is one of the most difficult fields in physics
and it is, but for those who like the challenge here is a link to a good article
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/17/aa10971-08/aa10971-08.html
on the evolution of the ‘solar magnetic flux ropes’, the feedback paths within the heliosphere.
but don’t ask me for clarifications.

Leif Svalgaard on September 8, 2013 at 12:56 am
phlogiston says:September 8, 2013 at 12:46 am
The sunspot cycle is a nonlinear oscillator. 
It would be nice if it were, but I don’t think it is, as the processes that govern the build-up of the cycle and the decay of the cycle are completely different and not part of a single system oscillating about a central value. The build-up is largely deterministic, while the decay is a random process.
I cany prove mathematically that its a nonlinear oscillator. It satisfies two of the classic pre- requisites, it is an open dissipative system with heat constantly moving from the core outward, and it is usually in a far from equilibrium state. But it is possible that the sunspot cycle is driven by linear processes only.

phlogiston says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:33 am
I can prove mathematically that its a nonlinear oscillator.
The sun is not even an oscillator as there is no restoring force.

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:35 am
Which does also not talk about ‘closed electromagnetic circuits’ nor ‘feedbacks’
Correct on the feedback. Electromagnetic feedback is my hypothesis
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
based on the scientific analysis by many solar researches and supported by the data from your own institution !

William Astley says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:01 am
What is interesting is the average solar magnetic large scale field is becoming less cycle by cycle. Why?
Because solar cycles vary, they become stronger for a while, then become weaker for a while, then stronger, then weaker, etc, just like the weather gets warmer, then colder, then warmer, etc. We have a pretty good explanation of why the sun does that.
It appears the mechanism that caused the solar large scale magnetic field to double in intensity during the last 100 years
It appears that it did not double during the last 100 years. Here is what it has been doing: Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
It appears will have an opportunity to observe one of the most important scientific discoveries in the history of science.
It appears you have an exaggerated opinion of your ability.
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:44 am
the folks at Los Alamos National Laboratory were dreaming when produced this illustration
http://www.swepam.lanl.gov/Figures/Figure07.JPG
You are dreaming if you find ‘closed electromagnetic circuits’ there.
Flux ropes push your ‘common garden’ solar wind out of the way.
The solar wind is composed of plasma with different speeds pushing plasma ahead out of the way, flux ropes among them. After a while flux ropes may even disconnect from the Sun. There are no ‘closed electromagnetic circuits’ involved. Find a paper that says there is and we can continue.
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:51 am
Electromagnetic feedback is my hypothesis based on the scientific analysis by many solar researches
Link to ‘many solar researchers’ talking about your hypothesis.
and supported by the data from your own institution !
not at all ‘supported’ as you are just curve fitting.
lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 2:01 am
“Does the ISS orbit the center of the Earth?”
Yes, because it does not orbit Earth+Moon.
Does the Earth orbit the center of the Sun?
Yes, because it does not orbit the barycenter.
——-
We are now in full kook-mode, with the usual suspects in full swing peddling their own stuff instead of staying on topic and discussing the paper which is the topic of this thread.

lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 2:33 am
No, it orbits the center of mass of the Sun, Mercury and Venus
So the Earth does not orbit the solar system barycenter, right?

Leo Smith says:
September 8, 2013 at 2:53 am
The south African one showing that the effective earth/sun distance is modulated by planetary activity is interesting if only for the blatant simplicity of the calculation that shows that at the very least this MUST modulate received insolation by a statistically significant amount. So that’s one factoid that the IPCC simply ignored.
I think you missed my response to that [or I was not clear enough]. At the times that paper mentions http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png we know in other ways what the distances to the Sun were and can calculate [and actually measure – the black curve] TSI at those points and the values do NOT match what the South African paper claims they should be [red dots] http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA11.png so there is no such modulation.

lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 3:06 am
You are a bit off track again. The Earth does not orbit Jupiter.
Still does not remove Jupiter’s contribution. So my question stands. And the ‘inside the orbit’ bit is nonsense.
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 3:09 am
Vukcevic: Electromagnetic feedback is my hypothesis based on the scientific analysis by many solar researches
Which ‘scientific analysis’ by whom discuss electromagnetic feedback?
No one else has come so closely with actual numerical verification.
Curve fitting is curve fitting. Anybody can fit it with a better curve. And it fails going back in time.
It is often the case that the science is advanced by those who look for new
What you do is not science and there is no advance.

lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 3:34 am
I did answer your question.
I don’t think you did. [or I didn’t get it]. If the Earth does not orbit the Center of the Sun, but the Center of Mass of Sun+Mercury+Venus, the distance from the Earth to the center of the Sun would be modulated by the positions of Mercury and Venus, right?

lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 4:10 am
“the distance from the Earth to the center of the Sun would be modulated by the positions of Mercury and Venus, right?”
Yes, like if the Sun were a double star
Except that there is no such modulation. Here is the FFT of the distance [JPL Horizon] between the Sun and the Earth http://www.leif.org/research/Barycenter11.png There is a strong 1-year period [366.36 days], and because the orbit is not a circle also a 1/2 year period and then, of course, a lunar period too. But no trace of Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, or any of the other planets…

wayne Job says:
September 8, 2013 at 4:17 am
Yet the earth warms and cools over various cyclic time periods i.e. Maunder minimum etc that seems to be related to the sunspot numbers, and the biggie ice ages every 100,000 years.
Going further back in time, solar activity does not line up with solar activity, and the ice ages are not caused by the Sun but [mainly] by Jupiter changing the shape of the Earth’s orbit.
maybe your science is less than complete.
Nobody’s science is complete, except the ones with ‘different ideas’ I referred to.

lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 4:31 am
It’s not visible on that scale then. Make Mercury the size of Jupiter. Do you still think the Earth would orbit the center of the Sun?
The JPL HORIZON Ephemerides are accurate to 14 significant digits, which is of the order of a few centimeters, so nothing wrong with the scale: the modulation should show if it is there. Note that there is also no sign of Jupiter or any of the other planets, but well of the Moon.
About making Mercury larger, I’m not sure, at some point it will make a difference. We could make Mercury ten times more massive than the Sun and ask the same question. Possibly, the answer has to do with how we define ‘orbit’.
As this little exercise has shown, you may not have the grip on this as you thought you had.

It’s not visible on that scale then. Make Mercury the size of Jupiter. Do you still think the Earth would orbit the center of the Sun?
lgl, I think you are correct on the orbital dynamics aspect, but that doesn’t mean there is a planetary influence on solar activity. Scientific interest in solar activity long pre-dates the contemporary climate controversy, and planetary influence is/was an obvious candidate as an actor that has been investigated many times with no positive result. There isn’t a conspiracy to silence the planets.

lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 4:55 am
B t w, there is some ‘noise’ in your FFT below 300 days which would match the Ea-Ve line-up.
There is, indeed, but of extraordinarily small amplitude, and there should be some. The conceptual problem you have is that the center-of-mass is defined linearly R = sum(m(i)r(i))/sum(mi), but the gravitational force goes inversely with the square of the distances, so the sum of the gravitational force on some bodies on a test body is not the same as if all the other masses were at the center of mass. Consider the example of four identical masses spaced on a line 1 unit part. The center of mass of the three right-most would be at distance 2 from the left-most. If you thought that the gravitational force on the leftmost would be three times the individual masses divided by the square of the distance to the center-of-mass you would get 3/4. If you add up the forces for each of the masses you would get 1/1+1/4+1/9=23/18 and not 3/4.

lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 5:27 am
I agree ‘orbit the center of mass’ is an approximation but now answer my question; with Mercury the size of Jupiter, would the Earth orbit the center of the Sun? Or with a double star, what would it orbit?
My answer would be this system http://www.leif.org/research/Barycenter10.png of a double star with planets and moons [and even a satellite around one of the moons]. If you bring the two stars closer and closer the orbits of the planets and moons will be distorted or perhaps even destroyed at some point, until the two stars are so close that they act as one. The point is that things are not simple and have to be calculated precisely. the simple-minded center-of-mass ideas won’t work. Various orbit-calculators exist that can do this for any given configuration. I think Carsten may even have one. If he is still here, perhaps he could see what happens if we put a Jupiter in place of Mercury.

lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 5:35 am
Make Mercury ten times more massive than the Sun is fine with me. What will happen? The Sun will start orbiting Mercury right? But following your logic the Earth will continue orbiting the center of the Sun.
Suppose you make Mercury grow very slowly. In the beginning the Earth will still orbit the Sun. In the end Mercury might steal the Earth. I can’t tell without doing the calculation. My point is that the gravitational force from a collection of bodies is not the same as if you put all the mass of the bodies at their center of mass.

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2013 at 6:25 am
Expanding to 500 years I get http://www.leif.org/research/Barycenter12.png Now the ‘noise’ is gone
Or just become smaller. Under magnification there is still a little blip.

vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 6:29 am
There is no data prior to what is shown here
Yes there is. I have shown you that a long time ago. For example: for the 1964 minimum the polar fields were so weak they could not be measured. Yet our curve shows a very strong polar field.

See – owe to Rich says:
September 8, 2013 at 6:58 am
As a corollary, the Sun doesn’t orbit the SSB in any meaningful manner
============
whether there is meaning in the orbit is a question for philosophy. physics tells us otherwise.

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2013 at 5:41 am
lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 5:27 am
I agree ‘orbit the center of mass’ is an approximation but now answer my question; with Mercury the size of Jupiter, would the Earth orbit the center of the Sun? Or with a double star, what would it orbit?
My answer would be this system http://www.leif.org/research/Barycenter10.png of a double star with planets and moons [and even a satellite around one of the moons]. If you bring the two stars closer and closer the orbits of the planets and moons will be distorted or perhaps even destroyed at some point, until the two stars are so close that they act as one. The point is that things are not simple and have to be calculated precisely. the simple-minded center-of-mass ideas won’t work. Various orbit-calculators exist that can do this for any given configuration. I think Carsten may even have one. If he is still here, perhaps he could see what happens if we put a Jupiter in place of Mercury.

I’m still here, after a pause. If we swap Mercury with Jupiter, strange things will occur. I will see if I can find out what happens. My orbit-calculator is not 100% precise, but with short enough time-steps it should be able to answer this I think. So we simply swap the masses of Jupiter and Mercury and see what happens? I’ll see what I can do and report back.

Ian Wilson wrote:
As per usual, Leif gets the details wrong.
Not to blow smoke, but it’s actually very unusual. I read carefully several times (since I usually am wrong) to check that Leif really was saying that all the planet+moon combos in the solar system orbit the centre of the sun.
Thinking about this is helping me through a mundane task at work, so it’s all useful. Am currently stuck on Leif’s FFT of the Earth-Sun distance. Something doesn’t sit right.

Willis, you’re supposed to be on holiday. It’s a lovely evening (at least here in the East Midlands) so you should be looking at something better than people being wrong on the internet.

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2013 at 6:33 am
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 6:29 am
There is no data prior to what is shown here
Yes there is. I have shown you that a long time ago. For example: for the 1964 minimum the polar fields were so weak they could not be measured. Yet our curve shows a very strong polar field.
—
Lots of talk about planets orbiting around their centers of mass.
Ok .. those planetary masses all have a pseudo current sheet, which is around their magnetic fields.
Those planetary current sheaths are moving in and out the heliocurrent sheet as they rotate and orbit about in the masses. When the planetary current sheets are in line, might they also ‘feedback’ to the heliocurrent sheet?
I am not saying upwind here Leif, but connected to the heliocurrent sheet..
which is connected to the L1shell rotating current sheet.. which is connected to neighboring rotating current sheet shells..
which is connected to the spiral arm rotating current sheet..
which is connected to………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Centers of mass what a mess..

That is but one study and other studies reach a different conclusion. I never put much faith in one study especially when it come to solar or climate.
In addition those that do subscribe to the angular solar momentum theory correctly forecasted this prolonged solar minimum while many using so called conventional metholds were way way off.
This study does not convince or impress me in the least.

Exactly, they are scared and I might add clueless. Geoff Sharp’s work in this area has been sensational!

This is so much like AGW theory ,both have nothing to back up their claims.

tallbloke says:
September 8, 2013 at 10:59 am
Carla: If you don’t want to have to give awkward answers, keep ‘em asking the wrong questions.
—
The solar helio current sheet is conjoined with the interstellar magnetic field which is turning out to be a rotating current sheet. And well so all the planetary bodies have currents, sheets and fields..
Just helping to build on the CMB in the local vicinity. You know that that background is partly due to “ITS” interaction with astrospheres.. ah like our sun..
Do the planets in their orbits disrupt and cause instabilities in the current sheet, sure, all kinds of humps bumps and holes .. spaghetti magnetic fields too..

tallbloke said here on September 8, 2013 at 10:03 am:

It looks like Cameron and Schussler borrowed Willis’ blunderbuss for this one. We took a look back in July when it went up on ARXiV. It’s bad analysis basically. I won’t go into it now but anyone still interested can get the skinny here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/cameron-and-schussler-no-evidence-for-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/

tallbloke said there on July 29, 2013 at 12:19 pm (bold added):

After the kicking handed out on the Callebaut and de Jaeger paper, I very much doubt Anthony will be making a song and dance about the Cameron and Schussler paper on WUWT. He must by now be beginning to get the feeling that Leif has been pulling the wool over his eyes all these years.
The solar-planetary theory is powering forward thanks to the unstinting efforts of its proponents!

*smirk*
Ah heck, Ian Wilson said there on July 29, 2013 at 3:29 am:

I am sure that Anthony (Watts) and his pit bull (aka Leif) will have a field day with this paper. That will be until they see the backup papers from the Abreu et al. group which will clinch the deal.

Calling Leif a pit bull is an upgrade, around here Vuk and company treat him like a yapping little terrier.
So Leif is now the Watts’ attack dog? Kenji will be so upset!
As to the “discussion” there, sounds like a big echo chamber. The believers just keep making similar noises until they get a resonance they like, then call it a consensus.
I may learn slow, but at least I learn here. If I wanted to see mutual brainwashing to a common set of delusions I’d watch MSNBC.

Ian W says:
September 7, 2013 at 4:38 pm
“There are those that would contend that a quiet sun has been shown to cause climate change. The noted astronomer William Herschel first put this forward. “
___________________
Yes, the contention is out there. Show me the data which supports the contention.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
” The discussion is not way off topic –”
____________________________
Tell me how the statement that ‘the sun is the energy source’ is really meaningful to the discussion…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I presume someone has thought to follow Landscheidt and track what the barycenter path was in Dalton and Maunder and compare its motion then to its motion now?”
______________________
Didn’t make any difference then, either… afaics
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Or is your mind made up already? Just think a simple check and you could shoot down all those tin foil hat theories – or not ;-)”
________________________
Just so you know, my interest in solar influences on our climate is from an amateur’s (often sophomoric) perspective, but I’ve learned a thing or two. If I made an incorrect statement, then show me, as others here have.
If the sun does go relatively quiescent for a prolonged period, ala Dalton, then we shall see- maybe, but where’s the proof of influence so far?

Leif Svalgaard on September 8, 2013 at 1:39 am
phlogiston says:September 8, 2013 at 1:33 am
I can prove mathematically that its a nonlinear oscillator.
 The sun is not even an oscillator as there is no restoring force.
I said I cant prove it. Not can. But I misspelt it.

vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 7:30 am
Doc, that is another nonsense, you know it well, and you said often enough that the polar fields are built by decaying sunspots semi-neutralised magnetic field towards the poles. Yet in 1960 we had by far strongest solar cycle ever, SC19 , the source of the 1964 polar field.
That would totally invalidate all the solar science from Babcock, Leyton and Parker to the present day.
If the polar field were just determined by the current cycle, then a large cycle would result in a large polar field which in the B-L mechanism in turn would predict a large next cycle. In this manner cycles would continue to grow or at best all have the same size. You would never get a small cycle after a large one, but we do often get that, e.g. cycle 20 and cycle 5 or even cycles 23 and 24 following the strong cycle 22. Or get a strong one following a small one, like SC21 following SC20.
The solution to the problem is that the formation of the polar fields has a large element of randomness in it, the magnetic field elements being jerked around by the convective solar granulation. Of the magnetic field erupted in sunspots, only a small part [between 1/100 and 1/1000] actually makes it to the poles. The resulting polar magnetic flux is as small as the flux of only about 5 of the ~3000 active regions erupting during a sunspot cycle and observations show that the flux arrives by the chance survival of a small number [5-8] of flux ‘surges’. So even as we would expect that the larger amount of flux from a large cycle would give the us more flux ‘to work with’ [and so explains why we often have several large cycles in a row] the random element is so large that sooner or later that progression would by chance break down and we get a small polar field with an attendant small following cycle, as observed.
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2013 at 7:03 am
You were then young and naïve man, being misled by your Russian ‘official’ host tovarisch Severniy, I looked at his data and they are full of holes.
Since when is the great Vuk so expert that he can declare that the data by one of the pioneers of solar magnetism are full of holes?
Do you really think that tovarisch Severniy would present you with good data at height of the cold war, at beginning of the space age, following the Cuban crisis and the President Kennedy’s assassination ? ? ?
Severny was a personal friend of mine and of my colleagues so you better wash your mouth out with soap. In any event, we have ample evidence that his instrument was capable enough, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/1970SoPh-15-3S.pdf and Bob Howard at Mount Wilson also reported weak fields, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/1969BAAS-Howard.pdf and http://www.leif.org/EOS/1977ARA-Howard-Polar-Fields.pdf This whole matter was thoroughly discussed in the 1970s when I was there in the ‘thick of things’. There was even doubt that the polar fields reversed [as they were so weak and difficult to measure] until Wilcox and Scherrer using my sector polarities from the Earth’s polar regions going back to 1926 showed that the solar polar fields actually did reverse.

tallbloke says:
September 8, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Carla: The rate of axial rotation of both Venus and Saturn has dropped by six minutes or more over the last 15 years. Mainstream “scientists are baffled”.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/scientists-baffled-to-discover-that-venus-spin-is-slowing-down/
—
Can only respond what I know.
They say since cycle 10 our suns rotation has been slowing also. (albeit tiny amount) But slowing also.
With respect to cycle 24, solar equatorial rotation is faster this cycle, with a slowing in polar rotation.
Earth follows cycle by speeding up of rotation.
And you said Venus and Saturn axial rotation dropped six minutes in 15 year.
conumdrum indeed

“””””””…….Paul Westhaver says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:45 pm
Well I guess the science is settled now.
jeeese!
More like, the models and methods they tested against the outputs they measured, showed little cause and effect.
Fred Hoyle went to his grave denying the big bang…….”””””””
Well Carl Sagan went to his grave without collecting so much as one binary digit, of scientific evidence (peer reviewed of course) of ANY sort of life; intelligent or otherwise outside of a shell about +/-20 km or less about mean sea level on planet earth.
Of course anthropogenic insertion of earth life, into regions outside the shell of life, doesn’t count; might even be science fraud.

tallbloke says:
September 8, 2013 at 11:39 am
Carla: I asked this question on my own blog yesterday:
“What if the planets and the Sun were both acting in concert to modulate the shape of the heliospheric current sheet and that affected the levels of Svensmarks Earthbound cosmic rays?”
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/oldbrew-and-tallbloke-why-phi-part-2-the-gas-giant-planets/comment-page-1/#comment-59042
—
First warp and second warp, start at the corona. Part of which is winding down into the solar southern hemisphere, lately deeper? Which makes a strange looking deeper wave boundary between the inward and outward magnetic field. Separated at the equator.
They call this,
The wide skirt of the bashful ballerina: Hemispheric asymmetry
of the heliospheric magnetic field in the inner and outer heliosphere and I say he’s not bashful at all take a look at the ahh b j coming under that skirt..
Have a look at figure 2. Although the diagram shows where the excesses and deficit of GCR are within the heliosphere. It also shows along the magnetic equator where, ” The regions with the largest gradient in the cosmic ray intensity (in white between the excess and deficit) are approxi-
mately located along the magnetic equator ”at infinity” (see text).
Also shown the celestial and ecliptic equators.””
ANISOTROPY OF TEV COSMIC RAYS AND THE OUTER HELIOSPHERIC BOUNDARIES
P. Desiati
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3144.pdf
Wisconsin IceCube Particle Astrophysics Center (WIPAC)
Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
A. Lazarian
Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
Draft version October 30, 2012

lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 7:12 am
How clever. Why not use 1 mill. yrs of data, then you can smooth out the 1 yr peak too.
No, the 1 yr peak will not go away, no matter how long the data series is.
But the 292 days ‘noise’ is not gone and you can’t make it go away because Ea Ve and Sun line up every 292 days
And I did recover it, but with exceedingly small amplitude.
Anyway your method is flawed because the planets will interact regardless of what they are orbiting.
My method was just to show that the Earth does not orbit the center-of-mass of Sun+Mercury+Venus [planets inside the orbit of the Earth] as you claimed, because the modulation predicted by you is not there.

And doesn’t a stronger heliocurrent sheet create more resistance (earth slows down) with a weaker heliocurrent sheet less resistance and Earth speeds up?

tallbloke says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Carla: Sparks just said
“Wowee, looka my latest graph. The assumption I’m making means we can rule everything else out!”
The reckless young blood that he is.
LoL I didn’t rule anything out, I’m just saying if the Bary centric interaction between the Sun and the solar systems planetary mass is not a major influence directly on the sun then we shouldn’t dismiss there being no interaction/s between the sun and the planets at all.

Willis Eschenbach says:
September 8, 2013 at 9:30 am
“And the digitized data from those two documents are in my spreadsheet here.
So please … no more babble about sunspots and wheat prices. It’s nonsense, and if you don’t think so, do what I did:
Go look at the actual data …”
Like the Menzel graph, the plot in your spreadsheet is in part upside-down relative to how it should be oriented. It is oriented as if more sunspots, warmer times, would be expected to more often correspond to higher wheat prices, but matters are the other way around.
Fewer sunspots, relative cooling, with shorter growing seasons before frost, are what tend to reduce yields and hence increase prices.
That is what Herschel observed and implied. Only in the CAGW-movement era are there commonly lying claims of the opposite, of claiming that more warmth would typically mean lower agricultural yields.
Aside from many other economic factors like technological change, the properly expected relationships are:
Fewer sunspots often higher wheat prices
More sunspots often lower wheat prices
What the plot in your spreadsheet shows:
* The Dalton Minimum dip of fewer sunspots corresponds as expected with the time of highest wheat prices.
* A major decrease in wheat prices in the late 19th century onwards does not correspond to solar trends meanwhile, but that is easy to explain by other factors (technological improvement meanwhile).
* The peaks of large spikes in sunspots often, as expected, corresponded in timing to substantial local low points in wheat prices (like in 1778-1779, 1787. and quite a number of other examples). Of course, there were exceptions as well, with meanwhile other influences like the Corn Laws, the Importation Act of 1846, indirect economic effects on non-potato food markets of the Irish Potato Famine (due to a massive outbreak of potato blight disease), etc.
For a partial relationship of solar activity to something as distant as a primarily economic matter, such is somewhat good in context, although naturally not displaying the former as the sole factor influencing the economy. Far stronger demonstrations of solar effect are those with climate more directly in http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif

lgl says:
September 8, 2013 at 2:26 pm
No the issue was your claim “The Earth+Moon orbits the center of the Sun as do all other planet+moon systems”. It’s wrong.
As with your admission that your claim was only approximate, so was mine. The best way to see this is to introduce a solar companion at a large distance from the Sun, the planets will still orbit the Sun not the barycenter halfway to the solar companion.

From wbrozek on September 8, 2013 at 2:08 pm:

This formula is correct, but there has to be an error somewhere in your calculations.

Found it. Square root got screwed up and I missed it.
v^2 = 2.292*10^6
v = 1514. km/sec
Oh crud, I screwed up the first time at the end as well. Idiot calculator program with idiot display, cranking through again I get a x10¹, I’m off a decimal point. Should have been 23.83 days.
Ah heck, I should convert the radius to meters to match, works nicer.
r = Mercury orbital distance, 57,910,000 km
= 5.791*10^10m
v^2 = (6.674*10^-11 N m^2 kg^-2) * 1.989*10^30 kg / (5.791*10^10 m)
v^2 = 2.292×10⁹
v = 4.788×10⁴ m/sec
v = 4.788*10¹ km/sec = 47.88 km/sec
2*pi*r = circumference (aka one orbit, revolution)
v / (2*pi*r) = frequency
47.88 km/sec / (2 * 3.14159 * 57,910,000 km)
= 1.316 * 10^-7 rev/sec
Invert for orbital period:
7.600 X 10^6 sec/rev * (1min/60sec) * (1hr/60min) * (1day/24/hr)
=87.96 days

So at the orbit of Mercury, Jupiter would go just as fast as Mercury.

Wikipedia says Mercury’s orbital period is “about 88 Earth days” so now we’re in general agreement.
Good catch, thanks.
(Note to self: Do math when not surrounded by needy cats.)

I feel it is worth pointing out that whether anyone agrees with Leif or not about whatever else he may say, he was the first one to point out the inverse-square behavior of gravity in the orbit/center-of-mass discussions.
Gravity is not a force, modeling it as such leads to nonsensical conclusions.
Without a massive body nearby an object will follow the shortest trajectory available through spacetime, which is approximated closely enough by a straight line for our purposes.
In the presence of a massive body the shortest trajectory available is no longer what we would usually consider a straight line, and as Feynman so elegantly explained; this deviation can be more easily understood with a bit of geometry.
If we start by measuring the circumference of a circle around said massive body and calculate what the radius of that circle would be, we can then measure the actual radius (in this hypothetical of course, it is not quite so simple in the real world) and upon doing so we would find that the measured radius is greater than we expected.
If you drew a circle around the planet that intersected your keyboard, for example, you would then discover that the planet is… shall we say… deeper than it would be if Euclid was in charge.
The deviation due to that excess radius, plotted accordingly, shows up as the aforementioned inverse-square law.
When you try to work out orbits on a flat piece of paper by simply drawing lines across it and adding up masses you will not come to the right answers, if you could we would not remember Einstein as having contributed much to physics, would we?
So, long story short, the curvature in the vicinity of the Earth is sufficient for the Moon to remain in orbit at a given distance, the local curvature due to Jupiter is overwhelmed by that from the Sun, yet the Earth does not lose the Moon to either body.
There are locations where the curvature is approximately equal, we call them Lagrange points, but there are only a few solutions involving bodies of nearly equal masses where the L1 point would also be the Barycenter of a system, the simplest case being a spherical body held together by gravity that is not rotating (as rotation deforms the region where the pull of the mass would be balanced into a disc or ring, with a Kerr metric being a maximal solution) which could be approximated by a shell of masses at a given distance from the central point, giving effectively zero net force felt at that location.

Ok, just to put this into terms more people can understand.
At the distances we’re talking about here, Jupiter’s gravity probably has less of an effect than the ISS has on the Earth… heck, you might have more of a gravitational influence on the Earth than Jupiter does…
I’m figuring the pull from Jupiter felt here is probably somewhere between that from a house and that from a bowling ball but I’m tired and not feeling like cranking out the full math just to have it overlooked anyways.
I can accept that the wobble induced by the rest of the mass of the solar system (which is mostly Jupiter anyways) would distort the evolution of field lines as they migrate through the Sun, I would indeed need very strong evidence to find the idea that it has no influence reasonable, and I would be surprised to learn that a sufficiently powerful simulation of a star with and without jovians showed no variation at all.
Similarly you could certainly calculate the influence the mass of Jupiter has on you or I… assuming you felt like adding enough digits after the zero and ignoring things like passing cars or your waterbed upstairs.
Going so far as to attribute major regime changes in solar behavior to the orientation of insignificant lumps of dusty gas like Saturn and Uranus though?
That is a bit much to swallow.

From: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html
All the planets have this effect on the Sun: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/BA/sbc4.GIF
Everything but Jupiter: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/BA/sbc5.GIF
Minus Jupiter and Saturn: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/BA/sbc6.GIF
Getting rid of Neptune too leaves: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/BA/sbc7.GIF
Zooming in on the Uranus influenced path: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/BA/sbc8.GIF
Getting rid of everything but smaller debris (Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury, etc) gives this: http://www.orbitsimulator.com/BA/sbc10.GIF
Note the scales there, 1.3 million km, 110k km, <1000 km, the idea that there is significance to be found in the tug that might result from a chance alignment of debris–which again, everything smaller than Jupiter can be filed under "debris" if we're being honest–if we're being charitable then Saturn almost rates a mention, while Jupiter alone swings the Sun through most of a million km by itself, and yet statistically we can't identify a signal resulting from it on these records?

Look these clowns who can’t even prosecute functional fundamentals much less proper weightings aren’t going to make ordered mathematical predictive capacity vanish. The orbits of the gas giants and more medium size planets, upon aligning, form gravity force alignment. The sun’s internals, are gas.
“Gravity dont uhfeckt mass if’n yew look real close” like that twit Gavin Schmidt said? (He didn’t say it about gravity he said “If’n yew look REEEELe clowSE it kinda COULD be thair!” about the hotspot that MUST accompany magic gais hype if it had ever been real. If the atmosphere was warming there must by definition be a warm spot near the atmosphere’s lower ‘ceiling’ and of course that alone proves the whole magic gas scam utterly untruthful.
“Gravity don’t ‘feckt it if’n yew dew thuh mayuth raight! Ya’W.”
Something that has the ring of reality based convesation to it sounds like “the internal composition of the sun being gravitationally mobile, the combined weights of several large planets swinging into alighnment, affect the gravitational response to denser, hence more gravitationally sensitive regions within the sun. When large planets swing past the sun, having had the geometry of their combined movement, perform a ‘herding’ or ‘corralling’ effect: all swinging in at speeds which augment the combined process, of affecting the sun, rather than coming together and separating more quickly, as sometimes occurs between certain combinations of bodies in the solar system – the effects are more pronounced, and these forces are extremely simple to know due to the prodigious quantity of space-derived data sent from research & investigation probes…”
If someone said something like that to me I’d perk up a dash and say “No shit? You got the numbers for that I can look at, because I know the effects of gravity are EXTREMELY predictable and well known,
and I know the effects of mass and field force growth and attenuation are the stuff of sophomore science, so I firmly believe you might put together mass agglomerations that affect the sun itself in some way, even if obliquely.”
And indeed that person WOULD have the numbers and would amaze, and mesmerize me, by explaining over twenty minutes, that he could predict the temperature of the earth going both forward, and backward. And he’d do it from some place I know American politics and American media can’t lie, cheat, steal, obfuscate, scam and lie about the know scientific realities: Italy.
This man’s an Italian. Some hick tells you he proved blah, blahBLAH, you say to him, two words:
Nicola Scaffeta.
And screw his illiterate innumerate “I haz phd in climit” clown. You can tell em that too because when they see Nicola say at aboout twenty minutes, “this….BLacK…LINE.”……. and the silence hangs like somebody farted real loud –
you judge
for your self.
You tell me,
he doesn’t know wtf he just said.
Because I’ll put whoever made that ludicrous claim to task just on this Italian’s word and I assure you he’s no American or English “climatologist.”
He’s an actual no bullshit “check my work” – that’s called a RESPECTABLE
math/physics professional.
“Empirical evidences for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications.”

iframe=true&width=80%25&height=80%25
You need not fear the ignorant slugs who think looking into a bore hole with a hockey stick generator means magic gas is boiling out bat’s eyes at night from infrared Backerds-isms (Wherever perfesser Bore Hole Backerd is hiding, I know he’s proud of what he’s done for science. Ya’W)
All you have to do is remember there are a few scientists in the world whose work hasn’t been perverted into “act alarmed or you don’t work”.
Nicola Scaffeta. I advise ya to watch it all, ok? Sorry, sorry, sorry to do that to ya but you need to see, this guy’s not bullshootin. He speaks Italian first and his English is bad. For the word “Oscillations” he says, “Eye-soleh-shun” and then when he uses the word, ‘INDUCED” he latinizes it – i mean – look at what he’s doing here, talking physics in another language in SEVERAL sciences –
when he says INDUCED, he says ” In-DEW-said” and past that, you can see what he’s saying.
I guarantee your a&& you’re gonna understand what he’s saying when he shows you “this…BLaCK…LINE.” You WILL understand just wtf he meant when he says that, and the whole room stops breathing for about six beats.
Toward the end Nicola uses the word “heliosphere” or “helio-something” and he latinizes purely saying “AY-Lee-yOhs-phere” so don’t confuse his lack of English mastery with being like an American Scientist: aka a CROOK.
They didn’t have their entire law enforcement system dared to try to prosecute a bunch of climate scam criminals on Al Gore’s word.
Enjoy folks and seriously: this Nicola guy he’s the real effin deal. WATCH the 28 MINUTES.
YOU WILL NOT WANT YOUR HALF HOUR BACK I guarantee you that, my friend. I PROMISE you that.
Bet

Max™ says:
September 9, 2013 at 2:38 am
I think that’s what you call an “owning”, and maybe this is just me, I think it is probably due to way I learned about physics, but seeing a distinction made between electric and magnetic is strange, as it is just a matter of the right reference frame to moot any such difference entirely.
To a point only: You can always find a reference frame to make an electric field go away, but you cannot find a frame to make a magnetic field go away. In other words: an electric field depends on the observer’s reference frame, but a magnetic field does not.

You can always find a reference frame to make an electric field go away,
Which frame of reference sets the electric field of a static, isolated charge to zero?
( if you allow accelerating frames then all magnetic fields can be zeroed too. )

…but you cannot find a frame to make a magnetic field go away. ~Leif

The electron rest frame?

It would seem that our sun does not belong to one of the spiral arms of our galaxy, but is a rogue doing laps. Thus it is travelling at a speed of some commensurate value compared to the rotation of our galaxy. That would mean that our planetary system is being dragged by the sun, thus the planets are in eliptical spiral orbits, this would make the speed of the planets some what more than we calculate. ~wayne Job

http://calgary.rasc.ca/howfast.htm
We are moving around 719,000 km/hr (447,000 m/hr) around the Milky Way (roughly towards Vega if you’re curious, though that is just a coincidence) but that motion is in a different plane than the planets orbit in: http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/solar_system_from_galactic_centre.gif
Now, there are stars of the right age following trajectories which would allow the sun to have been formed in the same nursery cloud in this galaxy with a cluster of others, there is no reason whatsoever to think it is not native.