Usually, and that means in the past year, when you look at the false color MDI image from SOHO, you can look at the corresponding magnetogram and see some sort of disturbance going on, even it it is not visible as a sunspot, sunspeck, or plage area.
Not today.
Left: SOHO MDI “visible” image Right: SOHO Magnetogram
Click for larger image
Wherefore art though, cycle 24?
In contrast, September 28th, 2001
I was thinking about that yesterday. The Sun is completely inert at its surface.
Hello Mr. A.Watts, I’m an Italian boy,and every day i read your blog… i have created a my blog http://daltonsminima.wordpress.com , his name is new ice age! Many of my article comes from your blog, and Italian people are very interested on my project, as you i believe that the sun is the most important forcing in the climate change! My compliments Mr. Watts,and excuse me for my English… Simon from Pesaro (Italy)
REPLY: Simon, grazie! Best of luck on your new venture. Folks lets hit the link above to give this lad some encouragement. – Anthony
Though?
Thank you very much Anthony…you have to continue your “war”, the the truth you will be right!
simon
Molto bravo, Simone! Cera bisogno di un sito in Italiano!
The sun is quiet, but there are other factors that are involved in climate. The cool PDO shift is likely more responsible for the current cooling trend than the quiet sun. Care needs to be utilized to make rational determinations of cause and effect. While the quiet sun is a once in a lifetime event, everything needs to be considered. Don’t focus too heavily on the sun or you may miss the real drivers of climate.
In bocca il lupo, Simon…
Sorry, no habla Italian. However, Your sight looks great and I wish you all the best. I will check back regularly.
Well, I know Leif will be by, so one question I would love to pose is as follows:
If the sun’s effects are minimal on temperature, why the difference in day/night temperatures?
The sun is quiet, but there are other factors that are involved in climate. The cool PDO shift is likely more responsible for the current cooling trend than the quiet sun.
===
I’ll bite.
If the PDO/AMO/El None/La Nina drive year-to-year temperature rises and falls, WHAT changes/energizes/starts/stops the PDO/AMO/El None/La Nina variations?
captdallas2,
Has it ever occured to you that the undrelying mechanism that drives the PDO
may be indirectly linked a mechanism that drives solar activity?
If you want evidence backing up this arguement, please read my presentation
at:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
The details of the paper backing this presentation have been translated into Russian by Dr. Anatoly Kchlystov from Sternberg Astronomical Institute.
It will be prepared for publication in Book “Global Change”, coming out
later this year.
Anthony,
Maybe you should add a “Clock” to your site. Something like
Sun Cycle 23–only 243 days before it becomes the longest cycle ever recorded
—and counting
or something along those lines.
I’ve been on the Italian site it’s good to know the word is spreading keep up the good work.
Robert Wood (14:08:14) : You wrote: The Sun is completely inert at its surface.
Hold on now! Don’t leave the sun-blocker at home. Ol’Sol is still pumping out a lot of energy. Have a look at some other wavelengths:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html
Wherefore art thou #24, indeed. . . .
hmmm. . .
A day or even a week or likely even a month of total solar quiet in both the visible and magnetogram spectrums does not I suppose provide conclusive evidence that we have entered a major ”outside-the-standard-deviation” solar event.
But: I wonder:
How long would both the MDI and magnetogram images have to remain in more-or-less this ”nobody home” state; before experts in this area (not me) would start to talk about there being a reasonable chance that we could be entering another solar event along the lines of a Dalton Minimum or even a Maunder Minimum. Admit I ask before don’t have a feel for what criteria scientists would use to base such a ”crossing the threshold” conclusion on. Since IIRC the Maunder Minimum lasted about 50 years and the Dalton Minimum considerably less than that, I’m pretty confident this ”window” is considerably less than 10 years. But how much more than we have so far I don’t know ??. . .
Just curious. . . .
I don’t know any ethnic Chinese, so I wonder who laid the: “May you live in interesting times” on me?
Maunder?
Dalton?
Sporer?
Whatever. Bring it on!
oops:
What I meant to say in my above was:
”Admit I ask because don’t have . . . .”
not ”before don’t have”.
Sorry.
Ohioholic (15:21:29) : Just in case Leif doesn’t pick up on your question, I think his issue is with the small variation in TSI, not whether or not it is in the ON position. Further, it is in the ON position over one-half Earth at all times. And, the issues is not the temps during a 24 hour day at one spot.
After I submitted my last, I took a look at Simon’s ice2020. He has a shot from late 3/21 (22:24) of SOHO showing a small sunspeck on the upper left. He has IDed it as cycle 23, but I believe the high latitute indicates cycle 24, correct? Or did NASA cancel 24 after all?
I wish I could poll the astrophysicists to see where they stand regarding Svendsmark’s theory. I know this astrophysicist, Nir Shaviv, believes cosmic rays have a primary role in our climate: http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
I am amazed at how people think that the sun’s changes “cannot” be a major factor influencing the earth’s temperature (and, by effect, climate). This is the only way the earth receives any of the heat it has!
John F. Hultquist (16:16:17) :
Hmm…. I must have misread or pulled an Andy Pettite style ‘misremembering’ of what he said then. This is definitely possible given the workload I have been under lately. Come to think of it, I may not even be thinking of the same person, but attributed it to Leif for some reason. I’m sure he’ll let me know, hopefully in a nice way. 🙂
Before you know it, it’ll be SC25 time creeping up on us while 24 keeps on limping along. Perhaps 24 will be lucky to even peak at 50/month before it fizzles out around — what’s that date again? — 2015. Best make sure I have a few pair of long johns handy…
Anthony,
Dr. Henrik Svensmark’s theory on the “Influence of Cosmic Rays on the earth’s climate”
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf
predicts an increase in incident galactic cosmic rays hitting the earth’s atmosphere leading to an increase in cloud cover and a corresponding increase in the earth’s albedo.
Referring back to your 17 October 2007 post titled “Earth’s Albedo Tells an Interesting Story” and to the Earthshine project page
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
The earth’s albedo has increased.
The Earthshine project aims to determine “a global and absolutely calibrated albedo … by measuring the amount of sunlight reflected from the Earth and, in turn, back to the Earth from the dark portion of the face of the Moon.”
The following graphic
shows in blue the Earthshine changes in albedo from 1999 to 2007.
The following is from the conclusion of a paper that can be found here:
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
“However, preceding CERES, earthshine and ISCCP-FD reflectances show a significant increase before flattening and holding the increase. This implies a reduction in the net sunlight reaching Earth. In the context of the recent climate change, it is important to point out that the physical causes behind these large decadal variations in albedo are still unknown, and that we just don’t know yet whether we should expect the albedo changes observed during the modern period to persist into the future.
Further, we have demonstrated that the trend toward an increasing terrestrial albedo seen in the earthshine is due to evolving cloud properties, rather than sampling problems or issues arising from the Sun-Earth-Moon geometry. Future observations of the earthshine from a planned global network of robotic telescopes will provide an even more valuable tool, complementary to satellite data, for the study of changes in the short-wave forcing of the Earth’s climate. The first robotic telescope is already in regular operation.”
Interesting.
–Mike Ramsey
I think I see the sunspeck too, see:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/512/ then
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/ or better:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.jpg
Image time 2224.
REPLY: Yup, no sooner than I posted this, one appeared. Thats Murphy for ya! – Anthony
Hmmmmm, on my arbitrary time axis sun activity is inversely proportional to our carbon emissions. Clearly humans are to blame for this impending catatrosphe.
There will come a time when Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming will be remembered as another example of Lysenkoism… fraudulent scientific theories propped up by a failing state.
The serene sun seems to be the sign of contradiction for alarmism. Each day brings new counter-proofs.
“The advantage of being a cynic is that you expect little, get nothing and yet remain serene” – Charles Krauthammer
What effect do solar cycles have?
I think most would agree that the average cycle length is 11 years and varies between 9 to 14?
If this is true then a FFT plot of total solar irradiance would show these regulat cycles as peaks.
If peaks are visible and TSI have an effect on temperature then these peaks should be visible in the temperature records, An FFT will not be affected by:
*delays in TSI to temperature (days or years providing the delay is constant)
*positive or negative or no trend in temperature (UHI will not affect the peaks)
*absolute values of temperature (arctic or equator will not matter).
*the peaks are time accurate unless temperature reporting has been done in a different universe (i.e. a peak at 7.8 years is NOT the same as a peak at 8 years)
however:
* records are not available for long enough to give sensible output beyond say 50years
* peaks occurring at slightly varying periods will give a wide hump in the output
Looking at one FFT of temperature for one place shows vague peaks NOT at the required peiod but has so much noise that no real conclusions can be drawn.
I therefore took a number of places with LONG records:
central England, Hohenpeissenberg, Uppsala, Melbourne, New York Central Park , Albany, Binghampton, Shanghai and did a simple average of the FFT output.
The FFT of Leif’s TSI data and the averaged temperature FFT is shown below:
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/861/averageffttempcftsi.jpg
The FFTs are all from monthly data (hence peak at 1 year) and all records have been padded out with 0s to enable a 4096 sample FFT to be made (this gives an artificial high level at long periods)
Note that the scale is period and not frequency (as is usual in FFTs).
The FFTs are done in excel.
I think it is evident that there is no VISIBLE TSI influence on temperature. However there are apparent peaks at 7.8 years approx and possibly at 2.3, 3.5, 13 and 19 years.
Am I wrong and if so why?
Bill
It’s amazing that we are getting such a marvelous chance to test Svenmark’s theory. While lots of folks predicted a weak solar cycle, this one is seriously interesting. We could get a minimum worth a name.
I don’t believe the changes in solar radiation are given enough credit for changes here. True, natural variations due to changes in distance to the sun and the like are greater in amount, where the impact in radiation is going to be seen are at the extreme ends of these natural changes.
For example, if the sun’s output is just a little less than normal, then the peak radiation we get when the we are closest is less and the minimum is more extreme as well. And it probably doesn’t play out over a single year. But after several orbital cycles of less radiation from the sun, the earth would have to lose energy to space. So while at any given time the solar radiation received is within the bounds of “normal”, it is at the extremes of maximum and minimum seasonal variation where the difference will be most important.
If radiation doesn’t reach the level this summer than it reached last summer, maybe a little more ice is left. Maybe if we have two or three entire solar cycles that peak at lower levels, the impact begins to be noticed. While I won’t buy into the notion that a change is going to be felt immediately, if it becomes a pattern over decades, I can’t see how it can’t help but be felt eventually.
But here we are with nearly another month gone by and still no spots. At what point does this become anomalous? I understand that cycles vary in duration and some are longer than others … but when do we cross, say, the 75th percentile into the longest 25% of cycles?
Dr. Hathaway was quoted in a NASA press release in 2004 as saying that it appeared that the current solar minimum might arrive a full year earlier than predicted:
“”This is a sign,” says Hathaway, “that the solar minimum is coming, and it’s coming sooner than we expected.”
…
But researchers are making progress. Hathaway and colleague Bob Wilson, both working at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, believe they’ve found a simple way to predict the date of the next solar minimum. “We examined data from the last 8 solar cycles and discovered that Solar Min follows the first spotless day after Solar Max by 34 months,” explains Hathaway.
The most recent solar maximum was in late 2000. The first spotless day after that was Jan 28, 2004. So, using Hathaway and Wilson’s simple rule, solar minimum should arrive in late 2006. That’s about a year earlier than previously thought.”
Well, it turns out it arrived even sooner as a NASA release from March 6, 2006 announces the arrival at solar minimum, a year and a half earlier than expected. Now here we are in March 2009.
On March 10, 2006, NASA released the following:
“This week researchers announced that a storm is coming–the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). “The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958.
…
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
“History shows that big sunspot cycles ‘ramp up’ faster than small ones,” he says. “I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.”
And so here we are. No “doozy” in sight.
I have followed what Leif has been saying and been patient. But it seems that what the “experts” say this year will be completely different next year. It is getting very difficult not to take anything said on the subject with several grains of salt.
Yup, no sooner than I posted this, one appeared. Thats Murphy for ya! – Anthony
Actually I think if you check back for the last six months or so whenever you mention the lack of sunspots on here, one shows up. 🙂
Wherefore means “why” in modern English, not “where”.
This is why Juliet said “wherefore art thou Romeo”, asking why he has the name of Montegue’s son, and not the name of a man she could wed.
George, the high latitude would think of the cycle 24, but the polarity of the cycle is 23 … or maybe 25?
Simon
Regarding the Simon’s English.
It is way better than my Italian.
He needs make no apology.
I’d never seen the “sunspek” discriptor before.
Saw it on http://solarcycle24.com/ then realized it had been used here.
Is that a new coinage, or am I just slow?
REPLY: Or maybe I just typed too fast and dropped the “c”. ? – Anthony
How the real deniers think: “It is crazy – crazy – to think the sun has a major influence on Earth’s climate! Clearly CO2, a life-giving trace gas comprising less than one percent of all greenhouse gases, is driving major climate change. Computer simulations prove it. Let’s destroy our fossil-fuel based energy infrastructure immediately and send humanity back to the dark ages so we can SAVE THE PLANET!”
What of the energy we reflect back to the sun? What becomes of that?
It’s a very small new sunspot according to the Solar Cycle 24 website
http://www.solarcycle24.com
“A small new sunspeck has formed high in latitude in the northern hemisphere. It has the proper latitude of Cycle 24 but with the opposite magnetic polarity. It poses no threat for solar flares.
Today I am watching the STEREO Behind images as there appears to be a bright area approaching the eastern limb. It is still too early to tell if this will be anything of interest or just another Cycle 24 dud.”
Is anyone else concerned that the few spots that we HAVE seen in the last, say, six months have all been FUNKY in one way or another?
First, just about every other spot seems to have SC23 polarity (apparently including this latest one, even though it is HIGH LATITUDE) Very spooky.
Second, about half the recent spots have been SPECKS which lasted HOURS instead of days. Many of these likely wouldn’t be counted in centuries past.
Third, of course, there just AREN’T ANY SPOTS relative to where we are supposed to be in the cycle. Zip nada null set.
Seems like a “shy” polarity shift; a failure to “snap-over” as it were; like a meta-stable wobbling.
Questions:
(a) is there an established criterion for “calling” a minimum? (while you’re IN IT, I mean; ex post facto seems like it would be pretty easy to call). I’m supposing there isn’t.
(b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum (or perhaps Gore-Hansen)?
My feeling is that if this indeed a Minimum, and the climate follows the Maunder and Dalton pattern (or, heaven forbid, a colder pattern), future generations REALLY need to be reminded about the hubris of AGW.
(c) how many days until we’re outside TWO standard deviations for the length of SC23?? I seem to recall that we shot past one std deviation sometime this winter, and that the 2nd was pretty quick thereafter (ie the distribution is pretty tight about 11.6 years). How big does the excusion have to be (in std deviations) before this becomes a noteworthy event?
Repetitive quote of the year:
“The sun is blank. No sunspots.”
“The sun is blank. No sunspots.”
“The sun is blank. No sunspots.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Thank you to Simon’s blog! 😀
of course…sunspeck is 23 cycle. anybody saw a 24 spot? 😉
Am I wrong and if so why?
TSI is not the whole story. It ignores indirect (magnetic and/or Svensmark) effects.
Even the IPCC acknowledges these indirect effects. Right before they proceed to ignore them.
George M (16:14:06) :
“I don’t know any ethnic Chinese, so I wonder who laid the: “May you live in interesting times” on me?
Maunder?
Dalton?
Sporer?
Whatever. Bring it on!”
That´s a good and healthy psyche!! . You know, those anxious of solving their traumas unavoidably seek their own “end of the world” (By the way we try our best to help them find it)
Nothing will happen…whatever it comes..cheers!
There are two specks, one on each hemisphere!
This published prediction was made by R. W.Fairbridge & , J. H. Shirley in 1987:
“Our tentative prediction is for inception of a new prolonged minimum within the time span of the solar barycentric orbit of 1990-2013.” in
Prolonged Minima and the 179-yr cycle of the Solar inertial motion, p. 207:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987SoPh..110..191F/0000197.000.html
The solar barycentric orbit of 1990-2013 happens to be the current solar orbit. The predicted prolonged minimum Cycle 23 started in 1996 and the absence of sunspots is still continuing. To the best of my knowledge, The late Rhodes Fairbridge and Shirley were the only scientists to actually predict the current prolonged minimum. NASA was caught flat-footed and still seems totally clueless! That is especially ironic because the work published 22 years ago by Fairbridge and Shirley at Caltech JPL was funded by NASA (JPL is a NASA facility). Page 204 has an excellent diagram of the current barycentric solar orbit. As noted in the paper, these orbits are very different from perturbed Keplerian orbits.
I sdlo highly recommend this paper:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/66/11/PDF/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf
Pretty interesting, don’t you think? I’m a retired orbit specialist, who worked at JPL from 1965 to 1980. I find barycentric solar orbits most fascinating.
REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony
Gotta change that conveyor belt!
ice2020
Simon,
I went to your blog. Well done young man!
Dave
mark wagner (17:53:31) :
TSI is not the whole story. It ignores indirect (magnetic and/or Svensmark) effects.
Even the IPCC acknowledges these indirect effects. Right before they proceed to ignore them.
But, I thought these were sychronised to sunspot count and therefore TSI.
If this is so their effect should also produce a peak around 11 years.
RA RA RA RA
Don’t know whether to believe Leif or my lying eyes.
At what point (date) do we/they start to re-evaluate?
Ninderthana (15:41:21) :
captdallas2,
“Has it ever occured to you that the undrelying mechanism that drives the PDO
may be indirectly linked a mechanism that drives solar activity?”
Have do done any supplemental linkage work with 10Be and 14C records that are associated with solar activity or are these proxies irrelevant to your study?
I’m from the UK. We could not feed a population of 30(ish) million people in WW2 withouth the stalwart support of our allies, paticularly the USA, and now we have a population of 60 million and rising. Given historical records that co-relate grain production and sun-spot numbers I think we are up the proverbial without a whotzit
Would a sunspok be only half-Vulcan eyezed? 8<)
OT… Nice mention of WUWT:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5028380/The-Global-Warming-Three-are-on-thin-ice.html
Adolfo Giurfa (18:01:47) :
Yeah, I was about to ask about that. It liiks like there is a simewhat larger, midlatitude, siuthern hemisphere spot as well. Both Cycle 23?
Ric, I think this image shows it rather well:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_171/1024/latest.html
Gerry: Pretty interesting, don’t you think? I’m a retired orbit specialist, who worked at JPL from 1965 to 1980. I find barycentric solar orbits most fascinating.
REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony
I would be tempted to treat an orbit specialist who worked for 15 years at JPL with some respect. Dr. Svalgaard is one scientist. Gerry is apparently another — maybe each of them knows some things that the other doesn’t?
Gerry’s point is that no one (including Dr. Svalgaard) predicted sc23’s length the way Fairbridge did (with the possible exception of Landscheidt), let alone 20 years ahead of the fact.
Ric,
Or this one: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_284/1024/latest.html
I would like to hear from Dr. Willie Soon on the current state of the sun and with regards to it’s affect (or not) on the climate. :^) Dr. Soon, any possibility?
bill (16:57:27) :
I think it is evident that there is no VISIBLE TSI influence on temperature. However there are apparent peaks at 7.8 years approx and possibly at 2.3, 3.5, 13 and 19 years.
Am I wrong and if so why?
Bill
There’s a lot of variation in periodicities in temperature series, Bill. Especially on a regional level, it is going to depend a lot of the impact of how long term climate systems modulate the influence of TSI. Leif acknowledged a few days ago a chart I linked to showing a series of changes in the rate of change in temperatures that can plausibly be linked to TSI. Here it is again:
http://s5.tinypic.com/hreogj.jpg
This is the time domain representation. The frequency domain (MTM spectrum analysis) looks like this:
http://s5.tinypic.com/r1adtl.jpg
This for a 1895-2008 US temperature data set for the Southern Region of the US. There is a significant “decadal” periodicity here, with two peaks, one at 11.02 yr and another at 8.53 yr. The first may correspond to the solar cycle, and the second to the lunar nodal cycle.
These kinds of decadal and bidecadal signals are found in all kinds of climate time series.
Since you are using the CET series, you might want to take a look at Figure 1, Panel (b), in this:
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/MGEGEC.pdf
Whatever the sun is doing to influence terrestrial climate, it is “filtered” through complex interactions with oceanic and atmospheric systems like the NAO and PDO which will create considerable variation in regional regimes. This will be especially the case for an island adjacent to a major ocean like Central England. I don’t think what happens in Central England is definitive for what happens everywhere else.
On a global basis, the decadal and bidecadal variation in rates of change in global temperature look like this:
http://s5.tinypic.com/2ily161.jpg
and the spectra like this:
http://s5.tinypic.com/2j12ype.jpg
The link to solar it is there. But look carefully at the vertical axis of the time charts. These are very small changes, well within the range of being attributable to the 0.1% variation in TSI over the course of a solar cycle.
What explains the long term trend since the mid 18th Century is something else. I’m not ruling out a role for solar, but I’ll concede (to Leif) that it isn’t the 11 year cycle in TSI.
Ooh dang it, one of my pixels burned out… Oh Wait a minute, Thats a Sunfleck.
But seriously people I am scared of the sun being so quiet. If this was a human patient, someone would of pulled the plug LOOOONNNG ago. Im biting my nails in anticipation for activity.
John Adlington (18:34:52) :
“…I think we are up the proverbial without a whotzit..”
Brilliant, sir, practically Shakespearean. I’ve been needing an inspiration for my first tattoo, and you delivered.
Henry
Your images of sun are updating ones and a few specks are now appearing on the
Magnetogram….might have been better not to use an updating image!
If these new sun specks are typical of the last few they will not last very long.
I am beginning to think that there are more riddles underlying the dynamics of the sun than are being used in making the current predictions for cycle 24. I doubt that 8 solar cycles of data will provide sufficient data to project the start of the next solar cycle or the maximum magnitude of sunspot activity.
Even if someone may come close enough to proclaim success it may require another solar cycle to confirm the theory!
I suggest we call the mimimum the Chicken Little Minimum.
captdallas2 @14:56:29:
“Don’t focus too heavily on the sun or you may miss the real drivers of climate.”
Is that self-parody?
It appears like Cycle 23 is like Lazarus…. it keep coming back from the dead… LOL. We’re in uncharted territory since no one seems to understand WTF is going on with the sun, not even the so called experts.
I smell a Dalton Minimum coming and lets hope nothing worse than that otherwise the northern hemisphere will be in a heap of hurt.
Another a MAJOR paper published. Surprised when the first version came out year ago I think, some attacked is as quackery so now it has definitely been published in a major Physics Journal http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161. This debunks the WHOLE concept of AGW and the physics behind it!
The cool PDO shift is likely more responsible for the current cooling trend than the quiet sun.
Sure. The normal variance of a normal minimum is c. 0.1C. Not a whole lot. But if it turns out to be a Grand Minimum, hoo brother! Whole ‘nother story.
Gerry wrote: Pretty interesting, don’t you think? I’m a retired orbit specialist, who worked at JPL from 1965 to 1980. I find barycentric solar orbits most fascinating.
REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony
Anthony you have made it clear what you think (or don’t think) of the Landscheit research.
However, not everybody here shares the same disdain, though even some of us who think it a possibility, remain skeptical.
Understood about the Svaalgard Test. Point taken. I read everything that Leif says with great interest…and I love to watch him in action. Definitely a brilliant mind with no agenda.
But on the other hand….you have a retired, RETIRED orbit specialist here “Gerry” who was proffering some information and some studies.
I emphasize “retired” as he started working at JPL the year I was born.
And he was delivering some information as he saw it related to TOPIC….about the inordinately quiet sun.
And until Landscheit is proven 100% wrong without a shadow of a doubt (who knows maybe it will be 50 years from now…or maybe it will be validated), then in courtesy and respect of free inquiry…such comments to gentlemen such as this…are not warranted.
That being said…this is your blog….and its a GREAT one….but i have to say that it is not reasonable to shut down someone like this poster in such a way.
There are plenty of other “plants” on here who clog up your award-winning blog with pages of sophistry and it is on them that the shut-down efforts should be aimed.
Thanks for your efforts. Just making a point.
Back to topic: Question: At what point in time or date does this minimum become officially “grand”?
REPLY: If I intended to “shut him down”, I would have snipped the entire post and then posted that note. As it was I left it open for him to respond. – Anthony
Nice paragraph at the end of the link to Telegraph:
A London employment tribunal has ruled that Tim Nicholson, right, was wrongly dismissed as a property firm’s “head of sustainability” because of his fervent commitment to “climate change”. Mr Nicholson had fallen out with his colleagues over his attempts to reduce the company’s “carbon footprint”. The tribunal chairman David Neath found the company guilty of discriminating against Mr Nicholson under the 2006 Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations, because his faith in global warming was a “philosophical belief”. Recalling how “eco-psychologists’’ at the University of the West of England are pressing for “climate denial” to be classified as a form of “mental disorder”, one doubts whether the same legal protection would be given to those who fail to share Mr Nicholson’s “philosophical belief”.
Anyone up for a sociological discussion on acceptance of science and rejecting accepted science? Tesla, are you out there?
“It was quiet in Dodge–too quiet.”
(Pandemonium brewing?)
Methow Ken,
i recently asked your very question to Dr. Tony Phillips over at Spaceweather.com. Dr. Phillips is very much in the “just move on, nothing unusual here” camp about SS 24. No answer yet as to when he and his colleagues at NASA might begin to consider the current situation a Dalton like event.
Slightly OT, but hopefully helpful…
For those using the Firefox browser, there is an ‘add-on’ called FoxLingo. It currently supports 45+ languages and can do webpage and text translations.
Back to the matter at hand…we are now coming to the point where the wheat and the chaff will be parted: those within the science community are the intellectually honest and those who aren’t. The current state of the sun is beyond denial; what it ultimately means has yet to be fully understood. The incurious will stand out for all to see.
Scientific inquiry or cherished tropes; the fork in the road is upon us.
Running and hiding
Take and dividing
You’ve got your secrets
I’ve only got a sleeping sun
Mike Bryant,
That report is very interesting. I wonder if my comment helped?
” Keith Minto (20:37:59) :
Of course reporting the Catlin ’survey’,responsible journalists and their editors would balance their article with “however, US Army Ice buoys using longer term data have reported………”.
Wouldn’t they “
That should be SC 24.
REPLY: If I intended to “shut him down”, I would have snipped the entire post and then posted that note. As it was I left it open for him to respond. – Anthony
Yes but why immediately put him on the defensive with such a Newspeak reply?
Why make a comment at all?
As I said before, there are plenty of other “plants” on here that deliver pages and pages of gibberish. I won’t mention any names Foinavon. LOL
I don’t know man….it just could have been delivered a little more respectfully to a man who is our grandfather’s age.
And so your comment to him was a type of shut-down.
A snipped statement is not a shut-down. It is a deletion. Make sense?
Anyway…thanks for allowing free speech.
And thanks for your efforts. They are much appreciated.
Back to TOPIC…Question: At what point in time or date does this minimum become officially “grand”?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
REPLY: I would say when SC24 is so late that SC25 should be starting. – Anthony
@VG
Isn’t that interesting. Well well, weren’t we told Gehrlich was a lone wolf, an outsider, a kook and unworthy to publish in a “recognized” journal?
Even Steve M at CA refused discussion on G&T. What about now?
If temperatures plummet this year, it will become known as The Taunter Minimum.
Ohioholic (15:21:29) :
Well, I know Leif will be by, so one question I would love to pose is as follows:
If the sun’s effects are minimal on temperature, why the difference in day/night temperatures?
Don’t for get the slight tilt gets us winter LOL
Here we go again …
Looks like it is an SC23 in the Northern Hemisphere with white leading black on the magnetogram (even if it is high latitude). Looks like the sun’s refusing to allow itself to being pigeonholed — doing what it darn while pleases, while us critters on this little blue-green planet try to figure it out.
As for references to the Southern Hemisphere; that’s an SP (stuck pixel) that’s been there for quite awhile.
As for this latest pair of teensy specks — who knows, they may be gone in the morning. Maybe Zeus knows…
Joe Miner (17:09:49) :
Yup, no sooner than I posted this, one appeared. That’s Murphy for ya! – Anthony
Actually I think if you check back for the last six months or so whenever you mention the lack of sunspots on here, one shows up. 🙂
The Anthony Watts effect!
Basil (19:01:45) :
There’s a lot of variation in periodicities in temperature series, Bill. Especially on a regional level, it is going to depend a lot of the impact of how long term climate systems modulate the influence of TSI. …
Since you are using the CET series, you might want to take a look at Figure 1, Panel (b), in this:
CET was only one of 8 global locations used in the averaged spectrum. But it is interesting that my CET spectrum corresponds well with the spectrum in the article you reference, but in the average the 5 and 25 year peaks are very much reduced.
Whatever the sun is doing to influence terrestrial climate, it is “filtered” through complex interactions with oceanic … This will be especially the case for an island adjacent to a major ocean like Central England. I don’t think what happens in Central England is definitive for what happens everywhere else.
The average was from global locations. LP Filtering with a period of >11 years will get rid of the 11 year peaks (obviously!) but it will also remove the TSI variability and only show other solar variability.
What explains the long term trend since the mid 18th Century is something else. I’m not ruling out a role for solar, but I’ll concede (to Leif) that it isn’t the 11 year cycle in TSI.
I’d agree with that!
Well, I see one spot, high up, which is a cycle 24 signature, BUT the magnetogram gives the wrong polarity for 24.
from solarcycle24.com
A small new sunspeck has formed high in latitude in the northern hemisphere. It has the proper latitude of Cycle 24 but with the opposite magnetic polarity. It poses no threat for solar flares.
So either a rogue 23 or a rogue 25
Maybe 24 will be only 9 years long so we get the incoming tale of 25 😉
Well then, Anthony Watts, that’s one mighty strange SC23?? spot you have scared up. Twisted, just like some we saw earlier this year. An axis of dipoles running somewhere’s about 45 degrees.
Some have suggested SC24 died and SC25 spots are now trying out for Dancing with the Stars.
ice2020 (17:14:32) :
George, the high latitude would think of the cycle 24, but the polarity of the cycle is 23 … or maybe 25?
Simon
Ice Age (17:36:52) :
It’s a very small new sunspot according to the Solar Cycle 24 website
http://www.solarcycle24.com
“A small new sunspeck has formed high in latitude in the northern hemisphere. It has the proper latitude of Cycle 24 but with the opposite magnetic polarity. It poses no threat for solar flares.
This may indeed be a Cycle 25 speck.
Nasa may have let slip out that 24 is over. there has been 2 -3 year cycles in the past.
hareynolds (17:40:24) :
If the sun does a double pole change that would explain this minimum would it not?
savethesharks (19:43:12) :
I agree completely!
Gerry (18:02:00) :
we hope you reply here more.
REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony
Sorry I missed his discussion, and I’m prepared to be corrected, but as I understand it, the barycenter effect has nothing to do with a barycenter mass… it has everything to do with the effect of acceleration and torque on a non-solid??? To get an idea, take a bowl of spinning water and place it on the edge of a rotating table. Now change the position of the bowl relative to the center of the table including going passed the center, (retrograde, as during the sun relation to barycenter in 1990) and observe the liquid contents! The mass involved is the mass of the sun itself and the effect the changing acceleration has on the suns very flexible gas make up.
I’m wondering if the retrograde effect may somehow be the cause of the high latitude cycle 23 type specs and or spots?
Stephen
anna v (21:09:36) :
have you seen this?
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/non-refereed2/ESA_SP477_lostcycle.pdf
I will suggest to call the existing sun minimum the “WATTS MINIMUM” !
REPLY: Thanks but I don’t need anything named after me – Anthony
The sun spot today–Galileo wouldn’t have seen it. You have to put a friggin circle around it in the photo from SOHO to see it.
Scroll down here to see what I’m saying :
http://solarcycle24.com/
“hareynolds (17:40:24) : (b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum”
Al Gore’s name shouldn’t be attached to anything except the fact that children can’t sleep good after seeing his moving. This is the only thing he has earned being remembered for.
bill (16:57:27) :
If this is true then a FFT plot of total solar irradiance would show these regular cycles as peaks.
It does, although a better plot uses the sunspot number [my TSI is just derived from the SSN] as a proxy for TSI [and cosmic rays]. Here are some musings about FFTof sunspot numbers:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-14C.pdf and this one:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN-1700-2008.png that shows the effect of starting the data one year later successively for 11 years to show the end effects on pressing the data into periodic sine and cosine functions.
I think it is evident that there is no VISIBLE TSI influence on temperature. However there are apparent peaks at 7.8 years approx and possibly at 2.3, 3.5, 13 and 19 years.
You are perfectly correct. Although I have come across the argument that eye-balling with an open mind and a willing heart beats hard-nosed FFT and statistics every time.
Stephen (21:48:17) :
To get an idea, take a bowl of spinning water and place it on the edge of a rotating table. Now change the position of the bowl relative to the center of the table including going passed the center, (retrograde, as during the sun relation to barycenter in 1990) and observe the liquid contents!
The problem with your picture is that there is a coupling [namely friction] between the rotating table and the liquid in the bowl, but there is no coupling between the rotating Sun and its orbital movement. It has been suggested many times that as a planet goes around the Sun in an elliptical orbit, i.e. changing its orbital speed that it would rotate slower or faster depending on its orbital speed. This doesn’t happen either, again because there is no couple between the two. And that the Sun is not solid has nothing to do with it. The Earth is solid and is slowed down by friction of the tidal bulge due to the Moon, the couple being the physical contact and hence the friction.
But we shouldn’t really get into this again, it has been covered in almost every ‘sun-related’ post before, as the discussion always degenerates into visions of planetary influence on the Sun. Look though [just about] any of the older postings.
REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony
REPLY: If I intended to “shut him down”, I would have snipped the entire post and then posted that note. As it was I left it open for him to respond. – Anthony
Hi Anthony, I hope it’s ok for others to respond too.
There is a theory which is a bit different to the other barycentric theories which has the correct order of magnitude effect, and a plausible physical basis with demonstrable mathematics. Using it, it’s author achieved a R=0.65 correlation for sunspot numbers spanning several centuries. I have on three seperate occasions tried to get Dr Svalgaard to have a look and comment on this theory, but have been ignored each time. I don’t think ignoring a theory amounts to “debunking” it.
The last time I was having a short exchange of posts with another contributor, lgl, on matters relating to solar and planetary motion, you did snip our entire posts, and replaced them with an injunction:
“No further barycentrics here.”
SInce then I have respected your preference and avoided the topic as far as possible, but given your responses on this thread I am left wondering whether your injunction applied to that thread alone, or the whole blog in general.
Given the failure of current mainstream solar theory to predict the sun’s behaviour, I would have thought that a spirit of free scientific enquiry and debate was in order, and that other theories, even though they may not be approved of by current mainstream solar physicists, should be up for discussion.
If you don’t want that discussion on your blog, fair enough, it’s your blog, but I don’t believe others should be misled by sweeping statements about all such theories having been “debunked”, because they haven’t.
I wrote:
“If temperatures plummet this year, it will become known as The Taunter Minimum.”
Even better would be “The Tauntem Minimum.”
Hi all,
Using the 13 month smoothed International Sunspot number (which I believe is the official number used for defining the beginning and ending of solar cycles), I plotted all 24 numbered solar cycles by month. The last month is the minimum, and as it started to increase again, I assigned that to the next cycle. According to this methodology, the most recent data available is from September 2008 (6 months ago, includes these most recent 6 months in the smoothing) and it indicates that cycle 23 had not yet ended.
So, inquiring minds are left wondering, what is the average length of a solar cycle and the standard deviation? Microsoft Excel was only too happy to provide me an answer! The average length of a solar cycle is 132.3 months (yes, almost exactly eleven years!). The standard deviation is 14.99 months (okay, just call it fifteen!). Here are the results…
No solar cycles were shorter than 102 months (8.5 years, avg – 2 sigma)
Solar cycles 2, 3, 8 and 21 were 103 to 117 months, between 1 and 2 sigma below the average.
Solar cycles 7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22 were 118 to 132 months (shorter than average but not in a statistically meaningful way).
Solar cycles 1, 5, 10, 11, 14, 20 and 23 are 133 to 147 months (longer than average but not in a statistically meaningful way). HOWEVER, it is worth noting that cycle 23 is not over, and is at 145 months so it is just 2 months short of hitting the next category! Also note SC#5 is part of the Dalton minimum.
Solar cycles 6, 9 and 13 are 148 to 162 months (between 1 and 2 sigma longer than the average. Note that SC#6 is part of the Dalton Minimum.
Solar cycle #4 is the gold standard at 164 months, it is more than 2 sigma longer than the mean. It is the one that started the Dalton minimum. We’ve got a year and a half to go before we make this level!
Just thought I’d let you all know,
Paul
captdallas2 (14:56:29) : The sun is quiet, but there are other factors that are involved in climate. The cool PDO shift is likely more responsible for the current cooling trend than the quiet sun.
Or perhaps the sun stirs the ocean via a spin-orbit coupling of angular momentum conservation:
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/wilsonforum2008.pdf
Don’t focus too heavily on the sun or you may miss the real drivers of climate.
And don’t soft focus yourself too much for the same reason…
tallbloke (23:02:35) :
I have on three separate occasions tried to get Dr Svalgaard to have a look and comment on this theory, but have been ignored each time. I don’t think ignoring a theory amounts to “debunking” it.
I never ignore anything [that is one my problems; if I only did, these discussions would wither on the vine], but I have yet to see a plausible physical explanation. Doesn’t have to be correct, just possible, i.e. not violating physical laws or being energetically inadequate.
tallbloke (23:02:35) :
Given the failure of current mainstream solar theory to predict the sun’s behaviour
What failure? One of the best prediction methods we have [based on solid dynamo theory] predicts a very low cycle [‘smallest in a hundred years’]. Such cycles are slow starters, so the Sun is doing just what it should.
“Harold Ambler (18:55:42) : I would be tempted to treat an orbit specialist who worked for 15 years at JPL with some respect.”
I would too Harold.
I am also tempted to respect Anthony Watts and what he has accomplished here with this blog.
I have an idea : let’s respect all of them. Let’s use the difference in each ones views as a spurring to go deeper.
Einstein encouraged his students and friends to ask him questions. Eisenhower improved (a lot) on Montgomery’s D-Day plans. NASA would not have got Apollo 13 back to earth if just one brain was working on the problem (I recommend the movie ‘Apollo 13’ to see what I’m saying). More minds, more creativity, more answers.
My point : I’m not going to throw out Gerry, I’m not going to throw out Leif Svalgaard, I’m not going to throw out David Archibald, I’m not going to throw out Milivoje A. Vukcevic (vukcevic), and I wish Willie Soon, Nir Shaviv, and Piers Corbyn were here.
hareynolds (17:40:24) :
(b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum (or perhaps Gore-Hansen)?
My feeling is that if this indeed a Minimum, and the climate follows the Maunder and Dalton pattern (or, heaven forbid, a colder pattern), future generations REALLY need to be reminded about the hubris of AGW.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As much as I can enjoy the irony of your suggestion, it will go over the over-inflated heads of Gore-Hansen. They do not deserve to be remembered as anything but fools – and naming a grand-minima after them would undermine that objective. It is human nature to forget “why” something is named what it is, and just remember the name.
Besides there are physicists who have done serious work on the subject, who do deserve to have their work recognized. It was my understanding (I may have received faulty intell) the next grand-minima was to be named for Theordor Landscheidt, who back in the ’90’s was predicting sunspots to all but disappear after SC24 until 2030.
Ninderthana (15:41:21) : If you want evidence backing up this arguement, please read my presentation
I didn’t realize who you were through the pseudonym. FWIW, I’m fairly certain that you are right. I had been working my way down this path, some significant distance behind you, and Geoff Sharp pointed me at your paper.
IMHO, your paper shows that as the solar orbital angular momentum approaches very small (as the orbital position vector of the sun tends toward small), ends up being conserved at least in part via changes in the planetary spin angular momentum (our spin rate changes) via spin-orbit coupling. This would explain not only the PDO action, but also the observed correlation of volcanic and earthquake activity with periods of low solar orbital angular momentum (as our spin rate change flexes the earth crust a bit).
Season with a bit of GCR increase changing albedo and reducing O3 levels (letting heat out via the 9-10 IR window that only O3 significantly blocks) and you can account for just about everything.
Your paper is the key that opens this door. Thank you.
Now if you can just show a spin-orbit coupling of solar orbital angular momentum into solar spin angular momentum and a subsequent modulation of the traditional solar cycle you could wrap everything up rather nicely. A lot of work to do it, and who knows if it can be done, but think that truth lies down that path…
The planet has been through plenty of variations like this before and here we are all happy as Larry. What’s the problem;)
The idea that the earth and moon are ‘coupled’ while the sun is not doesn’t make sense to me. The effect may be small, but all the larger planets, particularly Jupiter must raise a tide on the sun. And that tidal bulge must have some interesting characteristics with two major drivers and two minor drivers. The complex cycloid movement of the sun around the barycentre suggests that the tides do not have uniform speed, and I wonder if it is possible that the sun might make such a sharp pivot that the tide might run retrograde for a very short period. Also the distance from the sun to the barycenter (which is almost always between the sun and jupiter varies by a couple of solar diameters, and that should cause a change in tidal height as well. To me that’s a ‘couple’, and a chaotic one at that, with possible neutralizing effects mixed with occasional harmonic amplification.
If sunspots are related to the fact that the sun rotates at different speeds at different distances from the equater, then anything that causes tidal variances could be relevant.
Robert A Cook PE (15:32:33) :
“If the PDO/AMO/El None/La Nina drive year-to-year temperature rises and falls, WHAT changes/energizes/starts/stops the PDO/AMO/El None/La Nina variations?”
Maybe this document contains the answer to your question:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
Richard deSousa (19:34:50) :
It appears like Cycle 23 is like Lazarus
~~~~~~~~~~
Or the energizer bunny . . . . .
Leif Svalgaard (23:28:09) :
tallbloke (23:02:35) :
Given the failure of current mainstream solar theory to predict the sun’s behaviour
“What failure? One of the best prediction methods we have [based on solid dynamo theory] predicts a very low cycle [‘smallest in a hundred years’]. Such cycles are slow starters, so the Sun is doing just what it should.”
Your prediction was for maximum around 2011. If your prediction is not a failure, and you knew that the Sun would be doing “just what it should”, do you still expect a maximum of what was it, 72 in 2011?
OT: Here is a quote from a post on SeekingAlpha.com by Michael Fitzsimmons
“If the goal is to reduce foreign imports as Obama said, how come he has yet to even utter the words “natural gas transportation” in any energy related discussion since elected? As a result, America’s greatest industrial asset, the 2.2 million mile natural gas pipeline grid connecting 63,000,000 homes where 130,000,000 cars and trucks park every night, remains underutilized. Obama seems content to rely on the Gore environmental purists for energy policy.
“I wish someone would explain to Obama that over the next 10-20 years, there is simply no realistic way that wind and solar energy source will significantly reduce the 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline the US burns every day. In this era of government and professional double-speak, it’s very apparent that the environmental purists are actually responsible for increasing CO2 emissions. An ideology that lumps natural gas in the same category with coal and oil simply because it is a “fossil fuel” is simply wrong headed, illogical, highly polluting, and keeps us addicted to foreign oil. Obama’s energy policy grade: “D-“.”
Remainder is at: http://seekingalpha.com/article/127110-a-natural-gas-centric-revitalization-program
In defence of Mr Watts’ moderation:
I have to say I’ve been vilified on several sites for daring to engage in debate, be that the Ski Club of Great Britain website (talking about snow conditions since 1975); the Marohasy site, where an obnoxious physicist displayed his contempt for debate and discussion in a way which I found pathetic and worthy of one of the most controlled furious dressing-downs I’ve ever delivered in my life; and the Daily Telegraph’s blogs stimulated by Chris Booker’s articles. At this site, I’ve read a lot, added a few comments and not seen any evidence of thuggery or intimidation. [Will this cause it to emerge, just as this article caused new solar activity to emerge, me wonders?!]
I’ve seen little on this site to suggest that censorship exists, which is unlike almost every UK newspaper site. Even http://www.telegraph.co.uk now engages in censorship, a sad state of affairs indeed……….
And that’s the way it should be, because if you guys want world opinion to move in your direction, you need to engage with those who disagree with you. Otherwise all we’ll have for years to come is two sets of self-serving diatribes from diametrically opposed camps refusing to consider where the other lot are coming from……….
Might it be a good idea to post a solicited article summarising all modulators and hypothesised drivers of climate change, with postulated cycle lengths and driver modulators, so that a large audience can see, at one source, a current best picture view of the holistic position?
John Adlington (18:34:52) : Given historical records that co-relate grain production and sun-spot numbers I think we are up the proverbial without a whotzit
The good news is that thanks to the high CO2 level, plants are producing somewhere around 20% more (IIRC) from CO2 fertilization. Add in the added productivity from the green revolution short stem grain varieties (about another 25-50%?) and added optimized fertilization levels and we’re talking one heck of a lot of grain!
Further, as I’ve noted before, it takes 10 units of feed to get one unit of Beef. So the ‘worst case’ is that instead of the 1 pound beef steak you take the 10 pounds of grain and eat it instead. 10 pounds of grain takes a very long time to eat…
Yes, it will likely be rough during the realization / transition period, and prices will rise, but it is very manageable. I have been buying the grain ETF, though (ticker JJG ) as a way to hedge the likely price impacts… I also got good at growing cold cycle plants in my garden this winter (cabbage, kale, onions, peas, beets / chard, etc.) to get ready for the coming colder seasons. Maybe I’m a year or two ahead of the herd, but other gardeners will catch up pretty quick. (Last year I planted my first cold tolerant tomato – Siberia. This year the nursery had 3 more varieties… someone has a clue. Two of these bear fruit in 40 to 45 days! so shorter seasons will not be as critical either.) There has been a lot of work on short season vegetables. Maize, for example, was 120 days to maturity 50 years ago. Now 55 days is old hat and 40 something is the goal.
And then there is the whole movement into greenhouse farming. In many areas of the world (even here in California!) many of the tomatoes, specialty lettuces, italian squash (you call them courgettes?) and several other vegetables come from greenhouses. We have year round ‘hot house’ tomatoes, so a little cold isn’t very important…
So I wouldn’t worry too much about food supply (unless you were a beef cow… but then food would be the least of your worries 😉
Just Want Truth… (22:27:05) :
“hareynolds (17:40:24) : (b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum”
Al Gore’s name shouldn’t be attached to anything except the fact that children can’t sleep good after seeing his moving. This is the only thing he has earned being remembered for.
The solar cycle minimum ought to be named for someone of merit in the field of solar research. The attendant cold period, however….
Somehow “The AlGore Pessimum” has a very nice ring to it, but I could be convinced to go for “The Hansen Gore Pessimum”!
Many here talk about focussing on the other factors rather than the sun (PDO, cloudcover etc). The focus is on the sun because what happens on the sun will effect the other factors. Maybe not tomorow but the effects could be seen in a few years. Yes the sun is not directly affecting temps, but PDO is likely driven by solar activity!~ ie weak sun -> cold PDO -> cooler conditions (2020s?)
A new “microspeck” has appeared at 24 latitude but 23 (25!?) polarity… I say “microspeck” because solarcycle24.com have actually included an image that shows this spot to be literally one or two pixels in size!! People are getting desperate lol
Anthony, as allways when you make a post about that there are no spots on the sun, a spot appears..
Now look what you have done again!
http://solarcycle24.com/
John F. Hultquist @ 16:09:57
Well, yeh, OK, the Sun is completely inert; I didn’t mean it quite like that :^)
For those who would prefer a ranked list…
1) Solar Cycle 4 was 164 months long (13.67 years)
2) Solar Cycles 6 and 13 were tied at 157 months long (13.08 years)
3) Solar Cycle 9 was 150 months long (12.50 years)
4) Solar Cycle 23 is currently 145 months long (12.08 years)
5) Solar Cycle 5 was 144 months long (12.00 years)
6) Solar Cycle 20 was 140 months long (11.67 years)
7) Solar Cycle 11 was 139 months long (11.58 years)
8) Solar Cycle 14 was 138 months long (11.50 years)
9) Solar Cycle 1 was 135 months long (11.25 years)
10) Solar Cycle 10 was 134 months long (11.17 years)
11) Solar Cycles 17 and 19 were tied at 126 months long (10.50 years)
12) Solar Cycles 7 and 22 were tied at 125 months long (10.42 years)
13) Solar Cycles 12 and 16 were tied at 122 months long (10.17 years)
14) Solar Cycle 18 was 121 months long (10.08 years)
15) Solar Cycle 15 was 120 months long (10.00 years)
16) Solar Cycles 8 and 21 were tied at 117 months long (9.75 years)
17) Solar Cycle 3 was 110 months long (9.17 years)
18) Solar Cycle 2 was 109 months long (9.08 years)
So, we’re already in the 75th percentile. If Cycle 23 persists another 5 months, which indeed it might, we could break the 80th percentile. Could go even higher, but we’ll have to see.
Later,
Paul
Surely the increase in carbon dixode in the atmosphere on Earth caused by anthropogenic emissions is the reason for the quiet Sun!
It shouldn’t be too difficult to create a computer model to validate this perfectly rational theory. After all, there is more than enough peer review validated computer model output data to be used as inputs to this new model.
E.M.Smith (23:52:52) :
Ninderthana (15:41:21) : “If you want evidence backing up this arguement, please read my presentation”
I didn’t realize who you were through the pseudonym. FWIW, I’m fairly certain that you are right.
Wow, wow, wow, Ninderthana, your presentation is one of the clearest, most fantastic I’ve yet seen from anywhere in Climate Science, showing the evidence for the solar driver. At the very least, this is worthy of one of Anthony’s threads. If I were running a blog I’d put it right up but since I just run a forum I’m going to start a forum thread about it.
Thanks.
and btw Anthony I sympathize totally with your position re barycentre though I don’t agree. I have to draw lines too and I know that sometimes I’m throwing out good stuff! However, IMHO this paper goes a long way towards showing the evidence we need.
I’m sorry, but a visit to solarcycle24.com showed a close up of the SOHO image and this “speck” is about 1 1/2 pixels. We’re counting this? I’ve got a high resolution screen with a dedicated satellite picture and it still had to have a circle around it to spot it? “dud” seems a bit lacking…
Also, FWIW, I’m “barycenter friendly” so if folks want to discuss it in peace (and if Anthony does not find it worthy to have here) they are welcome to conduct their discussions over on chiefio.wordpress.com (presently being kicked around under the quakes thread:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/
though I could add another related to solar stuff if desired.
As near as I can tell, angular momentum conservation requires that as the solar position vector shortens with the sun center approaching the barycenter, the solar orbital angular momentum (r x p or: position vector crossproduct linear momentum) approaches zero, so the angular momentum must go somewhere. There are not a lot of choices.
Solar spin. Planet orbit. Planet spin. Two out of the three ought to have significant effects on the sun or the oceans, and planet orbit might well effect seasons. Is it enough? I don’t know, someone better with vector calculations and with all the relevant orbital mechanics knowledge needs to do the math.
But the mass of the sun orbiting at 2 solar radii is not a small r x p and that must be conserved as r approaches zero. That is physics, not opinion. So where does it go?
Re – Lee (23:56:04) :
“The idea that the earth and moon are ‘coupled’ while the sun is not doesn’t make sense to me. The effect may be small, but all the larger planets, particularly Jupiter must raise a tide on the sun.”
It’s all down to Gravity.
F = GMm/R²
Where F is force in Newtons, G is the gravitational constant (6.67*10-11 N-m²/kg²) M & m the masses in Kg and R² the squared distance between the two bodies in metres.
Earth/Moon
Average distance 3.84*10^8 m
Mass of Earth & Moon 5.98*10^24 kg & 7.35*10^22 kg
Sun/Jupiter
Average distance 7.7657*10^9m
Mass of Sun & Jupiter 1.9891 ×10^30 kg & 1.898*10^24kg
I believe in a previous thread, Dr Svensmark said that the tide raised upon the surface of the sun by Jupiter was in the order of a few millimetres.
ie diddly-squat!
New forum thread: Evidence for solar barycentre effects on our weather Happy to take the load off you for this Anthony if you like. Just want good science 😉
OT – the ICCC conference has finally gor some coverage in a UK newspaper: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/world/Case-against-climate-change-melting.5096564.jp
Needless to say they get some quotes from alarmists to counter, e.g.
“… Kert Davies, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace, said that the experts giving talks were “a shrinking collection of extremists” and that they were “left talking to themselves”.
The comments are generally favourable however, although Slioch has just appeared.
If TSI does not include solar magnetic flux then perhaps we should look a little closer at the effects Coronal Mass Ejections have on the planet.
Its been noted high intensity CME’s have been related to a lengthening of the Earths Length of Day by a few miliseconds. and that durnig periods of solar minimum the earth speeds up. We get more earthquakes at solar minimum, and more volcanic activity. Perhaps evidence of core /mantle interaction.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm
has some interesting observations.
I would like to say that Anthony’s site has been relatively free of Ad Hom attacks and trolls. That is what keeps his readers and posters coming back and adds up to the best scientific blog.
The discussions are always lively and full of well intentioned debate, free of put downs and there are always voices of reasons such as Dr. Svalgaard’s.
Long may it last.
‘“hareynolds (17:40:24) : (b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum”
Al Gore’s name shouldn’t be attached to anything except the fact that children can’t sleep good after seeing his moving. This is the only thing he has earned being remembered for.’
Gore and Hanson’s name should only be remembered in infamy. Like “Gore’s global warming scare” or “Hanson’s surface temerature debacle”
REPLY: I would say when SC24 is so late that SC25 should be starting. – Anthony
Well, at that stage there will be no doubt, for sure. But that implies waiting another 10-11 years. You don’t have to wait until a corpse reaches ambient temperature to call it dead 🙂
But to [maybe over-] simplify things a little, let us say we end up having more than 1000 spotless days some time next year (we are just under 600 now). That would be a pretty strong sign I think. I know we have 2 cases (#12 and #15) with just over 1000 spotless days, but from then on we are in ‘unchartered territory’.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Main
Another useful metric is perhaps if we go beyond 1 standard deviation of the SC10-15 average
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Evolution
So I think if the situation is largely similar as today by mid 2010, it would be safe to declare a grand minimum?
Slightly OT: A different take on it all. A look at the ethics of the global warming debate: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
To everyone responding to my post. I don’t deny that the sun is a factor. But it is not a strong enough factor with only SC variation. There are a lot of other factors involved. That is why weather and climate are chaotic. Warming trends tend to increase convection which increases energy transfer. Cooling periods have the reverse response. If you think that you can predict climate based only on solar cycle variation you are on a fools errand.
Low solar TSI plus a cool oscillation phase will enhance cooling. But only until the overall system reaches a point of reversal. There are roughly 25 to 30 years climate cycles that vary based on the whims of nature. I use whims of nature because the driving forces are not fully understood. Though Tsonis has shed some light on the effects, the causes are still mysterious.
It is better in my mind to look at the complexity of the big picture instead of grabbing a small snippet. As a captain, I don’t believe everything weathermen or climatologists say. I look out the window.
I really was a bit surprised to see the retired orbit specialist scientist so quickly muzzled. We may not think much of barycentrism, possibly we need to think of it some. Many of us non-scientists need to know that it exists. I too tend to welcome input from our fathers and grandfathers, with respect.
It may be an insignificant part of the whole picture, but someone has devoted a lifetime of work doing the math and at least laying some more groundwork on our feeble understanding of the solar system.
We refer to Chicken Little and Lazarus stories of the past, let us watch ALL the “Blind Men and the Elephant” as they each explore their own little part, lest we lose faith that we are honestly trying to see the big picture.
Lee (23:56:04) : and everybody else with barycenter motions
The idea that the earth and moon are ‘coupled’ while the sun is not doesn’t make sense to me. The effect may be small, but all the larger planets, particularly Jupiter must raise a tide on the sun.
Leif is right and we have been through this in all threads that mention the sun.
Here is a summary:
1)The only viable coupling in the solar system, i.e. with some energy to create tides, is gravity. The effect of the planets on the sun is tiny tides, of the order of milimeters.
2)The barycenter of the earth moon system is 1700 km under the surface of the earth and moves continuously synchronously with the tides, but does not create the tides as the barycenter has no mass and therefore no gravitational force. It is the moon earth system that have both the mass and the gravitational coupling.
3)Barycenters are mathematical points useful for calculating what the solar system does with respect to the galaxy and other bodies outside it, with an effective mass.
It is the only use of the barycenter that I know. Similarly the barycenter of the earth moon system is useful for the trajectory of the earth moon system about the sun.
Nobody worries that the barycenter racing in the crust of the earth will stir it up like mayonnaise, because it cannot, it has no existence except in our heads. (coordinate systems)
4)Correlations of planetary motions and the sun are interesting, but correlation is not causation. In addition, in the chaotic dynamics of the solar system there will be sinusoidal dependences that can correlate, or +/- some hundred years when they do not. It is inevitable. I give the example of waves in two different oceans. It is easy to find correlations in their space and time sequence (+/- something), but can anybody seriously think that it would mean anything except similar dynamics (solutions of similar equations)?
In conclusion, if a dynamical mechanism can be shown much stronger than the gravitational coupling to introduce spin orbit or orbit orbit couplings, I would be one of the first to applaud, and look at putative correlations with another eye. At the moment nothing is being offered.
Science fiction: I have suggested before that maybe it is the famous dark matter, which has been postulated to be 9/10ths of the mass of the universe that will be introducing these couplings. If so it will be the second confirmation of dark matter.
This suggestion shows how desperately in need of a coupling force any spin orbit etc mechanism is. ( barycenter movement is irrelevant and a red herring, one needs forces).
Great to see censorship has not stopped people thinking……
Gerry (18:02:00) :
I hope your still around, if so your comments would be very welcome at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
We have several projects I am sure you could help us with. We are a community forging ahead with new research into Planetary Influence. Dr. Ian Wilson is a contributor and great support and I have my own work as do others, with mainstream science ridiculing, but failing, its time for a different approach based on scientific principles but prepared to look outside the square.
One thing about the sun most people don’t know or follow and I certainly don’t understand is that certain “outputs” (radiation, winds, magnetic storms) appear to make seizures worse. For the past 9 years seeral of us been following it a a special web site (http://weather.alcollier.com) and have found when certain parts peak, seizures are more prone and when the same factors are low people wh cronically suffer from migraines find them worse. There appears to be a relationship to the sun and the increase in pain leels for folks with fibromyalgia (sp?).
There is much, much more to the the sun’s affects on the human race other than just light.
For all interested, here’s a ranking of the spotless days (includes March 22, which just came out about 20 minutes ago!)
#1) Solar Cycle B, 1689-1706, 5847 spotless days (Maunder minimum)
#2) Solar Cycle E, 1642-1661, 5524 spotless days (Maunder minimum)
#3) Solar Cycle D, 1661-1677, 5521 spotless days (Maunder minimum)
#4) Solar Cycle C, 1677-1689, 4272 spotless days (Maunder minimum)
#5) Solar Cycle A, 1706-1720, 3579 spotless days (Maunder minimum)
#6) Solar Cycle 6, 1810-1823, 2236 spotless days (Dalton Minimum)
#7) Solar Cycle 7, 1823-1833, 1533 spotless days (Dalton Minimum)
#8) Solar Cycle 5, 1798-1810, 1358 spotless days (Dalton Minimum)
#9) Solar Cycle F, 1626-1642, 1149 spotless days
#10) Solar Cycle 12, 1878-1889, 1028 spotless days
#11) Solar Cycle 15, 1913-1923, 1019 spotless days
#12) Solar Cycle 14, 1901-1913, 938 spotless days
#13) Solar Cycle 13, 1889-1901, 736 spotless days
#14) Solar Cycle 10, 1856-1867, 647 spotless days
#15) Solar Cycle 1, 1755-1766, 638 spotless days
#16) Solar Cycle 24, 2009-20??, 580 spotless days
#17) Solar Cycle G, 1614-1626, 574 spotless days
#18) Solar Cycle 17, 1933-1944, 568 spotless days
#19) Solar Cycle 8, 1833-1843, 563 spotless days
#20) Solar Cycle 3, 1775-1784, 536 spotless days
#21) Solar Cycle 16, 1923-1933, 534 spotless days
#22) Solar Cycles 9 and 19, 1843-1856 and 1954-1964, 446 spotless days
#23) Solar Cycle 11, 1867-1878, 406 spotless days
#24) Solar Cycle 2, 1766-1775, 349 spotless days
#25) Solar Cycle 23, 1996-2009, 309 spotless days
#26) Solar Cycles 21 and 22, 1976-1986 and 1986-1996, 272 spotless days
#27) Solar Cycle 18, 1944-1954, 269 spotless days
#28) Solar Cycle 20, 1964-1976, 227 spotless days
Limitations: Spotless days for Cycle 4 could not be estimated due to excessive missing data. Some might argue I should throw out the Maunder minimum.
Hope you all find this ‘enlightening’,
Paul
OT/Heads Up:
CBS Sunday Morning is about to visit the “Arctic Ice Melt”.
VG (19:35:10) :
Another a MAJOR paper published. Surprised when the first version came out year ago I think, some attacked is as quackery so now it has definitely been published in a major Physics Journal http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161. This debunks the WHOLE concept of AGW and the physics behind it
While I’m supportive of the purpose of arxiv.org, and not impressed with the quality of peer review in the so-called peer reviewed journals, you apparently do not understand what arxiv.org is. It is definitely not a “major Physics Journal.” There is very little screening done to what gets posted on arxiv.org. That doesn’t mean that good stuff doesn’t get posted there. But it does mean that stuff that would not normally make it through any kind of normal peer review might end up there as well.
Before you make any further references to arxiv.org, read up on it. The Wikipedia article on it is informative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv
Where’s Terry Wogan when you need him? (In blankety blank terms of course).
Paul Stanko (01:33:45) : “For those who would prefer a ranked list…
Thanks Paul for putting the “11 year average” into perspective. Too many forget that 11 years is just the average. According to your list 9 of the 23 cycles are outside of the 10-12 year range so while it is quiet it is not yet what could be considered abnormal. That said, you may want to consider a long term stategy of buying property in Florida now before the rush starts.
Glenn (00:10:11) :
Your prediction was for maximum around 2011. If your prediction is not a failure, and you knew that the Sun would be doing “just what it should”, do you still expect a maximum of what was it, 72 in 2011?
Good question…I have another. Will the predicted 72 SSN max that will happen within 2 years, be based on how we count spots today or as we counted them during the last grand minimum? Its getting into a gray area, perhaps giving you a weak legout…lowest in a 100 years is quite different to grand minimum?
Leif Svalgaard (22:41:47) :
[quoting Bill]I think it is evident that there is no VISIBLE TSI influence on temperature. However there are apparent peaks at 7.8 years approx and possibly at 2.3, 3.5, 13 and 19 years.[end quote]
You are perfectly correct. Although I have come across the argument that eye-balling with an open mind and a willing heart beats hard-nosed FFT and statistics every time.
Leif,
This isn’t quite consistent with what you said to me a few days ago. You said you would expect there to be variations in temps attributable to TSI within the limits of an absolute variation of 0.07K. That’s not the same as saying that there is NO influence attributable to TSI. Now maybe you are reading something out of Bill’s no “visible influence” that is different than what I took Bill to mean. I think he was saying “no influence at all” visible in the evidence he presented, and that he was implying that it was demonstrating “no influence at all, period.”
So let’s just be clear. The 11 yr cycle in TSI cannot explain the long, century long rise in temperatures seen in the data, but it can explain more modest cycles in temperature on the order of ±0.02C over decadal time periods. At least that is what you acknowledged a few days ago.
Idlex,
Very eye-opening look at the ethics of GW.
the summation:
“That so many academics, scientists, journalists educators and policy-makers have allowed ideological bias to determine where they stand on a matter requiring clear-eyed and unbiased science is a disgrace. Their biased attitudes make it nearly impossible to reach coherent and responsible decisions on matters that have long-term implications for world poverty, health, quality of life and survival. The only ethical way to approach climate change issues is to be honest about what we know, to be clear about what we don’t know, to admit what we can’t know, and to make intelligent choices among options determined by facts and analysis rather than manipulation and bias.”
Well, wuwt is Anthony’s “house,” and on a fundamental level the rules of the house are none of my business.
Even I, with my limited knowledge of physics (one of the top 150 high-school-level physics students in California in 1983, and that’s about it), agree with Dr. Svalgaard that the distances involved in the solar system make meaningful tides seem unlikely.
And yet there is this problem of the jovian-planet theorists being on to something.
I may as well come out and say what I think here, which is that there is more about the workings of the Universe (at the level of the large and the small) that we don’t know than there is that we do know.
If you visited the average astrophysicist 30 years ago and asked him how large of an effect star formation in the Milky Way had on cloudiness on Earth, he likely would have sent you out of his office. And yet it turns out that there is a mechanism that seems to have an important influence of this kind.
What if what has been described as barycentric coupling, with gravity as the central feature, is really a coupling involving dimensions to which we remain blind, or nearly so? In other words, what if the gravity component is just the outermost (and one visible) feature of a set of complex processes that we won’t be able to witness for generations?
(If ever…)
I’m pretty sure Anthony knows the respect that I hold for him, but just in case, let me say here that I think that his intellect, courage, and energy are all admirable in the extreme. He is, simply put, a leader.
Basil : point taken you could be right but having read the article itself, I think it stands. Time will show. the other articles published seem robust as well?
Ohioholic (15:21:29) :
Well, I know Leif will be by, so one question I would love to pose is as follows:
If the sun’s effects are minimal on temperature, why the difference in day/night temperatures?
Now, now, let’s not get “unscientific”! 🙂
E.M.Smith (01:58:29) :
As near as I can tell, angular momentum conservation requires that as the solar position vector shortens with the sun center approaching the barycenter, the solar orbital angular momentum (r x p or: position vector crossproduct linear momentum) approaches zero, so the angular momentum must go somewhere. There are not a lot of choices.
Solar spin. Planet orbit. Planet spin. Two out of the three ought to have significant effects on the sun or the oceans, and planet orbit might well effect seasons. Is it enough? I don’t know, someone better with vector calculations and with all the relevant orbital mechanics knowledge needs to do the math.
But the mass of the sun orbiting at 2 solar radii is not a small r x p and that must be conserved as r approaches zero. That is physics, not opinion. So where does it go?
The only forces are gravitational forces, and those are too small to do anything fancy.
Conservation of angular momentum of a mass means that it does not change unless a force is applied to it. The barycenter is not applying any forces. The planets are, and they do exchange angular momenta between the sun and them through their gravitational forces, but the effects are very small.
Have a thought experiment. Instead of the barycenter, calculate the angular momentum of the sun with respect to a comet falling into it. Distance 0 at time t0. Does the sun feel anything with respect to angular momentum while this is happening, except a tiny impact?
The barycenter has 0 mass so does not even have any impact.
Lucy Skywalker and E.M. Smith,
Thankyou for your kind words about my 2008 presentation. My solar paper published in PASA:
Wilson, I.R.G., Carter, B.D., and Waite, I.A., 2008, Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling
Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?, Publications
of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2008, 25, 85 – 93.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf
provides reasonable support for a spin-orbit coupling between the
Sun’s motion about the Barycentre and its equitorial rotation rate,
at least for the period from 1874 to the present.
The problem is that we have not been able to come up with a plausible physical mechanism that could explain why this spin-orbit coupling takes place. So, in a way Leif is right in saying that until someone comes up with
a resonable mechanism we need to have a skeptic filters on full. However, he
is wrong in saying that there is little or no evidence to support the existance of a spin-obit coupling. All he has to do is look at figure 8 of our paper to
see the evidence first hand.
I have data that is even more compelling than that shown in figure 8. Indeed, the spin-orbit coupling is so evident that I have made the prediction that by ~ 2010 to 2011, we should see a higher equitorial rotation rate on the Sun [provided that the trend seen since 1874 continues].
Leif is correct in pointing out that the chief problem with any planetary tidal or gravitational mechanism is that the forces (tides) involved fall magnitudes
short of what is required to produce the required changes in the Sun’s internal motion. Effectivey the Sun’s mass is distributed in such a perfect sphere that the already miniscule tidal forces of the planets have nothing to latch onto in order to speed up or slow down the Sun’s rotation rate.
Unlike Leif, I have not blocked off this area of enquiry because I cannot [currently] come up with a plausible mechanism.
One possible mechanism that I am persuing at the moment is the possibility that the extremely weak tidal force of Jupiter is able to see a dynamically distinct torus or ring of matter in the Sun’ convective layer that is tilted at 7 degrees to Jupiter’s orbit. This torus of matter is formed by the differentially rotating equatorial regions and it appears to rotate with respect Jupiter once every 0.8 to 1.3 years. This is pure speculation at present, but I am persuing the idea that the tiny tidal force of Jupiter actually causes this torus of matter to begin to precess, taking about 100,000 years to slowly build up a precession speed of ~ 6 m/sec (seen in the torsional oscillations). Of course,
these are sort of ideas that it is only safe to discuss with the fairies at the bottom of the garden rather than is “serious” scientific circles.
Basil again: Re major Physics Journal http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161. Again considering that the journal Nature actually published a complete load of B…… Steig et al as a major cover story ect…re fabricated/made up/”modelled” antarctic temperatures (see climate audit), I take back what I said before and support the major Physics Journal http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161. ie: it appear’s that one may be as credible as the other!
Leif Svalgaard (22:55:56) : The problem with your picture is that there is a coupling [namely friction] between the rotating table and the liquid in the bowl, but there is no coupling between the rotating Sun and its orbital movement. It has been suggested many times that as a planet goes around the Sun in an elliptical orbit, i.e. changing its orbital speed that it would rotate slower or faster depending on its orbital speed. This doesn’t happen either, again because there is no couple between the two.
I can understand why some people think there’s a coupling. And I can also see why Leif is saying there isn’t one. Myself? I don’t know.
I built a simple orbital simulation of the solar system a couple of months back. It calculates the accelerations, velocities, and positions of the Sun and planets every few seconds. And it works quite well, with the planets going round the Sun in more or less the time expected. It also demonstrates the cycloidal orbital motion of the Sun, agreeing with published results.
It occurs to me that I could use this simulation model to see how the Sun behaves, by replacing my current point mass Sun with a spinning circular chain of masses – the circle radius equalling the radius of the sun, and rotating once every 25 days like the Sun -. And then I’d run the orbital simulation and see whether this new “Sun” changed its behaviour at all as it followed its cycloidal path.
But I suspect that Leif Svalgaard is right, and that my “Sun” won’t change its behaviour at all. And it won’t demonstrate any spin-orbit coupling. But then, I haven’t tried it out yet…
The theory that solar/planetary orbit pattern variations (causing changes in gravitational “tugging”) are a 1st order climate driver is very appealing to me because of its simplicity. This theory also says that the Sunspot variations are the Sun’s response to those same “tuggings”, so climate and sunspots may be correlated, but they’re both correlated to the “tuggings”. Other sunspot/climate correlations exist but are likely 2nd or 3rd order. (except maybe the Cosmic ray piece- which maybe a 1.5th order) Didn’t someone say that simple is “better”?
Jan Janssens on today’s small sunspot:
” 22 March 09 – New SC24-group has reversed polarity… – The new sunspotgroup that is visible in today’s SOHO-images, has -according to the corresponding magnetogram- a reversed polarity (SC23/25). Though on itself this is not so peculiar (every solar cycle has about hundred such groups, or about 3% of the total), it is already the second SC24-group showing this “aberration”: NOAA 1003, visible for just one day (04 October 2008) on the southern hemisphere (-23°), had a polarity equal to that of a unpair solar cycle too (see slide 4 of my presentation). That makes 2 out of 13 (15%), if this group gets a NOAA-number. ”
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engnieuwtjes.html#Zon
So not much talk on the polarity of this SC24? spot. This latitude and polarity would be rare?
Re: major Physics Journal :: citing wikipedia information as a criticism of an academic publication is amusing. A lot of wikipedia is good, but it can also be completely hijacked by people with an agenda, especially when it comes to the AGW discussion — the watchers of wikipedia never sleep it seems…
Check out their article on the medieval warm period, especially the graphic on the right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
If you look at the logs: it kept getting criticized, edited, and then reverted. Eventually the objectors just gave up.
There are many other examples of this.
Basil (05:09:31) :
The paper has been published.
Falsi cation Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-ph] 4 Mar 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c
World
Scienti c Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
from the link of the publishers:
To ensure top quality, review articles are by invitation only and all research papers undergo stringent refereeing. We welcome you to submit your research papers to IJMPB for publication.
anna v (04:47:46) :
Very interesting to see how your views have changed. About 9 months ago on WUWT you said this in response to Ian Wilson’s paper:
I think the importance of this paper does not so much lie on the content, rather that it is a peer reviewed paper that introduces new theories in the mix.
The more the better to clarify for the public that the science is NOT settled and before humanity jumps into the economic chaos of CO2 witch chasing, it should be made aware of this.
It is unfortunate that a great number of national societies of this and that have come out for the AGW theory, I am sure without polling their members and stating percentages. It is like declaring their faith, and it is good that dissenting voices become loud.
As far as the content, as a physicist, and having seen elsewhere that the baricenter lies inside the fluid sun I do not exclude the possibility that these motions change the magnetic fields in tandem . Of course it needs a serious study by a magnetic dynamo solar theorist, and a fluid dynamics one for sure ( to see how the gravitational changes couple with the rotation) . In addition it needs proof that changes in the sun’s magnetic field create weather changes ( albedo and galactic cosmic rays? remains to be proven).
As I said, the science is not settled.
Seems it might be, you and others might be convinced by one person?
Harold Ambler (18:55:42) :
Gerry: Pretty interesting, don’t you think? I’m a retired orbit specialist, who worked at JPL from 1965 to 1980. I find barycentric solar orbits most fascinating.
REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony
I would be tempted to treat an orbit specialist who worked for 15 years at JPL with some respect. Dr. Svalgaard is one scientist. Gerry is apparently another — maybe each of them knows some things that the other doesn’t?
Gerry’s point is that no one (including Dr. Svalgaard) predicted sc23’s length the way Fairbridge did (with the possible exception of Landscheidt), let alone 20 years ahead of the fact.
A revealing exchange. I would have to agree that no matter how sophisticated and knowledgable Dr. Svalgaard is, the predictive success of Fairbridge merits respect and can’t simply be laughed off by saying that his proposed causes are insufficient to produced the alleged results. Perhaps if the Barycentric forces are insufficient, there are other forces — e.g. electricity — involved.
That could explain how the orbital frequencies of planets effect the solar cycle even if the gravity alone cannot account for the reasons why.
Vukevic? Is that it?
-psi
Related to the topic brought up by Ninderthana and the barycentre discussion, there is a thing called …
… Atmospheric Angular Momentum – atmospheric winds literally create a drag on the Earth’s rotation (a few thousandth of a millisecond +/-) and it is carefully measured. This is the main cause of the change in the Length of Day noted by Ninderthana.
It seems to be modulated highly by ENSO events with the other ocean cycles playing a part.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=23097
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/clim/aam.rean.shtml
Anyone know where there is monthly average data on this or for the length of day. All I’ve found is daily data which is going to take too much time to turn into something useful.
Already the SC24 Sun Speck is only visible in the magnetogram.
Geoff Sharp (06:35:57) :
I had said: As I said, the science is not settled.
You comment: Seems it might be, you and others might be convinced by one person?
Not a person. The physics as explained by a person.
My field is particle physics. I had taken a general relativity course back in 1970s, and even taught mechanics from Goldstein for a season but that does not mean that I have celestial mechanics at my fingertips.
I have been convinced that gravitational forces of the solar system are not enough to produce the necessary effects on spin orbit, and by thinking a bit about it, that the barycenter business is an unnecessary complication, like the epicycle theory in a geocentric coordinate system.
In addition I have been reading a bit into chaos and complexity. Sinusoidal type of dependencies are very common in chaotic dynamical systems, so I am not impressed by periodical correlations as I would have been before delving into the subject of chaos.
I think the challenge is to come up with a dynamical mechanism, and thus the science is still open.
That odd high latitude SC23 pair of specks is gone this morning. All that’s left is a plage area. The specks were never even noted by SWPC or Catania. Too brief a phenom to bother with? So the string of {official} spotless days continue.
REPLY: See my newest post on the main page – Anthony
I personally like the barycentric theory, I have no idea if it is correct though. Sort of rests well with Milankovich and and other of the earths bio-rythms.
Anyway most of the UK population will have other things to worry about if Porritt gets his way. I assume he’ll (porritt) be one of the 30 million?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece
“The Inconvenient Minimum”?
How often is the sun’s circumference measured? How is this done?
REPLY: In the old days, it was an asbestos tape measure…but in these modern times…. 😉 Anthony
AGW Minimum!
“REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony”
With due respect, Will to disbelieve?, nothing to be discarded yet, after Newton came Einstein, perhaps there are no big newtonian forces in play but it seems there are other forces which we do not know yet, there is correspondence though it may no be causation, but who knows somebody sometime in the future, perhaps here in WUWT, will come out and explain the whole issue for us.
Basil (05:21:53) :
“[quoting Bill]I think it is evident that there is no VISIBLE TSI influence on temperature.”
but it can explain more modest cycles in temperature on the order of ±0.02C over decadal time periods. At least that is what you acknowledged a few days ago.
Bill was asking if he did anything wrong in his analysis, and my answer was that he did not. The tiny solar cycle variation we expect does not rise enough over the noise to be visible. For a 300-year series the noise on the average [or on an FFT peak] would be of the order of the standard deviation divided by the square root of 300 i.e. ~18. The standard deviation [variation from year to year] is certainly larger than a degree, hence the noise would be larger than 1/18 = 0.06 degrees, so no wonder that the TSI signal does not show.
Re prediction:
Our polar field method only predicts the size and not the timing. The 2011 time frame is a ‘nomimal’ time just adding 11 years to the 2000 maximum time [BTW, the referee’s wouldn’t let us speculate on the timing, pointing out (correctly, we conceded) that the polar field precursor method does not provide a timing prediction in itself]. So, this was not a prediction. In 2006 we made a stab at a timing prediction: page 15 of http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf . Based on a minimum in 2007.5 we estimated SC24 max in 2013.5. Since minimum is now a year later, we expect maximum to be similarly later, i.e. 2014.5. This is a ‘weak’ prediction based on the usual or statistical rise time for an Rmax = 75, and the statistical variation is not small, so we should allow for an error of +/-1 year at least.
On the barycenter/planetary stuff: so much has already been hashed on this that there is not much to add. Perhaps a bit about the tides: The tidal bulge from Jupiter is 0.46 millimeter high, and is there ALL the time, thus does not have an 11-year [or 11.86 yr for Jupiter] period. Enthusiasts now would say, “Ah, but the orbit of Jupiter is not a circle”. This is true and the result is that the tidal bulge varies from 0.41 mm to 0.55 mm over an 11.9 year period for a total of 0.14 mm, about the width of a human hair.
On the spin-orbit coupling: to change the rotation of the sun you need to apply a torque and a torque requires a lever arm that provides a couple. I cannot fasten a nut by waving my hand in pront of it. Only if I use a wrench to connect my hand with the nut, can I turn the nut.
So there is no way we know of that can achieve the coupling. this means that we are back to how good the correlations are. There is a historical precedent for this situation: in the 19th century it was noted that there is a correlation between sunspots and wiggling of the ‘magnetic needle’. The famous first observation of a solar flare by Carrington in 1859 was followed about a day later by a magnetic storm. It was suggested by ‘enthusiasts’ at the time that magnetic forces on the Sun were coupled with and caused disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic field. The most eminent physicist at the time, Lord Kelvin [we name the temperature scale after him] proved conclusively [and his proof is still valid today] that it is physically impossible that a change in the Sun’s magnetic field could cause the magnetic disturbances we observe at the Earth, and that therefore the correlations were a mere coincidence.
But the correlations got better and better as more and more data accumulated, so the coincidence argument got weaker and weaker. The solution turned out to be ‘new physics’, a phenomenon that Lord Kelvin [real name W Thomson] did not know about [although he was a co-discover (confusingly together with another Thomson (J.J.) of the electron as part of atoms], namely the new state of matter we now call a plasma. Later [in the 1940s] Hannes Alfven showed that a magnetic field would be ‘frozen’ into a plasma and move with it, so the solar wind [predicted in the 1950s and discovered in the 1960s] could carry the magnetic field from the Sun to the Earth and thereby circumvent Lord Kelvin’s objection [based of the known distance-cubed falloff of a magnetic field in a vacuum and the distance-squared falloff you get from dragging the field out by the solar wind].
So, should we resort to invoking new physics? IMHO the correlations are not good enough for this.
Ninderthana (05:46:03) :
Thanks for the links to your paper and slide presentation. They were most informative.
Ohioholic (08:02:33) :
How often is the sun’s circumference measured? How is this done?
Every 96 minutes by looking at it.
Leif Svalgaard (09:05:05) :
How often is the sun’s circumference measured? How is this done?
Every 96 minutes by looking at it.
Those are quite the eyeballs, my friend. You must be a fantastic cook. Not to mention your retinas of steel. Gee, maybe I should go try it….. Harhar. Can’t help feeling a little hostility in that answer.
Surely there is some kind of satellite? I am just interested in knowing if it is public data, if it exists somewhere.
Leif Svalgaard (23:24:53) :
I never ignore anything [that is one my problems; if I only did, these discussions would wither on the vine], but I have yet to see a plausible physical explanation. Doesn’t have to be correct, just possible, i.e. not violating physical laws or being energetically inadequate.
Hi Leif,
firstly, thank you for responding, I’m sure the previous occasions on which I’ve tried to flag this one up, there was too much else going on. Thanks also to Anthony also for having the good grace to allow further discussion of these theories and results.
The theory I am referring to is that of a cycles and harmonics expert Ray Tomes. A year or so ago, Ray presented this theory on the bautforum.com website. I’ll give it a quick praisee and then provide the link to the original discussion. Bautforum is a fairly tersely run website where people putting forward new theories get a real grilling from physics and astronomy experts and questions must be answered to avoid the thread getting locked.
Ray’s theory is that the important effect of the gas giant planets on the sun arises out of the fact that the sun is tilted at 7 degrees or so to the plane of invariance the main planets orbit in. Whereas radial barycentric forces are cancelled out in the period of a solar rotation, the motion of the slow moving planets north or south of the solar equator continue for many years at a time. Because the matter and energy in the sun has a gradient from core to surface, the Einsteinian relativistic effect of the Jovian planets gravitation is to diferentially pull the matter of the sun north or south, creating internal pressure waves which result in the production of sunspots.
Because the Jovian planets lie in more or less the same plane, the times when the effect is at a maximum, also coincide with the times when the planets are in conjunction, which is why the radial barycentric effect more commonly discussed appears to fit the data, but lacks a viable physical mechanism. In fact, when Ray calculated the fourier transformation, he found a peak not produced in the more commonly considered theory, which matches the sunspot cycles more accurately.
The theory also postulates that there is a natural resonance period for the sun of around 10.5 years, with a variable ‘Q’ factor which Ray believes will turn out to be a cyclic function related to the interactions of planetary motions over a long period beyond the currently available data. I rememeber a discussion Leif and I had on climate audit a couple of years ago where we concluded the solar effects on earths climate may have a ‘lag’ of around 10 years, this may be why that is so.
Because the period of time it takes for energy to move from the centre of the sun to the surface and issues around relativistic mass-energy exchange are still uncertain, the strength of the effect can curently only be determined to within an order of magnitude or so, Ray comes up with a few possible figures throughout the thread, don’t dismiss the effect as being in inadequate at the first given figures.
So to summarise, the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years, and the motion of the planets above and below the solar equator create harmonic resonances which ‘ring the sun’s bell’ and amplify or dampen the effect, modulating it to the varying length and amplitude solar cycles we see in the sunspot record. Because the effect is minimal if conjunctions occur at the crossing points of the sloar equatorial plane and the plane of the planets, this explains why some conjunctions of particular pairs of planets are more or less powerful depending on angle relative to the tilt of the suns axis. This may help us understand why some solar minima are deeper than others.
The thread where Ray proposed this theory requires attentive reading, and is tough going in places, but the four pages are worth sticking through to get the full gist of the theory, and it’s mathematical expression.
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/72665-explaining-planetary-alignments-relationship-sunspot-cycle.html
Thanks as always for your time and patience Leif, I hope you can find the time to give this theory the time and consideration I think it deserves.
Adolfo Giurfa (08:46:12) :
but it seems there are other forces which we do not know yet
imagine you are having a televised debate with Al Gore on this and when he shows a picture of polar bears and penguins struggling to stay on the same shrinking ice floe, your argument is that there must be ‘other forces which we do not know’ in play.
I will suggest to call the existing sun minimum the “WATTS MINIMUM” !
To late, you’re already a unit of energy. One Anthony = ten Blogaspheres.
Gravitational variations act “instantaneously” throughout a continuum. Doing so in a fluid that is governed by a bunch of 2nd order (I can’t remember if there are 3rd order terms) coupled partial differential equations suggest that the opportunity exists for some larger scale oscillatory solutions to arise to those equations.
I seem to recall that there a number of simplified cases in fluid mechanics where the Navier-Stokes equations can be solved explicity and they reveal oscillations that may not have been expected in advance (if you hadn’t first looked at the physical system to see them.)
Is there a very simplified scenario, perhaps with a sphere with 2 layers of immiscible fluid acted on by a small varying external gravity force, for which the equations can be solved numerically, (or even explicitly) that might support the contention that magnified effects can occur? Isn’t one of the theories regarding Sun cycles that oscillations are set up in the Sun between 2 “layers”?
Leif Svalgaard (22:55:56) : The problem with your picture is that there is a coupling [namely friction] between the rotating table and the liquid in the bowl, but there is no coupling between the rotating Sun and its orbital movement. It has been suggested many times that as a planet goes around the Sun in an elliptical orbit, i.e. changing its orbital speed that it would rotate slower or faster depending on its orbital speed. This doesn’t happen either, again because there is no couple between the two.
There is a coupling between an electromagnetically active sun and disturbances caused by movement about a barycenter. The solar systems immense magnetic field is accompanied by immense solar electrical currents. If one moves a current within a magnetic field, forces are involved, hence a couple! Immense electromagnetic disturbance can be caused by planets pulling the sun in different directions. These disturances might result in variations in sunspot cycles.
Leif Svalgaard (09:05:05) :
Ohioholic (08:02:33) :
How often is the sun’s circumference measured? How is this done?
Every 96 minutes by looking at it.
NEVER LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE SUN.
One must be ever vigilant, even if one thinks that novices are absent.
Robert Bateman (09:57:24) :
“Every 96 minutes by looking at it.”
NEVER LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE SUN.
SOHO looks, this is the only way it has to observe the Sun.
David Reese (09:31:51) :
If one moves a current within a magnetic field, forces are involved, hence a couple!
You need to have the force first and the tidal forces are so small that they have no effect compared to the other forces that are working on the Sun, like the convection of hot material from the interior. The convection consists of a million Texas-sized cells moving up and down at half a kilometer per second. Compare that to a hair-thickness-size movement of the tidal bulge.
Leif, there is a force that moves the electrical currents. It is the gravitation force of the planets which move the sun about it’s barycenter.
I noticed that my question has been left sitting. That often means that something contains an issue to be resolved… So I’ll repeat the question:
But the mass of the sun orbiting at 2 solar radii is not a small r x p and that must be conserved as r approaches zero. That is physics, not opinion. So where does it go?
We had some hand waving about tides, but I don’t think this is tides issue…
My take on it is given below as a “thought experiment”. I know these are fraught with all kinds of opportunities to delude yourself; and I also know that I’m no physicist (I did OK at it, but freshman college physics was as far as I went…). I’m not offering this as proof of anything; just as a way to get to the answer to the question of “Where does the angular momentum in solar r x p go as the position vector goes to zero?” It must be conserved.
While a lot of the articles I’ve seen talk about the tidal force transferring the momentum, I’ve done a thought experiment that does not use tides. Perhaps a physics major can critque it?
Draw a graph with a ‘center of orbit’ point. Put a hypothetical ‘planet’ center at distance of 10 units from the center of orbit with planet radius of 1 unit and planet spin of 1 per orbit (so the same face always faces the center of the orbit). At this point, the center of the planet is traveling a distance of 10pi in one time period (orbit) while the outer edge is travling 11pi and the inner edge is traveling 9pi per unit of time.
Now displace the planet in to a distance of 1 unit orbit for the planet center. Closest edge is at the orbit center, so no orbital velocity. Yet it had a speed before, and that speed had it making an orbit in 9/10 the distance of the planet center so 9/10 the speed. Now it’s zero of orbit so speed has to go into spin torque (conservation of MV).
Seems to me it would still have that speed, but that speed would now have to show up as spin of the leading edge in the direction of the orbit.
Repeat thought experiment for the trailing edge. It was going faster by a small amount (11/10 compared to planet center, or 11/9 compared to inner edge), but now is going at an even lesser percentage (i.e. it does 2pi distance when the core does 1pi distance and inner edge does 0pi; so it’s now 2x distance to travel as the center of planet, but only moving 11/10 as fast, ergo slow relative to the planet center, ergo spin force dragging against the orbit…) so it pulls to the trailing direction of the orbit.
Net result, increased spin…
And no tidal forces are involved. So Liefs complaint about free fall and gravity does not apply as near as I can tell. And no, I don’t think the center of orbit produced any forces on anything, it’s just the reference frame.
Now imagine said ball is a big fire ball of fluid plasma… I have to think that such a spin force difference would disrupt or modulate whatever ‘conveyor belt’ was working … and do something to the sun spot cycle.
(Please, be gentle… you are dealing with a non-physicist just trying to learn how angular momentum and spin-orbit coupling work… and I remember not liking the angular momentum part of my physics class, yet here I am voluntarily chasing it…)
“the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years, and the motion of the planets above and below the solar equator create harmonic resonances which ‘ring the sun’s bell’ and amplify or dampen the effect, modulating it to the varying length and amplitude solar cycles we see in the sunspot record. ”
Very interesting, and within scope for engineers! In the course of DiffEq one studies harmonic resonances with simple 2nd order linear differential equations.
We had one short movie in the course, a galloping suspension bridge! As I remember an old model A or similar vintage car was stopped halfway and disappeared for much of the time as the waves(both in the direction of the bridge and transverse) were much larger in amplitude.
The wind speed at the time of the film escapes me.
Already spotted one error… that 10pi, 11pi, etc. ought to be 2piR (or piD) so it would be 20pi, 22pi, etc.
Did I mention that I didn’t like angular momentum physics in school?… 😎
Robert Bateman (09:57:24) :
Leif Svalgaard (10:17:19) :
Ok, maybe I misinterpreted the answer. The internet makes it hard to sort sarcastic comments from a simple answer. It seemed at first like a sarcastic, go look for yourself kind of answer. Apology.
Is there somewhere one can look at the sun’s fluctuations in size?
David Reese:“If one moves a current within a magnetic field, forces are involved, hence a couple! Immense electromagnetic disturbance can be caused by planets pulling the sun in different directions”
The trouble is that we, as observers of just an “instant solar system” can not but imagine what would it be if our “blinking of an eye” would be, say, 30000 years long; we would be arguing about not about spheres (or worst, round pebbles in the sky) but about helicoidals, perhaps resembling a Ruhmkorff coil.
David Reese (10:29:56) :
Leif, there is a force that moves the electrical currents. It is the gravitation force of the planets which move the sun about it’s barycenter.
They move the whole Sun and not just a piece of it. It is like moving a battery-powered flashlight. Do you think that you get more light from it if you wave it vigorously?
E.M.Smith (10:34:06) :
At this point, the center of the planet is traveling a distance of 10pi in one time period (orbit) while the outer edge is travling 11pi and the inner edge is traveling 9pi per unit of time.
Gravity and ‘orbital forces’ work as if all the mass was concentrated at the center of gravity. This was a fundamental result first derived by Isaac Newton.
Here is more on forces, center of gravity, torques, and lever arms:
http://www.valdosta.edu/~pbaskin/phys1111ch9notes.doc
And this has nothing to do with the Sun being fluid [people often think that that is somehow important]. There are small deviations form the ‘center of gravity’ principle and these are called ‘tides’ stemming from the fact that the gravitational force is different from one side of the body to the other side. On the Sun these are VERY small.
gary gulrud (10:46:49) :
“the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years
I missed where you got this ‘tidbit’ from?
Ohioholic (10:55:33) :
Robert Bateman (09:57:24) :
Leif Svalgaard (10:17:19) :
Ok, maybe I misinterpreted the answer. The internet makes it hard to sort sarcastic comments
You and other can rest assured that I would never do a thing like that. I may say that something is nonsense if I think it is, but that is not meant sarcastically.
Is there somewhere one can look at the sun’s fluctuations in size?
Basically no, at the present time.
anna v (04:47:46) :
1)The only viable coupling in the solar system, i.e. with some energy to create tides, is gravity. The effect of the planets on the sun is tiny tides, of the order of milimeters.
I would assert that you only need conservation of angular momentum, not tides, to influence the solar spin.
( barycenter movement is irrelevant and a red herring, one needs forces).
I would further assert that barycenter movement is relevant since, as the center of orbit, it determines the length of the position vector in the ( p x r ) calculation of orbital angular momentum.
As the position vector approaches zero: p x r approaches zero and that angular momentum must be conserved and must go somewhere with solar spin being a prime candidate (and maybe via some kind of orbital resonance? into planetary orbit / spin changes).
Adolfo Giurfa: Have you found my misplaced Spirograph. I like to think of our Solar System’s Journey as a Symphony replete with many Harmonics.
Leif Svalgaard (08:48:07) :
The tiny solar cycle variation we expect does not rise enough over the noise to be visible. For a 300-year series the noise on the average [or on an FFT peak] would be of the order of the standard deviation divided by the square root of 300 i.e. ~18. The standard deviation [variation from year to year] is certainly larger than a degree, hence the noise would be larger than 1/18 = 0.06 degrees, so no wonder that the TSI signal does not show.
Leif,
What do you think it is I’ve been showing? In my last post, I presented two MTM spectrum analyses, one for global temperature data, and the other for a regional data set for the US Southern Region. Both show spectra that are statistically significant (i.e. rise above the noise) at frequencies that could plausibly be related to the solar cycle.
But ignore that (since that is what you are doing), for a moment. Let’s do your exercise with my data for the US Central Region (previously I miswrote “Southern” Region; I’ve got data on all 9 regional divisions I’m studying). I’ve got a little over a hundred years of monthly observations for this data series, 1356 to be exact. The standard deviation is 0.64875. That s.d. divided by the square root of 1356 is 0.0176. The units are in Centigrade. You’ve said TSI can account for absolute range of about 0.07, which is about twice this (2×0.0176 = ~ 0.035). So there is no reason to close your mind to the possibility of being able to see this signal above the background.
And that’s what you see here, in an MTM spectrum analysis of this particular data series:
http://s5.tinypic.com/r1adtl.jpg
And the time domain representation here:
http://s5.tinypic.com/hreogj.jpg
Now let’s back away from this for a minute. I don’t know that solar is “the” cause of the spectra you see in the preceding graphs. What I know are that (a) we are looking at something that cannot be dismissed as “lost in the noise,” (b) the magnitude of variation is within the range of what could be attributed to TSI, and (c) the spectra are of a frequency that could be attributed to the solar cycle.
Previously you’ve said that you would “expect” to see this. Then you come along and say that you don’t expect to see it because it is not “visible” above the background noise.
You are a hard person to dialog with, even on the best of terms, sometimes.
Leif, if you drop a copper penny into a strong magnetic field, the penny slows down dramatically. While it is moving in the field, electrical currents are induced that produce a force that opposes the force of gravity. The penny will resume the acceleration of gravity as it leaves the field.
Does temp fluctuation on the surface of the Sun, combined with our exposure to hot spots due to orbit, make a difference at all? I have no idea how many times during one orbit we are exposed to the same specific spot on the sun, and if it is a hot spot, what difference that would make. Just as example figures to try and illustrate what I am asking about, as I am having a hard time putting it into words, if we are exposed to a hot spot 75% of the time, and a cold spot 25%, and then in our next orbit the opposite, would this make a difference?
@Leif Svalgaard (11:15:01) : Here is more on forces, center of gravity, torques,
Thanks, I’ve downloaded it and will proceed to read…
But I’m still waiting for the answer to the question: As the position vector approaches zero, where does the angular momentum go to be conserved?…
Conservation of Angular momentum: It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law.
Position Vector approaches zero as barycenter approaches solar center (and this is known to happen, not a hypothetical.)
Position Vector near zero says L=r x p near zero. Physics, by definition.
Angular momentum was conserved.
Where did it go?
E.M.Smith (11:49:17) : Angular momentum was conserved.
Where did it go?
I probably ought to add to that:
From kohai, nervously eyeing his usual spot on the foor 8-0 !
(I do feel almost exactly like I did as a lowly purple belt asking 4th? degree black belt Sensei “What happens if I did This? ” — hello floor… )
Solar magnetic fields (polar and sunspots) change polarity along the solar cycles’ progression (with half a cycle phase shift).
One way this can be achieved is through the flow of ‘solar currents’, modulated by a feedback through energy interchange between solar wind and the planetary magnetospheres.
The intensity of the feedback may also be a function of planetary position within heliosphere’s geometry.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SolarCurrents.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar current link
Leif,
” Do you think that you get more light from it if you wave it vigorously?”
if it has an inductive set up to recharge the batteries in it I DO!!!!
HAHAHAHAHA
Leif Svalgaard (08:48:07) :
“Our polar field method only predicts the size and not the timing. The 2011 time frame is a ‘nomimal’ time just adding 11 years to the 2000 maximum time [BTW, the referee’s wouldn’t let us speculate on the timing, pointing out (correctly, we conceded) that the polar field precursor method does not provide a timing prediction in itself]. So, this was not a prediction.”
“we predict that the approaching solar cycle 24 (~2011 maximum) will have a peak smoothed monthly sunspot number of 75 +/- 8”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005GeoRL..3201104S
This clearly looks like a prediction and “speculating”. Treat it as not being formally a prediction if you wish, but I find your claim that the reviewers would not let you speculate on the timing, yet allow the speculation to occur in the prediction itself, but only based on a “generic” 11 year cycle. If that it were true there would have been absolutely no reason to approximate timing of the maximum, *especially* if you knew then what you claim now. In any event my question remains unanswered. If you knew then that a small cycle would take longer to appear from minimum and be slower to ramp up to maximum than a larger cycle, in your words the sun would be doing “just what it should be”, why did you approximate SC24 maximum in 2011, in your 2005 prediction above?
E.M.Smith (11:26:04) :
“anna v (04:47:46) :
1)The only viable coupling in the solar system, i.e. with some energy to create tides, is gravity. The effect of the planets on the sun is tiny tides, of the order of milimeters.”
I would assert that you only need conservation of angular momentum, not tides, to influence the solar spin.
Conservation of angular momentum of a spinning object means it will keep on spinning at the same angular velocity, unless something interferes with it. Take a spinning top on ice. Have an ice skater run in a circle around it. You can define an rxp between the spinning top and the skater. So? If the skater stops will the top stop spinning? If a hole opens and eats the spinning top will the skater change angular momentum? There is no interaction between skater and spinning top and that is why it is irrelevant to calculate angular momenta between the two.
It is the forces that define angular momentum changes.
“( barycenter movement is irrelevant and a red herring, one needs forces).”
I would further assert that barycenter movement is relevant since, as the center of orbit, it determines the length of the position vector in the ( p x r ) calculation of orbital angular momentum.
You can always define an angular momentum for moving masses, from an infinity of axis. The point is whether these axis have a relevance to the forces in the problem. The only relevance of the orbiting of the sun about the barycenter comes from the gravitational interaction with all the planets and the balance of orbital angular momenta is with the total solar system ( when the sun’s increases, Jupiter etc decreases, usw). It is all a matter of coordinate systems. The individual planetary and sun spins about their axis are conserved, except for the small effect of gravity with the tidal forces.
As the position vector approaches zero: p x r approaches zero and that angular momentum must be conserved and must go somewhere with solar spin being a prime candidate (and maybe via some kind of orbital resonance? into planetary orbit / spin changes).
By construction, the barycenter does not pass through the center of the sun. The changes of the orbital angular momentum you are envisioning are taken up by the whole solar system. As with earth/moon, so with the sun, even if the barycenter goes through a part of it, nothing happens since the barycenter has no mass.
Ninderthana (15:41:21) :
captdallas2,
“Has it ever occured to you that the undrelying mechanism that drives the PDO
may be indirectly linked a mechanism that drives solar activity?”
Have do done any supplemental linkage work with 10Be and 14C records that are associated with solar activity or are these proxies irrelevant to your study?
What drives what is the mystery. I am not particularly impressed with the quality of proxy reconstructions or the quality of most models. They are only predictive is things don’t change. Things change in climate and finance. Don’t put your retirement plans in models or you will work for the rest of your life.
Here are my thoughts:
All proxies should be viewed with great skepticism.
Trees are not thermometers.
It ain’t the sun, at least for now.
While climate is complex that don’t mean it can’t be predicted. The error bars may be large, but there are things that are predictable.
So for the next twenty to twenty five years we should see a slight cooling trend. It could be a flat trend, but odds are we will have some cooling. That doesn’t mean that there may be a high or low spike year, just that the trend should be neutral or cooler. Why? Because temperatures have been higher than normal. The Earth is a huge buffer. Oceans, atmosphere and ice all seek a mean climate. They will change to seek that mean
Does that mean there is no anthropogenic induced climate change? No, it just means that it is harder to decipher how much may be anthropogenic.
My money is on 1 degree C for co2 doubling. The water vapor feedback numbers don’t seem to add up so Hansen’s 4 degrees seems to be irrational. Actually, Hansen often seems irrational.
There is just more to the story than pick a pet theory. It is chaotic.
@ anna v (12:48:39) :
Thank you for the response. It does seem to me to still ‘skip over’ some bits that I think can not be skipped…
Conservation of angular momentum of a spinning object means it will keep on spinning at the same angular velocity, unless something interferes with it.
I was talking about the angular momentum of the orbit, not the spin, in this first part. That as the orbit about the center of rotation (the definition of the barycenter) approaches zero, the orbital angular momentum position vector (distance from center of rotation and change of radians per unit time) must drop approaching zero. In that case the cross product with linear momentum will approach zero. Where does the angular momentum go? It’s a later assertion that it might go into spin…
( barycenter movement is irrelevant and a red herring, one needs forces).
You can always define an angular momentum for moving masses, from an infinity of axis. The point is whether these axis have a relevance to the forces in the problem.
Is it not the case that the definition of barycenter is that it is the center of mass about which objects in the solar system rotate in their orbits? Is that not the only place the sun is orbiting? I can see no rationale for putting the solar center of orbit vector on, for example, the moon… All it would do is make the math very very messy, but at the end of the day, the distance for solar center to center of orbit changes and that changes orbital angular momentum.
If it is, in fact, the correct root for the solar position vector in L=r x p then we must admit that the length of the position vector changes (up to 2 x solar radii outside the sun center, and sometimes crossing right near the center of the sun, during the “retrograde” part of the orbit approaching zero.
The only relevance of the orbiting of the sun about the barycenter comes from the gravitational interaction with all the planets and the balance of orbital angular momenta is with the total solar system ( when the sun’s increases, Jupiter etc decreases, usw).
And that’s the whole point. The angular momentum is going somewhere… and there is spin orbit coupling; certainly at the subatomic level and from what I can find, accepted at the planetary level, so I don’t see how we can just say to ignore it without knowing how to calculate how much and why…
It is all a matter of coordinate systems. The individual planetary and sun spins about their axis are conserved, except for the small effect of gravity with the tidal forces.
That is an assertion, not a solution of the physics. As L=r x p has the position vector approach zero (use zero, or use 1/10th if you don’t want to accept that it could actually reach zero; it doesn’t change the problem…) the angular momentum attributable to the orbit about the center of the orbit approaches zero (or 1/10th, again, it doesn’t change the final question).
Angular momentum must be conserved. Where did it go if not into spin? If it went off to Jupiter, how did it get there? When it got to Jupiter, why would it show up as orbit, with zero as spin (given that spin orbit coupling seems well attested as a part of physics.)
By construction, the barycenter does not pass through the center of the sun. The changes of the orbital angular momentum you are envisioning are taken up by the whole solar system.
I don’t really care if the center of orbit ever crosses exactly through the zero point. We know that it ranges from 2 x solar radii away from the center of mass of the sun, down to at least 1/10th of a solar radius in 1990-91 darned near the exact center of the sun (when, IIRC, it snowed here abnormally…) This means we know that the position vector approaches zero, which still leaves us with the problem. Where does the angular momentum go?
You again assert that it goes into ‘the whole solar system’. What bit of physics sorts it between solar spin angular momentum, planetary orbital angular momentum, planetary spin angular momentum, {else clause}?
I’ve made a “thought experiment” that looks to me like a reasonable way to convert orbital momentum into spin momentum (without tides). I see no reason to just wave away the angular momentum to a vague somewhere else. (Now, I could just be blind, but i don’t think so…)
Sidebar: Mr. McGuire, as physics teacher… He had a turntable students could stand on. He would hand us a bike wheel on a spindle, then spin it up and spin us up, and we would move the wheel. Strange things happened. Now, unfortunately it was about 40 years ago so memories are getting dodgy… but I would swear that one of the things we went over was exactly that thought experiment and that as the wheel was brought closer to the person, both the person and the wheel changed spin… I would love to find such a table on bearings and wheel with handles again…
As with earth/moon, so with the sun, even if the barycenter goes through a part of it, nothing happens since the barycenter has no mass.
You are again implying that my question wants the barycenter to have a force, a mass, or something physical. I specifically disclaim any such assertion. It has no mass. It has no gravity. It has NOTHING physical. I get it.
But what it does have is a definition. By definition it is the center of orbit. By definition, it is where the solar orbit position vector ends. By definition, as the distance of the barycenter from the solar center changes, the solar orbital position vector changes. When then, again by definition, L= r x p says the orbital angular momentum changes.
So where does the angular momentum go? And what does it do when it gets there? And how do you know? What formula is used?
“There is just more to the story than pick a pet theory. It is chaotic.”
Hence the skepticism of global warming, yes?
gary gulrud (10:46:49) :
That was a bridge (“Galloping Gerdy” (sp?)) across the Tacoma Narrows at the southern tip of Puget Sound in Washington State. As I understand it, the wind was something like 70 mph. The problem was that the bridge deck was behaving like an airplane wing and one side would want to lift. But because it was constrained, that lifting force could not be sustained and the bridge would need to return to its original position but would overshoot. There was a periodicity to this forcing and it happened to coincide with a natural harmonic structural vibration frequency of the bridge which “magnified” the effect. I don’t know if there were further special circumstances required. Did the wind need to be within a small band of direction and speed for the forcing to continue, or was the bridge susceptible to a fairly broad range? BTW, I believe it got its name before it broke apart.
Perhaps the sun spots and our ocean cycles are galloping like Gerdy.
Ohioholic (14:25:32) : said:
“There is just more to the story than pick a pet theory. It is chaotic.”
Hence the skepticism of global warming, yes?
Exactly. Don’t get me wrong, I am not the sharpest tack in the box. I am fairly intelligent and a devote skeptic of everything. Some of the climatological stuff makes sense and some I find asinine. Eric Steig’s Antarctic study I feel is asinine because the potential error is so large it is a coin toss. His abstract should have said the antarctic may or may not be warming. I don’t know which.
Micheal Mann’s affection for tree rings is just that, a warm and fuzzy emotional feeling. His science sucks or he would have compared updated versions of the records he used. He is an egomaniacal idiot. Just my personal opinion Anthony, don’t mean to be offensive, but if the shoe fits.
So there is a lot of stuff to be skeptical of. The sun though, by itself, is a red herring that detracts from the advancement of the debate. Proxy reconstructions are cited by both sides without consideration of their validity. Why outdated proxies are cited is beyond me, stupidity, politics, who knows. People do need to get up to speed if they want to learn the truth.
Basil (11:31:58) :
…I’ve got a little over a hundred years of monthly observations for this data series, 1356 to be exact. …
And that’s what you see here, in an MTM spectrum analysis of this particular data series:
Hello basil – do you have a source of this data that I can access please?
Not sure how the harmonics are displayed using the ssa mtm programme so I would like to try using excel!!!
Basil (11:31:58) :
…I’ve got a little over a hundred years of monthly observations for this data series, 1356 to be exact. …
And that’s what you see here, in an MTM spectrum analysis of this particular data series:
Hello basil – do you have a source of this data that I can access please?
Not sure how the harmonics are displayed using the ssa mtm programme so I would like to try using excel!!! I assume the prog reconstructs the black harmonics ?
If the centre of mass of the sun is orbting around the (moving) barycentre of the solar system, and the interior of the sun is not rigid, it seems reasonable to assume that the internal activity of the sun will be influenced by the dynamics of the gravitational forces involved – doesn’t it?
Bill,
The US Regional data can be accessed here:
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/CDODivisionalSelect.jsp
Click on the “Region” tab to access the regional data sets. I do some processing of the data before I do the MTM spectrum analysis. The temperature data is in Fahrenheit, so I convert it to Centigrade. Then I subtract the monthly observations from the mean to normalize, or standardize it. Finally, I do a 12 month centered moving average, to annualized the series (removes seasonal variation).
I have all this in a gretl database. I can easily export it to excel, if you’d like to play around with it.
Jack (16:58:30) :
If the centre of mass of the sun is orbting around the (moving) barycentre of the solar system, and the interior of the sun is not rigid, it seems reasonable to assume that the internal activity of the sun will be influenced by the dynamics of the gravitational forces involved – doesn’t it?
Nope. Another red herring, Lief can explain it better, but the variation is insignificant.
I’ve made a “thought experiment” that looks to me like a reasonable way to convert orbital momentum into spin momentum – E. M. Smith
Perhaps you should bear in mind that it’s just a thought experiment.
Thought experiments can come up with all sorts of notions that may be completely unrealistic. And in this respect I think it’s the idea that the Sun is going in a tight little cycloidal orbit around the barycentre that sets people (me included) thinking that the angular momentum of the Sun has to be conserved, perhaps by somehow being turned into spin momentum, as it slows down and speeds up during that strange little orbit.
But the barycentre is a theoretical construct. It’s just the centre of mass of the solar system. The “solar system” is also a construct. And the Sun doesn’t really go round “it”, if only because the solar system is speeding towards Vega, and the real path of the Sun is a corkscrew in that direction.
I see no point in getting lost in thought experiments. I’d like to know how to answer this question for once and for all. For myself, I think I’ll put my trust in my orbital simulation model, and the spinning Sun I propose to introduce into it. This model is brutally simple. It knows nothing about momentum, or angular momentum, or spin momentum, or even energy. It only knows about the acceleration of masses through gravitation. If, when I’ve got a spinning Sun performing a tight little cycloidal orbit around the barycentre, it spins faster when it slows down, and slower when it speeds up, then I may begin to really believe in this spin-orbit coupling business. But for now, it seems to me that Leif Svalgaard and Anna V are asking the obvious questions: what is the physical coupling with this theoretical barycentre?
Basil (11:31:58) :
Previously you’ve said that you would “expect” to see this. Then you come along and say that you don’t expect to see it because it is not “visible” above the background noise.
The original poster claimed he could not see any signal. I would accept that on the plausible grounds that the noise is his data would obscure the signal. If you have found [called cherry picking] a series that does have a signal of the expected size I cn accept that easily. Cheery picking is a standard technique: scientists rarely publish negative results, but should they find a positive one, they select that one for publication.
David Reese (11:38:54) :
If you drop a copper penny into a strong magnetic field, the penny slows down dramatically.
This is precisely what happens with the solar wind [the penny] as it moves into the Earth’s magnetic field: The solar wind is effectively stopped at the ‘nose’ of the magnetosphere [40,000 miles up] and forced to flow around the Earth. The current is there: 40,000 miles up.
Ohioholic (11:48:25) :
Does temp fluctuation on the surface of the Sun, combined with our exposure to hot spots due to orbit, make a difference at all? Yes it can make [very rarely] a difference of up to half a percent of the radiation received: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png shows a sharp dip in October 2003 because a very large dark sunspot group was on the disk of the Sun.
E.M.Smith (11:49:17) :
But I’m still waiting for the answer to the question: As the position vector approaches zero, where does the angular momentum go to be conserved?…
Perhaps you didn’t get an answer because the question is not clear. Are you asking where the AM goes if I chose an arbitrary axis closer and closer to a moving body [and eventually at zero distance] as the origin of the position vector?
vukcevic (12:35:25) :
Solar magnetic fields (polar and sunspots) change polarity along the solar cycles’ progression (with half a cycle phase shift).
One way this can be achieved is through the flow of ‘solar currents’, modulated by a feedback through energy interchange between solar wind and the planetary magnetospheres.
This not only is not a viable mechanism, it is also not the way the Sun works.
kuhnkat (12:40:03) :
” Do you think that you get more light from it if you wave it vigorously?”
if it has an inductive set up to recharge the batteries in it
I was talking about just moving the battery…
Glenn (12:47:26) :
I find your claim that the reviewers would not let you speculate on the timing
Perhaps I’m not too interested in what you find. I know what transpired and as you could see [if you had cared to look] when we did speculate in 2006, we fixed the timing to 2013.5 based on a typical rise time from a minimum in 2007.5. Based on the current minimum I would not be surprised if maximum is even a year further out.
E.M.Smith (13:49:10) :
Angular momentum must be conserved. Where did it go if not into spin? If it went off to Jupiter, how did it get there?Imagine a solar system with only one planet, Jupiter, in a very eccentric orbit. The barycenter is then always between the Sun and Jupiter. Because Jupiter’s orbit is very eccentric [we posited that] the barycenter [BC] will vary its position greatly and the Sun’s distance to the BC will vary greatly. The AM of the Sun around the BC will then vary greatly, but so will Jupiter’s [as it is also changing its position vector], and the change in the Sun’s AM will exactly balance the change in Jupiter’s as the sum must be conserved. That is how it works. The spin of either Jupiter and the Sun and the elementary particles making them up will not be affected in any way by the celestial dance of the Sun and Jupiter, because there is no lever arm to transmit a torque. The orbital changes are transmitted by the curvature of space around the bodies.
Jack (16:58:30) :
If the centre of mass of the sun is orbting around the (moving) barycentre of the solar system, and the interior of the sun is not rigid, it seems reasonable to assume that the internal activity of the sun will be influenced by the dynamics of the gravitational forces involved – doesn’t it?
No. And why is it so important that the Sun not be rigid? If you put a heavy weight on a table will the rigid table not feel the weight? anyway, it is not just the center of the Sun that is orbiting, all particles of the Sun are. If they orbit in a uniform gravitational field they all move together in parallel with no change of distance between them. If the field is not uniform, they will be influenced. The influence is called a ‘tide’ and it VERY VERY VERY small.
Leif Svalgaard (18:50:51) :
“Perhaps I’m not too interested in what you find. I know what transpired and as you could see [if you had cared to look] when we did speculate in 2006, we fixed the timing to 2013.5 based on a typical rise time from a minimum in 2007.5. Based on the current minimum I would not be surprised if maximum is even a year further out.”
It doesn’t matter whether you are interested or not, but it’s understandable that you should be defensive, snip the relevant question I put to you and make an unsubstantial reply. Talbloke made a claim that appears to be accurate, a “failure of current mainstream solar theory to predict the sun’s behaviour”,
and you have handwaived around that by denying any failure and pointing to an as yet unrealized prediction of SC24 maximum, and claiming that the Sun is doing “just what it should”, as if there is nothing unusual or surprising about the current state of the Sun.
I then asked a perfectly reasonable question about the current subject of solar minimum, why you had predicted solar maximum around 2011, if you knew what the Sun now is indeed “doing just what it is supposed to be doing”. You handwaved around that as well, but simple facts are hard to deny, such as your own paper I referenced, which also claims “At present, our limited understanding of the solar cycle does not allow predictions of future solar activity from theory” and clearly predictions of the timing of solar minimum and maximum have failed. And I’m very sorry, but “updated” predictions of past failed predictions do not provide much confidence in the counter claim to Talbloke’s, that predictions of the sun’s behavior have not failed.
As to the 2011 prediction, I find it very curious that your reviewers would allow you to speculate based on an 11 year cycle, but not cycle length and timing that you *do* consider in your paper, have considered before, that many other do consider, that you seem to regard as trivial, “just as it should be doing”.
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Glenn said:
“As to the 2011 prediction, I find it very curious that your reviewers would allow you to speculate based on an 11 year cycle, but not cycle length and timing that you *do* consider in your paper, have considered before, that many other do consider, that you seem to regard as trivial, ‘just as it should be doing’.”
He has a point, Lief. Sometimes you violate your own very high standards with Newspeak all-or-nothing statements like “the sun is doing just as it should be doing”.
I saw that comment and thought….wow….given the current anomalous inactivity of the sun….how can he say that “it is doing just as it should be doing?”
And an adjustment from a predicted maximum in 2005 of ~2011…to 2013.5 in 2006…hardly helps the case that the sun is doing “exactly what it is supposed to be doing”.
A little cognitive dissonance affects the best of us. But even the best of us must weed through it, and that includes you, too, Lief.
Thanks for your hard work and keep it up. I am actually a fan of you and your intellect….but please watch though lest your confidence turn into your achilles when things don’t go precisesly as planned (i.e SC24).
Best,
Chris
Norfolk, VA
savethesharks wrote: And an adjustment from a predicted maximum in 2005 of ~2011…to 2013.5 in 2006…hardly helps the case that the sun is doing “exactly what it is supposed to be doing”.
That was not worded clearly. CORRECTION:
I meant to say, in effect:
A 2005 prediction of a ~2011 maximum, adjusted in 2006 to predict the max to occur 2013.5, hardly helps the case that the sun is doing “exactly what it is supposed to be doing.”
Glenn (20:00:59) :
I find it very curious that your reviewers would allow you to speculate based on an 11 year cycle, but not cycle length and timing that you *do*…
Again, what you find curious is of no interest. Nowhere in that paper do we make a reasoned prediction of 2011. In fact, in the introduction we simply said: “we predict that the approaching solar cycle 24 (~2011 maximum) will have a peak smoothed monthly sunspot number of 75 ± 8, making it potentially the smallest cycle in the last 100 years”. The little squiggle (~) signifies uncertainty or approximation. We did start with 2013, but one of the reviewers objected to that number without a paragraph in the paper that explicitly justified the number, and since we were running up against the 4 page limit for GRL, we just changed it to ~2011 which was the generally expected epoch of the maximum at the time as the number itself in the context of our paper was not important, but simply served to specify which maximum we were referring to. And this is not ‘curious’ in any way, just the way it was.
And your cherry picked out-of-context quotations are not useful, e.g. “At present, our limited understanding of the solar cycle does not allow predictions of future solar activity from theory” simply meant that we must use data [namely the polar fields] for the prediction as the article makes clear.
as if there is nothing unusual or surprising about the current state of the Sun
And there isn’t. We have been in this territory before, in the 1890s and in the 1790s. Many people were expecting this, even my 11-year old grandson.
tallbloke’s lament should be objected to as it is not accurate; since the ‘unrealized’ maximum has not occurred yet, no theory [mainstream or not] can be said to have failed. Very low activity has been in the cards for quite some time now. E.g.
Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?
Authors: Schatten, K. H.; Tobiska, W. K.
Publication: American Astronomical Society, SPD meeting #34, #06.03; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 35, p.817 Publication Date: 05/2003
Abstract
Long-range (few years to decades) solar activity prediction techniques vary greatly in their methods. They range from examining planetary orbits, to spectral analyses (e.g. Fourier, wavelet and spectral analyses), to artificial intelligence methods, to simply using general statistical techniques. Rather than concentrate on statistical/mathematical/numerical methods, we discuss a class of methods which appears to have a “physical basis.” Not only does it have a physical basis, but this basis is rooted in both “basic” physics (dynamo theory), but also solar physics (Babcock dynamo theory). The class we discuss is referred to as “precursor methods,” originally developed by Ohl, Brown and Williams and others, using geomagnetic observations. My colleagues and I have developed some understanding for how these methods work and have expanded the prediction methods using “solar dynamo precursor” methods, notably a “SODA” index (SOlar Dynamo Amplitude). These methods are now based upon an understanding of the Sun’s dynamo processes- to explain a connection between how the Sun’s fields are generated and how the Sun broadcasts its future activity levels to Earth. This has led to better monitoring of the Sun’s dynamo fields and is leading to more accurate prediction techniques. Related to the Sun’s polar and toroidal magnetic fields, we explain how these methods work, past predictions, the current cycle, and predictions of future of solar activity levels for the next few solar cycles.
The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn’t so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected.
So, it is simply not the case that low activity is unanticipated and represent a failure of mainstream solar science, hence it is reasonable to object to allegations of such failure. Your ‘findings’ and ‘curious’ designations are uninformed, seemingly agenda -driven polemics, that are not called for.
Att. Moderator, please feel free to not post this message… And I apologize for opening old wounds. I am certainly not interested in taking away from the spirit and intent of the great work put forth by Anthony et al.
It is just that I am amazed at the coincidence of the solar minimums, (at least since the Wolf minimum), occurring during the so called disordered periods of the barycenter track and am also having a hard time getting my simple mind around the idea that the dynamic motion of the sun in its loops and hoops of changing radius and centripetal motion about the barycenter doesn’t have any effect on the internal dynamics of the sun??? I do appreciate those who have much better training, who have tried to instruct me.
As I understand it, there are times when the barycenter traces out ordered trefoil patterns. I imagine that during these times, the solar cycles may be more predictable, but there are other times when it traces out disordered, chaotic patterns when solar cycle predictions may be more difficult??? As near as I can determine, the last several minimums, (Wolf to present), all happened during one of the disordered periods, (see link below). For me that is an astronomical coincidence… pun intended. For those interested in further study, (outside this blog) the following link provides some very interesting info, and I think, worthy of more study… There is also a neat down loadable program that you can use to trace the barycenter track for any time period, called SIM-1.
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/
Thanks again for all the great info. And, I will hold my peace and refrain from posting any more on this subject.
Stephen
savethesharks (20:29:36) :
but please watch though lest your confidence turn into your achilles when things don’t go precisesly as planned (i.e SC24).
If not, we have all learned something and that is precious. The only way to learn is to be as sharp as possible. If we had said: “solar maximum would be 100+/-100” we would almost surely be correct, but will have learned nothing in being so. Any theory should be formulated in a way that maximizes its chances of being wrong.
Now, I have repeatedly stated the provenance of the ~2011 and will take it as an affront to have that referred to as ‘curious’.
All I am saying Lief is that your statement ex post facto of those 2005/2006 and now 2009 (for 2014.5) adjustments for the maximum of 24 of basically “the sun is doing exactly what it should be doing”…seems a little over the top.
Be careful lest you lapse into the bad habits of the many that you successfully discredit.
I have said it and will say it again I respect your towering intellect but I will also say some of your all-or-nothing statements “the sun is doing exactly what it should be doing” you should weed out before you write them.
Best,
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Stephen said: “Thanks again for all the great info. And, I will hold my peace and refrain from posting any more on this subject.”
No. Please do not NOT post if you have some data to share. Would love to see it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
E.M.Smith (13:49:10) :
Angular momentum must be conserved. Where did it go if not into spin?
Maybe you should be thinking more about coordinate systems with respect to forces in the problem. We choose a coordinate system that simplifies the solution of the problem. There is an infinity of coordinate systems where thoughts can be tied in knots.
The barycenter is the center of mass of the total solar system. It is what an observer on Sirius would use to calculate the trajectory of the solar system in the cosmos, with an effective mass the mass of all the solar system. That is where it has a simple and useful meaning. When in the solar system, it is irrelevant. The trajectories we are interested in, if we want to go to Jupiter for example, are trajectories with respect to earth, not the barycenter. Always choose the relevant coordinate system.
This navel gazing with the angular momentum of the sun by changing coordinate systems is not productive. Go to a heliocentric system. Here the angular momentum of the sun is 0 by construction. Where is the orbital angular momentum you worry about,? Running around dancing with the planets.
BTW spin orbit interactions at atomic and nuclear level involve forces that are doing the coupling ( electromagnetic or strong). This is what is missing in all this: that in the solar system there is not enough energy in the coupling between the spinning objects about themselves and the orbital spin. Just the tiny tidal forces. As far as present physics goes with long range forces.
I don’t really care if the center of orbit ever crosses exactly through the zero point. We know that it ranges from 2 x solar radii away from the center of mass of the sun, down to at least 1/10th of a solar radius in 1990-91 darned near the exact center of the sun (when, IIRC, it snowed here abnormally…) This means we know that the position vector approaches zero, which still leaves us with the problem. Where does the angular momentum go?
Hmm. I suspect that my previous answer that “it is taken up by the total system” is relevant only if we are changing coordinate systems. ( admitting a mental confusion here). Within this barycentric coordinate system it goes nowhere, it will still be conserved: the angular velocity, will change so as to keep the conservation of angular momentum ( as happens with elliptic orbits around a central force).
savethesharks (21:19:37) :
All I am saying Lief is that your statement ex post facto of those 2005/2006 and now 2009 (for 2014.5) adjustments for the maximum of 24 of basically “the sun is doing exactly what it should be doing”…seems a little over the top.
We stressed in our paper that “An important advantage of the polar field precursor method is […] its potential for continual (real-time) update as the cycle gets underway.”
I don’t see any reason for ‘being over the top” if we are taking advantage of the potential of the method as stated.
This is a fascinating thread, thanks for the insightful comments. It’s a thrilling time in our history, finding out so many new and wonderful things.
I really can’t see how acceleration and velocity changes theoretically brought upon by Neptune’s and Uranus’ alignment can’t make a difference to the Sun. Maybe it’s looking at it from an orbital mechanics point of view first and then physics next, not sure. One day, it will be a TV special. For now, the Sun is still quiet and we have formulas that show that mass and distance of heavenly bodies from it are important (tidal forces are secondary in this discussion). When massive bodies are aligned on one side of the Sun (that don’t need to be as massive if they are farther away – but still revolve as part of the solar system), then the Sun’s distance from the barycenter changes to compensate – and presumably induces a bit of chaos from its heterogeneous makeup. Another day, something else may be a plausable answer.
Be vewy, vewy quite. I’m hunting wadiation.
Stephen (20:52:09) :
Your comments summarize the dilemma of the situation. The unordered patterns coincide with all solar slow downs in the past 6000 yrs at least in my research. This is hard to argue against, but can be done because a strict scientific coupling has not been produced, so far.
I can understand why Anthony doesn’t want his blog cluttered with endless barycenter theories and ideas that in most cases will go nowhere. This might be best done in other forums, but to right off Planetary Influence theory completely doesn’t make sense.
This topic still continues to attract a lot of attention and wont go away, but could I suggest setting up a separate continual thread/story where barycenter discussions can be thrashed out in semi private. It would be like a backwater where those interested or game could discuss to their hearts content without taking anything away from the main blog.
Lief wrote: “I don’t see any reason for ‘being over the top” if we are taking advantage of the potential of the method as stated.”
Was not calling into question having to move the goalposts a bit as being “over the top”….was calling into question your blanket statement which basically said in an earlier post “the sun is doing exactly what it should be doing”.
I appreciate your fluidity as a scientist and certainly respect that…its just that 2011 then to 2013.5 and now 2014.5 can not be seen as “the sun is doing exactly what it should be doing.”
Even in solar years…. (dog years LOL).
Can you not accept any criticism whatsoever, Leif?
Is it more important to you that you be right and correct in every turn and that you trump your opponent every time? Is that a sign of victory?
Or….can you not just bow out for just once (as the need to have the last word sometimes takes on a life of its own)…and just….not respond?
I believe that highly-evolved superior intellect of yours very much can, bro.
Let it be. I am not calling into question you or your hard-earned stripes of research, nor especially your smarts.
I am only calling into question those quasi-absolute shut-down statements that you sometimes mutter that “the sun is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.”
That’s all.
Mad respect…your work is much appreciated. Lighten up.
Good nite.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
E.M.Smith (13:49:10) :
This means we know that the position vector approaches zero, which still leaves us with the problem. Where does the angular momentum go?
Having thought about what you might have meant, I’ll try another tack. Imagine you launch a satellite and place it in orbit around the Sun at one solar radius above the surface at a time where the barycenter is also at that distance, then the satellite will pass [we arrange it so] through the barycenter once per orbit [takes 8 hours] but will, of course, maintain a constant altitude over the Sun’s surface of 1 solar radius [just like the ISS or any geostationary satellite does, no matter where the Moon – and hence the Earth-Moon barycenter is]. The angular momentum about the barycenter of the satellite will be exactly zero when it passes through the barycenter [because the position vector then has length zero], yet the satellite will not crash into the Sun as if it had lost all its angular momentum. It still has all the real angular momentum it always had namely that of its orbit about the Sun, so doesn’t crash. The angular momentum around the barycenter has no physical meaning at all.
Geoff Sharp (21:56:40) :
suggest setting up a separate continual thread/story where barycenter discussions can be thrashed out in semi private. It would be like a backwater where those interested or game could discuss to their hearts content without taking anything away from the main blog.
There is already such a backwater at http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi so why not continue there. There is also an ‘iron sun’ thread for that crowd.
tallbloke’s lament should be objected to as it is not accurate; since the ‘unrealized’ maximum has not occurred yet, no theory [mainstream or not] can be said to have failed. Very low activity has been in the cards for quite some time now. E.g.
Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?
Authors: Schatten, K. H.; Tobiska, W. K.
Publication: American Astronomical Society, SPD meeting #34, #06.03; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 35, p.817 Publication Date: 05/2003
“The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”
Hi Leif,
It’s interesting that Schatten should have a prediction which is at such variance with Dikpati’s and Hathaway’s, when they all hold to the same Babcock Leighton dynamo theory. Perhaps the difference lies more in Schatten’s calculations of solar variability, which are wildly at odds with your own.
Consensus, what consensus? 😉
Did you get a chance to look at Ray Tomes theory yet? I’ve had an idea how it might be tested statistically. I’ll get to work on it when I get home and have my data to hand.
gary gulrud (10:46:49) :
(tallbloke’s summary of Ray Tome’s theory)
“the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years, and the motion of the planets above and below the solar equator create harmonic resonances which ‘ring the sun’s bell’ and amplify or dampen the effect, modulating it to the varying length and amplitude solar cycles we see in the sunspot record. ”
Very interesting, and within scope for engineers! In the course of DiffEq one studies harmonic resonances with simple 2nd order linear differential equations.
We had one short movie in the course, a galloping suspension bridge! As I remember an old model A or similar vintage car was stopped halfway and disappeared for much of the time as the waves(both in the direction of the bridge and transverse) were much larger in amplitude.
Indeed, and there are many other examples of bridges going into large oscillations when affected by small forces applied at ‘just the right timing’. Military manuals warn that soldiers should break step when crossing bridges rather than marching in time because of the potentially fatal effects of setting up a runaway harmonic oscillation feedback.
Having read some of Ray Tome’s work on harmonics I think he may well be onto something with his solar planetary theory. I really hope Leif will check it out and give us an opinion. Fourth time lucky.
savethesharks (22:19:00) :
Was not calling into question having to move the goalposts a bit as being “over the top”….was calling into question your blanket statement which basically said in an earlier post “the sun is doing exactly what it should be doing”.
What I was taking issue with was the blanket statement:
“failure of current mainstream solar theory to predict the sun’s behaviour”,
It is not about me ‘wanting to be right’ or about ‘victory’, it is about objecting to what I see as misrepresentation of the state of affairs. Myself and my colleagues do not find [and have not for several years now] that the Sun is in an abnormal and unanticipated state. On the contrary, our prediction of the size of SC24 looks better and better with every passing day, even with SC23 dragging its feet. If you think that is over the top or object to some of the details that is fine with me as long as it is just me personally you are having a problem with and not the many people involved in this and their ‘failure’. But, hey, what does it matter what I say, the Sun will do its thing regardless and we’ll hopefully learn something.
tallbloke (22:50:13) :
It’s interesting that Schatten should have a prediction which is at such variance with Dikpati’s and Hathaway’s, when they all hold to the same Babcock Leighton dynamo theory. Perhaps the difference lies more in Schatten’s calculations of solar variability, which are wildly at odds with your own.
We are all, including myself, adherers to the same Babcock-Leighton dynamo theory. It is ‘broad’ enough to encompass the wide spread. The issue is not the theory but the boundary conditions: is the dynamo deep [Dikpati] or shallow [Schatten and I], is the diffusion of magnetic field into the Sun fast [Choudhuri] or slow [Dikpati].
These things can be settled by observation and by how the models fare, and SC24 will be a crucial test.
Did you get a chance to look at Ray Tomes theory yet? I’ve had an idea how it might be tested statistically. I’ll get to work on it when I get home and have my data to hand.
No, I’m not aware of this. Link?
“the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years”
Never heard of this.
and the motion of the planets above and below the solar equator create harmonic resonances
By which forces?
We have a very good [and getting better] understanding of the Sun’s interior and of the flows and oscillations that go on, and none of the things you mentioned fits into that or are observed. I’m on the Solar Dynamics Observatory team and the launch of our instrument HMI on SDO later this year will give us further detailed information.
Leif Svalgaard (23:46:48) :
Perhaps the difference lies more in Schatten’s calculations of solar variability, which are wildly at odds with your own.
Ken and I predict precisely the same level of activity for SC24. My prediction [75] was published first and when he saw that he changed his prediction which was also 75 to 80, because he wanted to be ‘different’.
For the record, Schatten now agrees with me that my re-calibration of the sunspot number is sound. Hoyt does not, because he does not understand it yet.
Leif and others:
Can I suggest another tack? I can accept that the “tidal” forces and effects are tiny. Nevertheless, at the atomic level, components of the sun must be subject to very different forces, proportional to the square of their distance from the barycenter, as they collectively orbit the barycenter. As the barycenter moves position, relative to the center of mass of the sun, these changing forces and their effects should affect the internal dynamics of the sun.
Leif Svalgaard (22:32:23) :
There is already such a backwater at http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi so why not continue there. There is also an ‘iron sun’ thread for that crowd.
Thanks Leif, but I was making the suggestion to Anthony…there is quite a different crowd here, and it would solve a problem with this particular blog. Offenders could be quarantined 🙂
Just Want Truth… (23:32:34) :
Leif Svalgaard (18:50:51) :
I’m not going to throw out Leif Svalgaard, I’m not going to throw out David Archibald, I’m not going to throw out Milivoje A. Vukcevic (vukcevic), and I wish Willie Soon, Nir Shaviv, and Piers Corbyn (Piers is the most consistent UK weather forecaster) were here.
Sincere thanks for vote of a ‘conditional’ confidence.
You put me in an eminent group of professionals, which I am not, just a casual amateur.
I am not a barycentrist, but I am convinced, because of alternating magnetic fields and planetary correlation, only possible solution could be trough a magnetospheric feedback with a reference to the heliospheric geometry.
I do appreciate fact that the scientists of repute would not suddenly abandon their life-long work and ideas to embrace a new hypothesis, or even elements of it.
In view of that, I take Dr. Svalgaard’s comment
This not only is not a viable mechanism, it is also not the way the Sun works.
as entirely genuine (we argued point on many occasions and there is no point agonising over it further).
My hypothesis may not be based on entirely sound science, as it is currently understood, but I would say that the Babcock-Leighton hypothesis of meridianial flow (existence of which I do not dispute) is just not reliable enough to be used as a base of any viable predictions. According to it, essentially, a big cycle should be followed by even bigger one and so on or small one by smaller one, etc. Experience tells us that is not the case, but if scientists wish to introduce anomalies based on a chance, than result is a ‘Swiss cheese’ theory.
As far as I understand it the Livingston & Penn’s measurements project a significant minimum within next 10 or so years, accordingly my formula, based on two by far largest magnetospheres of the solar system (Jupiter and Saturn), predicts exactly the same result i.e. a ‘major’ or grand minimum (to extend during period of 2020-2030).
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
These are only two predictionst hat entirely agree, the Livingston-Penn’s based on actual measurements and Vukcevic’s based on simple calculations. That gives me confidence that I am on right track.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar current link
Leif Svalgaard (18:50:51) :
If you have found [called cherry picking] a series that does have a signal of the expected size I cn accept that easily. Cheery picking is a standard technique: scientists rarely publish negative results, but should they find a positive one, they select that one for publication.
The remark about cherry picking is uncalled for. You do not know whether I’m cherry picking or not. True, I chose to present a positive result for discussion. But if I ever were to try to publish the results, I wouldn’t ignore the negative results. And I have some. Regionally, the US is divided up into 9 regions. A signal plausible solar signal is present in some of the regions, but not all of them.
I also have the HadCRUT3 global data series, where the signal seems clearly present, but I’m going to look at the zonal components in closer detail now that I’ve seen that the signal is (a) stronger in some regional series, and (b) absent in others. I’m curious how this plays out in global data broken down into its hemispheric and zonal (and sst vs. land) components.
I don’t actually consider the possible evidence of a solar signal to be the most important aspect of what I’m doing, though that is not unimportant to me. It is the technique that I’m using that intrigues me. I think it is novel. It does something I’ve not seen in the published literature. As you know, there are thousands of reports of decadal and bidecadal oscillations in climate data of all stripes (tree rings, varves, temperature series). All we ever see are reports of frequencies, and if they are close to 11 yr or 22 yr then the paper concludes “Solar!” Or, if the signal is closer to 9 yr or 20 yr, the paper concludes “Lunar!” Or, in some cases, a hybrid (beat cycle) is proposed.
But all you ever see in these papers are frequencies. What I’ve found, with temperature series, is a way to assign amplitudes to those frequencies, and chart them in the time domain, functionally equivalent to wavelet transforms, but more useful, I think. Now if I’m just reinventing the wheel, be a friend and tell me so. Point me to some papers that present this kind of information. But don’t attribute motives (cherry picking) to what I’m doing, because I don’t think you know what I’m doing.
Basil
Hi all,
In order to achieve more than 1 sigma for spotless days, we need quite a few more indeed. We have to get 820 spotless days to reach mean + 1 sigma, and that is if we exclude the grand minima. Still, if the sun stays in its current funk, this is a realizable target in the 4th quarter of this year.
If this minimum reaches 1202 spotless days, then it will at the mean +1 sigma even if we include the Dalton minimum. Now we’re talking something that would raise some eyebrows, but it won’t happen until late 2010 at the earliest, maybe 2011. With Leif’s updated predictions of max being in 2014 though, it is I suppose a possibility.
Only if this minimum reaches an epic 3198 spotless days will it be at mean +1 sigma even if we include the Maunder minimum. For now I’m going to say that this won’t happen. Being a scientist myself, though, I’m always willing to update (and admit I was wrong) if new information becomes manifest.
Hope you all enjoy,
Paul
“I missed where you got this ‘tidbit’ from? ”
Tallbloke’s early entry, scores into the thread, about harmonic resonance. And on that note.
“We don’t think much of barycentrism here”
The conversion of: every speculation on the serendipity of oscillations in planetary motion with those of solar activity into a discussion of the vacuity of barycentrism or of every speculation on a possible mechanism of solar forcing into an argument over the inadequacy if TSI variation to influence climate is a well-known sophist gambit: To recharacterise an agrument into a that of a loosely congruous “strawman”.
I am increasingly disappointed in the level of “human sympathy” exhibited by people of obvious intelligence.
“In order to achieve more than 1 sigma for spotless days, we need quite a few more indeed. ”
I get 12.8 years to date for 23 vs. your 12.08. May 1996 – March 2009.
Note that if this is a redo of cycle 4, a ‘Dalton’-like minimum ahead, cycles 5 and 6 were reversed in rise to run proportions. Rmax could then fall 2015 or later.
Jack (00:40:05) :
As the barycenter moves position, relative to the center of mass of the sun, these changing forces and their effects should affect the internal dynamics of the sun.
The are no forces on an object in free fall [apart from tidal ones], so no effects would be expected.
Geoff Sharp (01:00:35) :
Offenders could be quarantined 🙂
Except that experience shows that they rear their head anyway
vukcevic (03:04:44) :
My hypothesis may not be based on entirely sound science, as it is currently understood, but I would say that the Babcock-Leighton hypothesis of meridionall flow (existence of which I do not dispute) is just not reliable enough to be used as a base of any viable predictions. According to it, essentially, a big cycle should be followed by even bigger one and so on or small one by smaller one, etc.
Which they usually are. What breaks the chain is that the polar fields are only a tiny amount of the total flux [1/1000] and such small amounts are subject to stochastic fluctuations as observed.
As far as I understand it the Livingston & Penn’s measurements project a significant minimum within next 10 or so years
Let me correct your understanding: What L&P suggest based on their data is that sunspots have become warmer and thus more difficult to see. The sunspot number may not be a reliable indicator of the Sun’s magnetic field [this is the heretical part that caused rejection of their paper]. We know [from cosmic ray proxies and aurorae counts] that during the Maunder and Spoerer minima, the Sun’s magnetic field was still cycling as usual, yet few spots were seen. L&P suggests that we may be in a similar situation soon, as early as 2015. That the coming cycles will be small has been predicted by many and seems quite likely by now.
Basil (03:48:15) :
The remark about cherry picking is uncalled for. You do not know whether I’m cherry picking or not.
I meant it in the more positive sense of not overflowing the scientific literature with all the blind alleys and dumb ideas I myself [and most scientists] have lots and lots of. For every positive result I throw away ten negative ones [except when I get a negative one and somebody else got a positive one looking at the same phenomenon – then it is question of non-repeatability which is important to report]
But all you ever see in these papers are frequencies. What I’ve found, with temperature series, is a way to assign amplitudes to those frequencies
I thought that a power spectrum explicitly gives you the ‘power’ i.e. the amplitude of the signal and the frequency…
What is your additional novel idea?
Paul Stanko (05:13:32) :
Being a scientist myself, though, I’m always willing to update (and admit I was wrong) if new information becomes manifest.
A forecaster should always update his forecast in the light of new data. Some theories [e.g. mine 🙂 ] have the capability to accommodate such adjustment. Others do not, e.g. if the barycenter movement predicts a minimum [as it did] 173 years after the Dalton minimum in ~1810 and it didn’t happen, it is hard credibly to patch it up, other than by special pleading that extraordinary circumstances made it fail [I’m reminded of a sign I once saw in the window of the psychic ‘shop’: ‘due to unforeseen circumstances we are closed today’].
gary gulrud (06:42:42) :
I am increasingly disappointed in the level of “human sympathy” exhibited by people of obvious intelligence.
Your disappointment is of little general interest. And as any working scientist can tell you, science is cruel towards pet ideas and unsupported speculations, we do not accept a result to be ‘nice’ to deserving recipients of our sympathy.
Leif Svalgaard (08:12:51) :
Basil (03:48:15) :
The remark about cherry picking is uncalled for. You do not know whether I’m cherry picking or not.
I meant it in the more positive sense of not overflowing the scientific literature with all the blind alleys and dumb ideas I myself [and most scientists] have lots and lots of. For every positive result I throw away ten negative ones [except when I get a negative one and somebody else got a positive one looking at the same phenomenon – then it is question of non-repeatability which is important to report]
correcting tags…
gary gulrud (07:14:24) :
I get 12.8 years to date for 23 vs. your 12.08. May 1996 – March 2009.
F10.7 is often a more reliable indicator than the sporadic sunspot number: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
November 2008 may be a better guesstimate than March 2009. For the same reason October 1996 might be better. Although I’ll concede that the whole business of trying to pin down ‘minimum’ to a month is somewhat meaningless as there is no physical ‘event’ signaling a minimum, just the cross-over of two fairly independent curves.
Note that if this is a redo of cycle 4, a ‘Dalton’-like minimum ahead, cycles 5 and 6 were reversed in rise to run proportions. Rmax could then fall 2015 or later.
SC23 did not look at all like SC4, but much more like SC13. This, of course, does not alter the conclusion much as SC14 [which is close to predicted SC24 took five years to grow].
As far as we know barycenter theorists (I.Charvatova among others) say that every 178.7 years the sun follows a disordered type of orbits around the barycenter, which they think correlates with a minimum.
And “The results indicate that `solar dynamo’ that was long sought in the solar interior, operates more likely from the outside” (I.Charvatova)
Some others attribute a “shake effect” on sun’ s plasma:
http://www.surf2000.de/user/f-heeke/article1.html
All this, of course, supposes an axis centered in the center of mass of the solar system.
Leif Svalgaard (08:12:51) :
vukcevic (03:04:44) :
….Babcock-Leighton hypothesis of meridionall flow (existence of which I do not dispute) is just not reliable enough to be used as a base of any viable predictions. According to it, essentially, a big cycle should be followed by even bigger one and so on or small one by smaller one, etc.
Leif Svalgaard (08:12:51)
Which they usually are. What breaks the chain is that the polar fields are only a tiny amount of the total flux [1/1000] and such small amounts are subject to stochastic fluctuations as observed.
Stochastic fluctuations or not; if something depends on an assumed tiny proportion (1/1000) of something else, how come the result is such regular waveform as in:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
not to mention almost near equality between N and S poles, if they are formed independently, it is stretching credibility to an unreasonable extent.
As far as I see it, this must be a statistical miracle of the highest degree.
Alternatively, we have two strongest DC (long term steady) magnetic fields of the solar system orbiting the Sun, and in combining their orbital properties we have an excellent correlation with the polar fields waveform as in
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
not to mention the total agreement with the Livingston & Penn’s measurements and the their future estimates.
“”” Ohioholic (15:21:29) :
Well, I know Leif will be by, so one question I would love to pose is as follows:
If the sun’s effects are minimal on temperature, why the difference in day/night temperatures? “””
In case you haven’t noticed *holic, in climatology, there is no day/night temperature difference; that is WEATHER not CLIMATE.
So it is 14.44 deg C +/- 2 deg C every place on earth 24/7 or 365 days a year.
Clmate deals with long term averages (it says so in the definitiion of climatology); so day night temperature differences have nothing to do with climate.
It is not your place; or mine; to query why we don’t model what the planet itself is modelling; which would include day/night temperature differences; but then it wouldn’t be climate; it would be something else. But it would at least be real world.
Leif,
You continually surprise me! Who else would ever use “cherry picking” in a positive sense. If you didn’t mean it in a negative sense, then I retract everything I said that assumed you did.
I agree, where the negative results are the result of “dumb ideas” they don’t deserve reporting. And I agree that where one report is positive, and somebody comes across a negative result, it is worth publishing.
I’m sensitive to the negative implication of cherry picking because I know very well how easy it is “to torture the data until it confesses, even to crimes it did not commit” and try to avoid this kind of searching only for results that confirm a theory. In principle, I’m a die hard Popperian positivist. In reality, we all end up practicing Kuhnian “normal science” if we’re not careful.
Basil
vukcevic (09:34:33) :
Stochastic fluctuations or not; if something depends on an assumed tiny proportion (1/1000) of something else, how come the result is such regular waveform as in:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
Because both the polar fields and your curve have only a few degrees of freedom. And, BTW, the waveform is not so regular. Part of the seemingly regularity comes from the 30-day smoothing WSO performs.
not to mention almost near equality between N and S poles, if they are formed independently, it is stretching credibility to an unreasonable extent.
The N and S polar fields are rather different as you would expect from a random process:
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
The poles also reverse polarities at different times. This was noted by the very earliest observers in the 1950s. There can be up to two years difference in time of reversal.
Basil (10:11:32) :
You continually surprise me! Who else would ever use “cherry picking” in a positive sense.
I made a [fortunate] typo and actually said ‘cheery picking’ [cheery = ‘Showing or suggesting good spirits’]. My point was that it is a ‘standard’ technique and is done all the time, mostly for good reason. It only becomes bad if one willfully ignores results that don’t fit.
‘Normal Science’ is what almost all scientists do all the time. Kuhnian paradigm shifts come rarely, and ‘normal science’ is needed to prepare the mind and to learn the ropes and to speak the lingo.
vukcevic (09:34:33) :
not to mention almost near equality between N and S poles, if they are formed independently, it is stretching credibility to an unreasonable extent.
The N and S polar fields are rather different as you would expect from a random process:
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
It may help to plot them on the same graph:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-N-and-S-on-top.png
tehdude:
Wherefore is used a lot in legal pleadings, and when used in the legal sense, has the other meaning — therefore.
Leif Svalgaard (10:16:30) :
to
vukcevic (09:34:33) :
the waveform is not so regular. Part of the seemingly regularity comes from the 30-day smoothing WSO performs.
That is irrelevant point, this is not question of a day to day, month to month variability, it is a long term tendency, measured over number of years.
Lets don’t forget what B-L theory says:
Late in the sunspot cycle, the leading spots diffuse across the equator and cancel with the opposite polarity leading spots in the other hemisphere. The flux of the trailing spots and of the remaining sunspot pairs is carried toward the poles where it accumulates to form the poloidal field of the next solar cycle.
The N and S polar fields are rather different as you would expect from a random process
Indeed: Asymmetry of the last cycle in “Late in the sunspot cycle” 24 is considerable:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SC23.gif
It varies between 30 and 700% depend how late you whish to take B-L’s “Late in the sunspot cycle”, while asymmetry of ‘resulting’ polar fields is less then 5% (possibly order the of measurement accuracy and annual filtering methods), bearing in mind “1/1000 ratio and stochastic variability”.
….The poles also reverse polarities at different times.
This would be expected result of an external enforcement on a weaker internal dynamo. You will also notice smooth transition (1980 and 2000)
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
when external field and dynamo are in polarity synchronism, or alternatively, up to 2-3 year resistance (1970 and 1990) when external enforcment is working against the internal dynamo.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SolarCurrents.gif
Day/night temperature fluctuations are an Earth-bound variation (rotation away from the far more steady state of the Sun). Climate zone differences are an Earth-bound variation. Weather patterns and variation of weather patterns are an Earth-bound variation. Even trade winds are the result of axial spin and friction with the Earth. I am even beginning to think that oceanic oscillations are an Earth-bound variation. The Sun, at its more steady (in comparison to Earth) heating state, warms the oceans. With slow trade winds, the warm water kinda stays put. When trade winds increase, the Sun’s warming affect is overpowered by strong winds pushing warm water away revealing cold water. This event changes typical weather patterns so that trends go the other way. After a while (years to decades), trade winds calm and the surface waters stay put and begin to warm up. The trend now goes the other way. Even the trade winds could be part of an Earth bound oscillation that is powered by a constant state of imbalance one way or the other. And finally, it is possible that our own rotation around our own axis, along with the magnetic pull of our moon and the Sun, could be the energy source for this entire thing, like a watch without a battery that keeps on ticking by shaking it around.
You have read this from me before but I will say it again, in my opinion climate is stable. Weather patterns are not. Climate is stable because of its dependence on physically stable parameters, which are your address on planet Earth in terms of proximity to large bodies of water and mountain ranges, which are part of your longitude and latitude address, and altitude. And I say that with the understanding that my addresses is very slowly changing and thus my climate will very slowly change. Weather patterns are not stable because of trade wind changes, oceanic oscillations, local land use and other human-sourced events like pollution, and natural local events such as volcanic eruptions.
The only thing that overrides this (barring catastrophic events like meteor strikes) are long term changes in axial tilt and wobble.
This entire AGW vs natural source variation, regardless of who is right, should be about regional and local weather pattern changes, not climate change.
vukcevic (11:09:44) :
“not to mention almost near equality between N and S poles, if they are formed independently, it is stretching credibility to an unreasonable extent.”
“the waveform is not so regular.”
That is irrelevant point
now, all the sudden all the irregularities that were ‘stretching credibility’ are supporting evidence, it seems.
Let’s try another tack: what reverses the polar fields? and in the way you can see here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/images/smag.jpg
and what reverses the polarities of spot pairs from cycle to cycle and from hemisphere to hemisphere. Details please.
This is clearly a clasic case of “the watched pot never boils” syndrome.
LarryOldtimer (11:58:47) :
This is clearly a classic case of “the watched pot never boils” syndrome.
What is ‘this’? always include a reference back to what you are commenting on…
Leif Svalgaard:
tallbloke
Did you get a chance to look at Ray Tomes theory yet? I’ve had an idea how it might be tested statistically. I’ll get to work on it when I get home and have my data to hand.
No, I’m not aware of this. Link?
Do an inpage search for Ray Tomes, there’s a big long post by me summarizing his theory and providing a link.
Crosses fingers
5th time lucky. 🙂
vukcevic (09:34:33) :
Stochastic fluctuations or not; if something depends on an assumed tiny proportion (1/1000) of something else, how come the result is such regular waveform as in:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
not to mention almost near equality between N and S poles, if they are formed independently, it is stretching credibility to an unreasonable extent.
This is one of the biggest weak points in the B-L theory….reminds me of a sign I saw in a physic shop “due to unforeseen circumstances we are closed today, was up all night trying to get the dice to roll the right way”
“we do not accept a result to be ‘nice’ to deserving recipients of our sympathy”
The word ‘sympathy’, ‘feeling with another’, was used in its most inclusive sense, not the colloquial, ‘feeling for another’ akin to pity. Its application was meant for everyone, on both sides of an argument.
Men/women do nothing and say little on behalf of reason but do so from their inner motivations, serving self-interest. The pointless arguments of one or more parties talking past each other seldom serves any of them.
A little more effort understanding your adversary will streamline the efforts of some.
Leif Svalgaard (11:53:09) :
to
vukcevic (11:09:44) :
I noticed you avoided commenting on the following heresy :
You will also notice smooth transition (1980 and 2000)
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
when external field and dynamo are in polarity synchronism, or alternatively, up to 2-3 year resistance (1970 and 1990) when external enforcement is working against the internal dynamo, I will return to it again.
and what reverses the polarities of spot pairs from cycle to cycle and from hemisphere to hemisphere. Details please.
Simple:
Two major planets with strong magnetic fields of their own, are interacting with the helispheric current sheet and in doing so take energy out of it, consequently change its intensity in the onward intensity. The HCS splits into two constituent components at the outlying reaches of heliosphere, and following magnetic field lines each returns back to the poles as polar current.
When polar current is rising (positive gradient) it induces secondary currents of a particular polarity, which in turn energise sunspot loops, notice their longitudinal orientation.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SolarCurrents.gif
Polar current reaches max, polar fields strongest, (gradient = 0), no induction of secondary current, no sunspot loops, at this point, when gradient changes direction. new rising secondary current will change polarity, and consequently sunspots change their polarity
Opposite is the case when polar current is falling towards the other extreme (negative value). Secondary current is strongest at the time of steepest gradient of polar current change (reversal of its direction), as the consequence polar fields go through zero, polar fields flip polarity (solar max).
To this, I may add that the Sun contains a weak internal dynamo of a long term steady polarity (analogous to planetary ones):
You will also notice smooth transition (1980 and 2000)
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
when externally enforced field and dynamo are in polarity synchronism, or alternatively, up to 2 year resistance (1970 and 1990) when external enforcement is working against the internal dynamo.
Simple if you formulate a consistent a hypothesis that does not depend on a chance or 1/1000 of anything.
This hypothesis shows that Rmax of a cycle has a certain relationship to the strength of polar fields at previous minimum (further apart they are larger gradient change required), so your prediction method is consistent with it, (while polar fields are not related to the past cycle), and B-L theory is not.
Correction
consequently change its intensity in the onward intensity
should be:
consequently change its intensity in the onward direction.
vukcevic (13:47:15) :
I noticed you avoided commenting on the following heresy :
You will also notice smooth transition (1980 and 2000)
I NEVER ‘avoid’ commenting. there are things I don’t think are worth spending time on. The data from WSO is useless in 2000-2002. Here is what they say on the website: WSO sensitivity problems from CR 1970 – CR 1992 (November 2000 – July 2002) . They also say that the data has been corrected. This unfortunately not the case. In figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf you can see how the WSO data disagrees with Mt. Wilson. The smooth behavior you see is just that of smoothed noise waving around zero.
The rest of your post is pure fantasy. There are no such currents. I haven’t decided yet to comment on it as it ‘is not even wrong’, It has to make sense to be ‘wrong’. But perhaps I’ll try. The reason I hesitate is that my effort presumably will have no effect as we gone over some of these things before. But perhaps this time is different. It will take a large amount of education of you, but that might be worthwhile to the general readership too, so perhaps…
gary gulrud (13:31:58) :
Men/women do nothing and say little on behalf of reason but do so from their inner motivations, serving self-interest.
I guess you are speaking for yourself. I do have a wider goal. Society has supported my research, so there is something to give back.
A little more effort understanding your adversary
Again, I guess your are seeing yourself as an ‘adversary’. You have not yet risen to that in my eyes as you have brought no science to the table, but maybe one day … one may be permitted to hope for the best.
Brief report: Using my solar system simulation model, I set up a 1000 kg satellite in circular orbit around the Sun at 6 solar radii, with an orbital period of 40.8 hours, and watched its orbital motion over 11 terrestrial years as the barycentre moved from outside the Sun’s disc to very near its centre. Results: the satellite stayed in a very stable orbit throughout this period, showing almost no variation at all. Conclusion: the motion of the barycentre had no influence on the motion of the satellite. And since the Sun may be regarded as a number of point masses rotating about its centre, most likely the motion of the barycentre will have no effect on the behaviour of the Sun either.
Idlex: Program your satellite to observe the light of stars behind if deviates around the barycenter 🙂
Adolfo Giurfa (16:07:20) :
Idlex: Program your satellite to observe the light of stars behind if deviates around the barycenter 🙂
What matters is what happens with the relative positions of the Sun and the satellite. Idlex: start your satellite at 1 solar radii from the surface so the barycenter will pass above it.
Geoff Sharp (13:26:55) :
Stochastic fluctuations…
This is one of the biggest weak points in the B-L theory….
On the contrary, that is its strongest point, what makes it work. The random buffering by the super-granulation [convective cells] is one of the most efficient way of transporting the magnetic flux.
It is the same basic mechanism [random walk] that makes it possible for you to smell a rose or a skunk.
Leif Svalgaard (16:34:54) :
Idlex: start your satellite at 1 solar radii from the surface so the barycenter will pass above it.
or straight through it for more effect.
idlex (15:49:50) :
You could also try setting up the satellite so it orbits the solar system barycenter instead of the Sun, and then watch the Sun/satellite distance move.
Geoff Sharp (16:58:55) :
idlex (15:49:50) :
You could also try setting up the satellite so it orbits the solar system barycenter instead of the Sun, and then watch the Sun/satellite distance move.
I don’t think he can as the barycenter moves.
Geoff Sharp (16:58:55) :
idlex (15:49:50) :
You could also try setting up the satellite so it orbits the solar system barycenter instead of the Sun, and then watch the Sun/satellite distance move.
I don’t think he can as the barycenter moves.
The sun-earth distance does not change because of the barycenter movement [I think we can treat that as established, or do we have to go through that one again?], but perhaps you want to assert that the earth does not orbit the barycenter? or the sun? or both?
Leif Svalgaard (17:12:45) :
You jump too quickly, I am not talking about Earth. The SSB is the middle point
of the Sun’s path taken over 179 yrs approx.
Geoff Sharp (16:58:55) :
You could also try setting up the satellite so it orbits the solar system barycenter instead of the Sun, and then watch the Sun/satellite distance move.
Consider a double star, each star with its complements of planets [make the distance between the stars large enough that the tidal effects are not too large]. The barycenter of that whole system lies halfway between the stars. What do the planets orbit?
Leif Svalgaard (17:26:56) :
I suspect you are baiting for barycenter comments, I am quite happen to continue this at http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=488
Repost your question there if you wish.
I’ve been out of the (astronomy/astrophysics) loop for a long time, so forgive me if this has been covered.
WRT Sun-Jupiter coupling, barycenter, whatever, my suspicion is this: if a gas giant can somehow couple with a bigger gas giant and create disturbing forces resulting in flares and sunspots, then surely the bigger gas giant is causing much greater forces on the smaller – eg: does Jupiter show any periodic disturbance that could be attributable to the same ‘linkage’ which some of you posit exists between it and the sun? The effect should be much larger and easier to correlate than Jupiter’s reciprocal effect on the sun. The are both gaseous bodies, both have magnetic fields, both primarily hydrogen. The primary difference (aside from size) are the thermal characteristics, so if you cannot correlate similar events on Jupiter, then you must add a thermal dependence, or a similar variable, in the linkage.
On a lighter note, a rare typo by Dr. Svalgaard combined with tired old eyes resulted in a new word: madomness. It has been defined as a random event sufficiently significant as to render any attempt of prediction impossible, thus driving theoretical scientists mad. With that in mind:
Sunspots should be more but were less
Predictions became just a guess
Albert Gore quickly claimed
CO2 was to blame
In truth it was just madomness.
Geoff Sharp (17:17:48) :
You jump too quickly, I am not talking about Earth. The SSB is the middle point of the Sun’s path taken over 179 yrs approx.
I thought is was 173 years, and doesn’t the SSB [Solar System Barycenter for the unwashed masses] move from moment to moment? And not just as an average over a long time?
Geoff Sharp (17:56:38) :
I suspect you are baiting for barycenter comments […]
Repost your question there if you wish.
As you yourself pointed out there are different audiences, so let’s do it here as long as Anthony permits, to get it out of the way. This is not ‘baiting’, simply asking for clarification of your thoughts so they can be discussed transparently. So, we have a series of specific questions awaiting detailed answers. Do I have to repeat them all?
Adolfo Giurfa: Idlex: Program your satellite to observe the light of stars behind if deviates around the barycenter 🙂
I’ll have a try when I’ve put the stars in. And figured out a viewpoint to use to display them. …oh, and implemented the theory of relativity. 😉
Leif Svalgaard: Idlex: start your satellite at 1 solar radii from the surface so the barycenter will pass above it.
…or straight through it for more effect.
I can certainly do that. My simulation starts in March 1940 when the barycentre was about a quarter solar radius outside the Sun. I could find out exactly where it was and start the satellite at that radius, again in a circular orbit.
Geoff Sharp: You could also try setting up the satellite so it orbits the solar system barycenter instead of the Sun, and then watch the Sun/satellite distance move.
If you could explain how I might do that, I’ll also give it a try. But I can’t see how I can do any such thing. I can’t make my satellite orbit the barycentre – or any other location in the solar system. I can only make it orbit some particular body, like the Sun or the Earth. The barycentre is not one of those bodies. My simulation model calculates the gravitational forces acting on each body in the solar system due to all the other bodies in that system. And then it works out the acceleration on each body due to those forces. And then it works out their resulting speeds and locations a short interval later. And I sit and watch where they all go.
Leif Svalgaard: I don’t think he can as the barycenter moves.
It’s not the motion of the barycentre that matters. The Sun is also moving. Everything is moving. The problem is that the barycentre is a notional thing rather than an actual thing. I can’t make my satellite orbit a notional thing like the barycentre. Just like I can’t make my satellite orbit a notional thing like the Lagrangian points between the Sun and Jupiter.
Leif Svalgaard: The sun-earth distance does not change because of the barycenter movement [I think we can treat that as established, or do we have to go through that one again?], but perhaps you want to assert that the earth does not orbit the barycenter? or the sun? or both?
Surely it is that the Earth is pulled every which way by the Sun and all the other planets in the solar system? It just so happens that the Sun is by far the heaviest body in that system, and its influence is predominant. But if all the bodies in the solar system were of equal mass, there wouldn’t be any nice elliptical orbits at all (Note to self: run the simulation for a while, and then make the masses of all the bodies in the solar system the same, and see what happens).
I’ll try out the satellite going through/above the barycentre tomorrow, Leif, and report what I found. My satellite is moving in the ecliptic plane, so it almost cetainly won’t go smack through the barycentre, which will be above or below that plane. Is there anything you’d like me to measure? Today I was simply looking for any perturbation in my initial satellite’s orbit. And I found none.
idlex (18:18:35) :
Leif Svalgaard: “I don’t think he can as the barycenter moves.”
It’s not the motion of the barycentre that matters.
Remember that the barycenter crowd labors under the concept that everything in the solar system orbits the BC.
It just so happens that the Sun is by far the heaviest body in that system, and its influence is predominant.
That is not the real riposte. The reason is that the Earth simply orbits the Sun.
Is there anything you’d like me to measure? Today I was simply looking for any perturbation in my initial satellite’s orbit. And I found none.
any setup will work as it will not make any difference.
Leif Svalgaard (18:12:04) :
As you yourself pointed out there are different audiences, so let’s do it here as long as Anthony permits, to get it out of the way.
Ok….but will wait for Anthony.
REPLY: Ah…jeez you GUYS!
Carry on until my head explodes from barycentric gravitational forces. – Anthony
vukcevic (13:47:15) :
Simple:
The HCS splits into two constituent components at the outlying reaches of heliosphere, and following magnetic field lines each returns back to the poles as polar current.
The lesson starts with some basics about the Heliospheric current Sheet [HCS]. Here is a movie of what the HCS looks like [the blue stuff] at a time where the warping of the HCS was 45 degrees [as in 1983 and 2005]: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Movie.gif
It shows the inner 5 AU [out to Jupiter]. To get to the termination shock it is just more of the same but 20 times further out. In the HCS the solar wind speed is low and what is plotted is actually the solar wind speed in a meridional cut [North pole up, South down, Equator across the middle. Notice that the structure is rotating around the Sun, i.e. the left half of the structure is coming towards you, while the right half is going away from the onlooker [sitting way out in space]. Because of the rotation you can actually watch the warps move up and down if you look really carefully at the structure just next to the Sun. In the HCS the density is also higher [that is what really carries the current], so here is a movie of the density: http://www.leif.org/research/Dens-Movie.gif
As the time moves towards solar maximum the ‘warps’ [the wavy structure – blue in the first movie] expands all the way to the poles, moving towards solar minimum the warps become flatter. The current separating the upper half [above the HCS] from the lower half [with opposite polarity] circles the Sun in the inner part of the region shown, then slowly turns and ends up following the blue ‘folds’ – up and down, up and down, up and down, many, many more times. At the termination shock the whole structure has steepened in a shock wave and everything is completely scrambled [all structure is lost, just like the circular motion in an ocean wave disappears when the wave breaks onto the shore] and the particles that used to carry the HC disappear into interstellar space, i.e. do not return to the Sun.
So far, so good?
P.S. it is the warped blue folds that scatter the cosmic rays [heped now and then by a CME that pushes it way out against the folds and piles them up on top of one another]. So at solar max, when the folds extends all the way to the poles, the most CRs are scattered out of the solar system, while at minimum, when the folds are confined to a thinner strip nearer the equator, clearly most CRs can enter the inner solar system without encountering any folds or warps or CMEs, hence we get a maximum at GCRs at solar minimum.
REPLY: Ah…jeez you GUYS!
Carry on until my head explodes from barycentric gravitational forces. – Anthony
watch the movies in the above post, they are very instructional and quite fascinating. Worth enduring the barycentric and electric universe nonsense to experience. They were made by Vic Pizzo.
Gary Gulrud said: The conversion of: every speculation on the serendipity of oscillations in planetary motion with those of solar activity into a discussion of the vacuity of barycentrism or of every speculation on a possible mechanism of solar forcing into an argument over the inadequacy if TSI variation to influence climate is a well-known sophist gambit: To recharacterise an agrument into a that of a loosely congruous “strawman”.
I am increasingly disappointed in the level of “human sympathy” exhibited by people of obvious intelligence.
Very eloquent post no doubt. Had to read a couple times to get it. That is the bottom line here. There are some really brilliant minds on here.
The unfortunate part about the debate and all of this great mental energy… is that we are online and not in person.
The upside to that is that there is a written record of everything. (So you can be held to your quotes!).
The downside is that there is no personal face-to-face discourse.
It is one thing if Lloyd Bentsen had typed to Dan Quayle “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
It is much more significant when he said it in person. LOL
Anyway….things are what they are….and the other OTHER upside is that I am getting a free education without having to pay tuition (Anthony that is not a hint to start charging LOL).
But Anthony thanks for your efforts here and thanks everyone for your contributions.
Our goal is to arrive at the truth. And that is a difficult, trying, and messy process.
Carry on gentlemen and ladies. Just remember not to let the argument take on a life of its own and create its own negative feedback cycle.
No….the end result is the truth.
Where better than to search for the truth on here?? Better here than some Newspeak AGW blog that censors the best of us….
Thanks Anthony….and carry on.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
savethesharks (19:58:10) :
There are some really brilliant minds on here.
In regione caecorum rex est luscus 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (17:26:56) :
Consider a double star, each star with its complements of planets [make the distance between the stars large enough that the tidal effects are not too large]. The barycenter of that whole system lies halfway between the stars. What do the planets orbit?
This is a minefield question with many variables, and maybe not even physically possible. It might be better if you get straight to your point.
Leif Svalgaard (18:12:04) :
I thought is was 173 years, and doesn’t the SSB [Solar System Barycenter for the unwashed masses] move from moment to moment? And not just as an average over a long time?
For the point of this exercise 172 or 179 will do. You know I vary from Jose’s calculation of the orbit of the solar system mass. Your statement about moving barycenter is a good one, but I think you will find that JPL and others consider it a fixed point for reference purposes. Its the centre point as I described earlier.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jpl.jpg
Some say the Jovians orbit the SSB while the rest of the planets orbit the Sun directly. This is a current area of research for me, so it is a hypothetical. But if that premise is correct the Jovians must orbit the theoretical centre of the SSB, other wise they would just be orbiting the Sun (which may turn out to be the case).
Lief wrote: “In regione caecorum rex est luscus 🙂
I remember you used a scripture rebuff in another blog with Geoff (remember the proverb on SC24?) so I will take the liberty here….
“For now we see in a mirror dimly…” I Cor. 13:12
I guess I would rather trust someone with one eye open to the truth than none at all.
Hey we are all human. Some of use have one eye open….some of us two….some of us a degree in the middle.
Regardless…carry on everyone. But don’t let the argument take on a life of its own lest it get ahold of you too!
Stick to the argument.
MY favorite latin phrase? Res Ipsa Loquiter
Chris
Norfolk, VA
OK…enough for my touchy-feely posts. I’m going to bed.
Leif…any way to get that animation in HIGH-DEF? Damn cool.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Geoff Sharp (20:10:25) :
“Consider a double star, each star with its complements of planets [make the distance between the stars large enough that the tidal effects are not too large]. The barycenter of that whole system lies halfway between the stars. What do the planets orbit?”
This is a minefield question with many variables, and maybe not even physically possible. It might be better if you get straight to your point.
This is very simple idealized thought experiment to test your understanding of the physics. I show a diagram here: http://www.leif.org/research/Double-Stars-with-Planets.pdf
The BaryCenter [BC] is the cross in the middle, the rest should be self explanatory. The essential point is that the physics should be the same if I change the mass of one of the stars a little bit, e.g. make it smaller. That will move the cross a bit towards the other star. BTW, the star is, of course, also in orbit around the other star; it is, after all a double star system. The qualitative aspects should be unchanged. I can now shrink the mass so much that I end up with a Sun with its retinue of planets and a large planet with it retinue of moons. This system is certainly physically possible, and all the questions and their answers remain the same, so no minefield.
I think you will find that JPL and others consider it a fixed point for reference purposes. Its the centre point as I described earlier.
It is one of the many choices of coordinate system origins that can be useful. It is also at times useful to work with a geocentric system. Stellar coordinates on the celestial sphere is such an Earth-centered system. Means nothing, and the call to JPL as a an appeal to authority is misplaced.
Some say the Jovians orbit the SSB while the rest of the planets orbit the Sun directly.
And what would make the laws of Nature discrimate? Would Pluto be following the Jovian planets? Would comets? or would the spacecraft we send to Jupiter, Saturn, and beyond?
This is a current area of research for me, so it is a hypothetical. But if that premise is correct the Jovians must orbit the theoretical centre of the SSB, other wise they would just be orbiting the Sun (which may turn out to be the case).
I think this just about sums it up: “a research area for me”. Not only is there no physical coupling between spin and orbital angular momentum, but you have to relegate four hundred years of astronomy to ‘a research area of yours’.
Now, perhaps a way out is to drop the pretense of this being physics or astronomy and claim based on your perceived strength of the correlations that the positions of the planets after all, in themselves, exert an influence, just as Tycho, Kepler, and even Newton thought all along. Even president Reagan, I believe, was of that opinion, so you are in good company.
Leif and Basil
I have to admit to cherry picking – I looked for records that included dates from 1800s to present with minimal missing data. Most of these showed no significant effect of sunspots.
I have now looked at many more data sets and have to agree some do show 11 year cycles ( and many other periodic effects). I have placed these in the attached picture. (big file)
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1127/ffts.jpg
are there any petterns????
I could not download the data for central us from the location Basil gave but found a source on Noaa of US areas. However these are all odd in that they have no missing months and all start at 1895 and finish 2009 – I assume that missing data has been reconstructed
Bill
savethesharks (20:39:34) :
Leif…any way to get that animation in HIGH-DEF? Damn cool.
Here: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Movie-hi.gif
Warning, it is rather big [4 Mb]. It is well worth a study. I remembered wrong, the max latitude of the warp is 30 degrees, not 45. Not that that changes anything. Also, the magnetic field in the corona had two sectors. Here http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-SS.gif is another animation that shows the ‘foot point’ areas of the heliospheric magnetic field. Red is one polarity and blue is the other. The data was taken at the Wilcox solar Observatory we built at Stanford starting in 1976 and almost to the present. What is shown is a ‘rolled out’ map of the field over the whole surface and how it evolves with time. Each step being 27 days.
savethesharks (20:23:48) :
MY favorite latin phrase? Res Ipsa Loquiter</i.
and mine, especially when I see someone misuse, mistreat or misrepresent data or theories: abusus non tollit usum.
Leif Svalgaard (21:18:35) :
savethesharks (20:39:34) :
Leif…any way to get that animation in HIGH-DEF? Damn cool.
Here: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Movie-hi.gif
Warning, it is rather big [4 Mb]. It is well worth a study. I remembered wrong, the max latitude of the warp is 30 degrees, not 45.
And while I’m at correcting my faulty memory, the field of view is the inner ten AU, not five. So you have to extend it to ten times its size to show the whole heliosphere out to the termination shock [it is just more of the same…]. The movie is the result of an MHD-calculation of the solar wind expansion. About the best model we have at present.
bill (21:13:18) :
I have to admit to cherry picking – I looked for records that included dates from 1800s to present with minimal missing data. Most of these showed no significant effect of sunspots.
I have now looked at many more data sets and have to agree some do show 11 year cycles ( and many other periodic effects). I have placed these in the attached picture. (big file)
and the peaks you find here and there is about the 0.1 degrees we expect so all is fine. Likely that the actual peak is smaller, perhaps about half of that, if we average responsive and non-responsive regions.
Touche.
G’nite
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Leif Svalgaard (21:00:26) :
Wonder why I bother sometimes, not exactly a decent exchange going on here.
There would be many variables in your scenario, will the planets of each sun collide (prob not likely in your drawing) , what type of planets involved, what are their masses in relation to the stars, do all the planets orbit the star or do some orbit a barycenter of the individual star system, is there more than one barycenter involved, are they far enough away not to disturb each other. Very hypothetical.
It could be a situation very like our solar system revolving around the galaxy, other masses are too far away to have any impact on the barycenter. The jovians make up 99% of the angular momentum so the rest doesnt make much of an impact.
I think you will find that JPL and others consider it a fixed point for reference purposes. Its the centre point as I described earlier.
——–
It is one of the many choices of coordinate system origins that can be useful. It is also at times useful to work with a geocentric system. Stellar coordinates on the celestial sphere is such an Earth-centered system. Means nothing, and the call to JPL as a an appeal to authority is misplaced.
Helio-centric would be the choice, and selecting the Jupiter mass (599) and (0) for the SSB will do it. No need to get uppity because you failed to understand where the SSB was.
Some say the Jovians orbit the SSB while the rest of the planets orbit the Sun directly.
———-
And what would make the laws of Nature discrimate? Would Pluto be following the Jovian planets? Would comets? or would the spacecraft we send to Jupiter, Saturn, and beyond?
Good question, perhaps you can give me the answer. I dont profess to know everything, thats why I am looking into it. There does not seem to be a lot of data out there on this topic. But what I have read suggests the inner planets dont have enough angular momentum clout and must follow the Sun. What point does Jupiter orbit?
This is a current area of research for me, so it is a hypothetical. But if that premise is correct the Jovians must orbit the theoretical centre of the SSB, other wise they would just be orbiting the Sun (which may turn out to be the case).
—————
I think this just about sums it up: “a research area for me”. Not only is there no physical coupling between spin and orbital angular momentum, but you have to relegate four hundred years of astronomy to ‘a research area of yours’.
I have plenty of regard, I am looking into that area for answers. There is no question in my mind about the jovian planets controlling our Sun, its only a matter of time before I find a scientific link to back up the almighty correlations. If its not on this particular path I am on right now, it will be another.
I dont need a way out, just an open mind that is prepared to check out all options.
Leif Svalgaard
“the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years”
Never heard of this.
It’s not an assertion of mine, Gary quoted part of the summary I gave on Ray Tomes theory.
“and the motion of the planets above and below the solar equator create harmonic resonances”
By which forces?
By the forces outlined in the long post I made, which you maybe still haven’t found.
We have a very good [and getting better] understanding of the Sun’s interior and of the flows and oscillations that go on, and none of the things you mentioned fits into that or are observed. I’m on the Solar Dynamics Observatory team and the launch of our instrument HMI on SDO later this year will give us further detailed information.
Ray Tomes himself sees his theory as a complimentary extension to current solar theory, rather than a replacement. Where you see a ‘random walk’ he has made some headway in understanding the forces which modulate the sun’s behaviour. Ray’s theory is standard physics in accordance with Einsteins theory of relativity.
Without wanting to make Anthony’s head explode, I’ll reproduce the post I made in the hope You will read it and respond.
=============================================
tallbloke (09:12:51) :
Leif Svalgaard (23:24:53) :
I never ignore anything [that is one my problems; if I only did, these discussions would wither on the vine], but I have yet to see a plausible physical explanation. Doesn’t have to be correct, just possible, i.e. not violating physical laws or being energetically inadequate.
Hi Leif,
firstly, thank you for responding, I’m sure the previous occasions on which I’ve tried to flag this one up, there was too much else going on. Thanks also to Anthony for having the good grace to allow further discussion of these theories and results.
The theory I am referring to is that of a cycles and harmonics expert Ray Tomes. A year or so ago, Ray presented this theory on the bautforum.com website. I’ll give it a quick praisee and then provide the link to the original discussion. Bautforum is a fairly tersely run website where people putting forward new theories get a real grilling from physics and astronomy experts and questions must be answered to avoid the thread getting locked.
Ray’s theory is that the important effect of the gas giant planets on the sun arises out of the fact that the sun is tilted at 7 degrees or so to the plane of invariance the main planets orbit in. Whereas radial barycentric forces are cancelled out in the period of a solar rotation, the motion of the slow moving planets north or south of the solar equator continue for many years at a time. Because the matter and energy in the sun has a gradient from core to surface, the Einsteinian relativistic effect of the Jovian planets gravitation is to diferentially pull the matter of the sun north or south, creating internal pressure waves which result in the production of sunspots.
Because the Jovian planets lie in more or less the same plane, the times when the effect is at a maximum, also coincide with the times when the planets are in conjunction, which is why the radial barycentric effect more commonly discussed appears to fit the data, but lacks a viable physical mechanism. In fact, when Ray calculated the fourier transformation, he found a peak not produced in the more commonly considered theory, which matches the sunspot cycles more accurately.
The theory also postulates that there is a natural resonance period for the sun of around 10.5 years, with a variable ‘Q’ factor which Ray believes will turn out to be a cyclic function related to the interactions of planetary motions over a long period beyond the currently available data. I rememeber a discussion Leif and I had on climate audit a couple of years ago where we concluded the solar effects on earths climate may have a ‘lag’ of around 10 years, this may be why that is so.
Because the period of time it takes for energy to move from the centre of the sun to the surface and issues around relativistic mass-energy exchange are still uncertain, the strength of the effect can curently only be determined to within an order of magnitude or so, Ray comes up with a few possible figures throughout the thread, don’t dismiss the effect as being in inadequate at the first given figures.
So to summarise, the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years, and the motion of the planets above and below the solar equator create harmonic resonances which ‘ring the sun’s bell’ and amplify or dampen the effect, modulating it to the varying length and amplitude solar cycles we see in the sunspot record. Because the effect is minimal if conjunctions occur at the crossing points of the sloar equatorial plane and the plane of the planets, this explains why some conjunctions of particular pairs of planets are more or less powerful depending on angle relative to the tilt of the suns axis. This may help us understand why some solar minima are deeper than others.
The thread where Ray proposed this theory requires attentive reading, and is tough going in places, but the four pages are worth sticking through to get the full gist of the theory, and it’s mathematical expression.
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/72665-explaining-planetary-alignments-relationship-sunspot-cycle.html
Thanks as always for your time and patience Leif, I hope you can find the time to give this theory the time and consideration I think it deserves.
Brief report number 2: I now have another satellite in circular orbit around the Sun. The orbit radius is now 1.5 solar radii and passes very near to the solar system barycentre. The orbit is unaffected by the barycentre.
idlex wrote: It just so happens that the Sun is by far the heaviest body in that system, and its influence is predominant.
Leif Svalgaard replied: That is not the real riposte. The reason is that the Earth simply orbits the Sun.
The Earth in my orbital simulation model doesn’t know that it’s supposed to orbit the Sun. It just adds up the gravitational forces acting upon it at any moment in time, and accelerates in that direction.
In your double star system you’ve put the two sets of planets near the stars. If they were moved further away, they would behave differently, I think. Maybe they’d sometimes move in figures of 8. And if they were still further out, they’d most likely orbit round the barycentre of the double star system.
But I don’t know for sure. That’s why I built my orbital simulation model. So I could look at questions like this. Does anybody else here do that? If I can’t understand something, I’ll quite often build a model of it to see how it behaves. And when I watch how it behaves I hope to get a flash of understanding about it. Building the simulation model is the easy bit: the “understanding” bit is the hard part.
Geoff Sharp (23:01:15) :
I have plenty of regard, I am looking into that area for answers. There is no question in my mind about the jovian planets controlling our Sun, its only a matter of time before I find a scientific link to back up the almighty correlations. If its not on this particular path I am on right now, it will be another.
I should have said its only of matter of time before WE find a scientific link. This is a team effort and the people involved know what I mean.
Leif Svalgaard (19:53:43) :
to
vukcevic (13:47:15) :
I have no problem with most of content in the your statement about HCS. The effect of disappearance into interstellar space could well be happening at back end of heliosphere, but certainly, as far as I can understand it, from a number of authoritive articles, cannot happen at the front end. Particles are swept back, and some of them come back to the polar regions of the Sun, along the magnetic field lines, originating from the poles. This is reason why I refer to helospheric geometry in relation to magnetospheric interaction.
What you describe is a likely effect during solar max, when polar fields are at minimum and at the point of reversal.
However, situation at time of a solar min, situation is totally different, when polar fields are at max.; heliosphere’s front is more likely to be akin to the day side of a planetary magnetosphere, where all charged particles are streaming back to the poles, hence ‘polar current’.
Solar physicists are fascinated by ‘magnetic flux’, but ignore fact that flux could only be a product of electric currents. In fluids movement of ions as well as protons and electrons, is somewhat different to an electric current in a wire, no ems required, thermodynamic and Coriolis forces, layered currents etc. etc. The idea of a short circuits, as you mentioned before, would mean recreation of hydrogen atoms, which does not happen in plasma at the relevant temperature.
idlex (18:18:35) :
Geoff Sharp: You could also try setting up the satellite so it orbits the solar system barycenter instead of the Sun, and then watch the Sun/satellite distance move.
If you could explain how I might do that, I’ll also give it a try. But I can’t see how I can do any such thing. I can’t make my satellite orbit the barycentre – or any other location in the solar system. I can only make it orbit some particular body, like the Sun or the Earth. The barycentre is not one of those bodies. My simulation model calculates the gravitational forces acting on each body in the solar system due to all the other bodies in that system. And then it works out the acceleration on each body due to those forces. And then it works out their resulting speeds and locations a short interval later. And I sit and watch where they all go.
Leif Svalgaard: I don’t think he can as the barycenter moves.
It’s not the motion of the barycentre that matters. The Sun is also moving. Everything is moving. The problem is that the barycentre is a notional thing rather than an actual thing. I can’t make my satellite orbit a notional thing like the barycentre. Just like I can’t make my satellite orbit a notional thing like the Lagrangian points between the Sun and Jupiter.
This might be a limitation with your simulator, perhaps it follows nature, but perhaps not?
It may also be pointless if it doesnt consider angular momentum, the conservation of angular momentum is what we are looking for.
Dr. Svalgaard – “In regione caecorum rex est luscus” sounds good, but I think historical records would show that the ‘one-eyed man’ is usually sacrificed. Today, he would just be considered psychotic.
I would still like to know why there are no (as far as I can google) known impact of barycenterism on the Jovian planets (or non-Jovian, for that matter)? If the wobble of our solar system impacts the sun, why not other, smaller bodies? Can someone give me a simple answer to a simple question?
I am thankful for the answers folks are patiently providing. I would like to preface this by emphasizing that I do not think this is a barycenter discussion (at least not on my part) so much as it is a “how do you calculate solar angular momentum” discussion. And since the word barycenter has become contaminated with excess baggage, I will replace it with the phrase “center of mass of the solar system” everywhere I use it. That is the only property I ascribe to it.
If the answer is “you calculate solar angular momentum without the center of mass of the solar system”, I’m fine with that. I attribute nothing magical to it! If not the center of mass of the solar system, then what is the proper place to anchor the position vector of the sun?
From Leif: “Are you asking where the AM goes if I chose an arbitrary axis closer and closer to a moving body [and eventually at zero distance] as the origin of the position vector?”
I am not talking about an arbitrary axis. I am making one assumption, that seems to be the “issue”, for both you and for Anna, that seems to me to come directly from the definition of where an orbit originates. Then asking if that is true, what happens with a direct application of the angular momentum formula.
Specifically: It is my understanding that the solar system barycenter is defined as the center of mass of the solar system and the assumption I make is that the orbit of the sun is about this center of mass.
Is there any flaw in that statement?
(And yes, I know that moons, comets, planets, space dogs, and lost gloves do not orbit the center of mass of the solar system… We’re talking about the sun here. A special case in that it’s bigger than everything else combined.)
If it is false: Then what does the sun orbit about? Where is the origin of the position vector? Must one take all the Masses in the solar system and separately calculate all the inverse square attractions on the sun? Is this all just a confusion of ‘center of mass’ with ‘center of orbit’? Is it perhaps even wrong to call the solar motion an ‘orbit’? If not an orbit, what do we call it’s wobbling about?
If it is true: Then would not the Sun ORBITAL angular momentum (no spin involved, don’t care if sun is solid or fluid, pretend it’s a point or rock, I don’t care, give is zero spin if you like) be calculated as L = r x p where
L is angular momentum, p is linear momentum, r is the position vector, and x is the cross product. As described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
Yes or no?
If no, how else would one calculate the solar ORBITAL angular momentum?
If yes: Then as the sun approaches the center of mass of the solar system point of it’s orbit in it’s normal orbital behaviour (presumed by me to be the anchor point for the position vector) to a near zero distance (it gets within 1/10 of a solar radius in 1990 per a visual estimate from a computer simulation posted here) does not that make the position vector very very small, and thus L very very small?
Then finally I asked, where did the “L” go?
Which I think Leif may have answered indirectly via a 2 body example in text I quote below. I would summarize my understanding of that as “It went into the planets, since it was their gravity that moved the sun closer to the center of gravity of the solar system, and their orbital position vectors changed in proportion at the same time such that total L for sun + planets stayed constant”.
Leif Svalgaard (18:50:51) Imagine a solar system with only one planet, Jupiter, in a very eccentric orbit. […] The AM of the Sun around the BC will then vary greatly, but so will Jupiter’s [as it is also changing its position vector], and the change in the Sun’s AM will exactly balance the change in Jupiter’s as the sum must be conserved. That is how it works.
Now If I’ve got this part straight (leap of faith? 😉 That would say that generalizing the 2 body solution to an n-body solution (or even simplifying to a 4 or 5 body gas giant solution) we ought to be able to calculate the solar ORBITAL angular momentum at the “2 x solar radius” position and find about that much more planetary ORBITAL angular momentum when the sun is sitting on top of the “solar system center of gravity” (presuming it’s the correct place to anchor the solar ORBITAL position vector).
That would serve as a simple proof that the solar orbital angular momentum was not available for fiddling with spin… Do we have numbers of good enough accuracy to make that measurement?
As a completely separate topic, I had posted a ‘thought experiment’ on the question of spin-orbit coupling. I’ve run into several references that hand wave around spin-orbit coupling and then run off to discuss subatomic particle physics, but they usually make a brief reference that comes down to “Oh, and planets too, kinda, maybe with tides, sometimes, and stuff” which I find completely unsatisfactory. Is there any definitive link on how planets do spin-orbit coupling? Something that either says “it’s all tides, get over it” or that says what the “and stuff” is?
anna v (21:32:16) : Maybe you should be thinking more about coordinate systems with respect to forces in the problem. We choose a coordinate system that simplifies the solution of the problem.
And that is exactly what I thought I was doing. Is not the center of mass of the solar system the correct coordinate system for calculating the motion of the sun? Using the sun would yield all zeros. Using planets would be very messy. Use what else? The galactic core? If not about the center of mass of the total solar system, what else would be a better coordinate system?
When in the solar system, it is irrelevant. The trajectories we are interested in, if we want to go to Jupiter for example, are trajectories with respect to earth, not the barycenter. Always choose the relevant coordinate system.
And again, for the SOLAR ORBITAL position vector (not space ships to Jupiter), is not the center of mass of the solar system the correct coordinate system? If not, then what?
Leif Svalgaard (22:28:56) : Having thought about what you might have meant, I’ll try another tack. Imagine you launch a satellite and place it in orbit around the Sun at one solar radius above the surface at a time where the barycenter is also at that distance,
Is your point here that: the center of gravity of the solar system as a whole is not the same as the center of gravity seen by the satellite due to the solar mass being so much closer that inverse square has effectively diluted the other solar system masses gravitation into insignificance? That is what I think happens.
But that does not answer the question for the sun. It has no near by large mass (other than itself). It only feels all the other little masses in the solar system and they are all relatively far away. Is there still some problem with using the center of mass of the solar system due to all those little masses being at very different distances? Must we solve an n-body problem to talk about the “solar orbit”?
So I don’t see where this example changes the basic question from the top: If not the center of mass of the solar system, what does the sun orbit? Where does it’s position vector anchor? (Other than, perhaps, to say that it doesn’t have one position vector, it has “n” and we must solve an n-body problem?)
jtom (04:55:13) :
Can someone give me a simple answer to a simple question?
Its not a simple question right now, the answer has been buried for sometime, but we are digging.
I think you did answer the question. From what I see there are those who believe these ‘forces’ have a significant, and easily detectable effect on the sun, yet no easily detectable effect on much, much smaller bodies, even the one they’re sitting on.
You can say the sun orbits the bc, if you make the bc your reference frame, or you can say the bc ‘wanders’ within the sun if you make the sun your reference frame. Doesn’t matter, your results will be the same. There’s an earth-lunar barycenter, Jupiter-jovian system barycenter, solar barycenter, galaxy barycenter, and all sorts of barycenters. If there were any anomolies associated with barycenters, angular momentum, velocity, or whatever, there should be all sorts of observational evidence, but the barycenters have no tangible properties like force. Once you have allowed for the gravitational effects of orbiting bodies on each other, there are no other forces to accommodate. If there were, then stable orbits would be impossible (the energy has to come from somewhere), and everything would be in death spirals.
Cannot understand why there is all this interest in the barycenter of the solar system.
It is an artifice that has no mass and no energy, how the hell does it affect anything therefore?
Consider the fact that no physical entity can travel faster than the speed of light in our universe. However we can observe things that do!
For example when a wave hits a sea wall at an angle you can observe a ‘wavefront’ moving along the wall. Given a long enough wall and a shallow enough angle of attack that wave front can exceed the speed of light.
Doesn’t breach the laws of the universe however as it is an artifice with no mass, no energy, and way of transmitting information.
Alan
Geoff Sharp (23:01:15) :
Wonder why I bother sometimes, not exactly a decent exchange going on here.
You sound decent enough.
There would be many variables in your scenario […] Very hypothetical.
Very simple, just as the drawing. The stars and planets are not drawn to scale [they are much to big so you can see them]. A dynamical system like that has only ONE barycenter defined by summing over all bodies and it does not depend on the character of the bodies, if they are inhabited, what the name of the Emperor of the 3rd planet is and the like.
Hypothetical cases have the wonderful property that they can probe your understanding, the soundness of your arguments, and generally capture the essence of the problem.
tallbloke (23:07:55) :
Because the period of time it takes for energy to move from the centre of the sun to the surface
It takes the radiation about a quarter of a million years for the energy to move from the center of the Sun to the bottom of the convection zone, then a few weeks from there to the photosphere, and then 500 seconds to go to the Earth.
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/72665-explaining-planetary-alignments-relationship-sunspot-cycle.html
Thanks as always for your time and patience Leif, I hope you can find the time to give this theory the time and consideration I think it deserves.
I looked at it carefully and the whole discussion is just nonsense and has been dealt with adequately by the commenters on the thread.
E.M.Smith (05:22:22) :
So I don’t see where this example changes the basic question from the top: If not the center of mass of the solar system, what does the sun orbit? Where does it’s position vector anchor? (Other than, perhaps, to say that it doesn’t have one position vector, it has “n” and we must solve an n-body problem?)
Well, the center of the galaxy? The center of our galaxy’s cluster of galaxies? The center of the universe?
OK, that was for fun.
Let me see whether rephrasing your question makes sense:
In a two body celestial system both bodies will revolve around the center of gravity of the two bodies in ellipses, where the center of gravity will be one of the focuses of the ellipses for each of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#Barycenter_in_astronomy (nice animation).
The angular momentum for each body in these ellipses is constant, but they do slow down and pick up speed as their distance from the focus changes, right?
Now lets take the sun and the center of mass of the whole solar system. Its own center of mass would be describing an ellipse with one of the focuses of the ellipse on the center of mass, and all the planets could be substituted by their center of mass position and total mass M ( center of mass of the planets) which planetary M would also be describing an ellipse . So the fact that the sun is revolving around the center of mass in an ellipse means that its velocity will be changing so as to keep the angular momentum constant.
Now there is the added complication that the center of mass M of the planets moves in time because the planets change position with respect to each other, and thus the overall center of mass moves. I do not think this invalidates the picture of two elliptic orbits each conserving angular momentum.
Thus the answers is: the sun describes an ellipse around the combined solar center of mass point. The motion of the solar system center of mass point is irrelevant to the solution of the gravitational equations that require the sun to have as trajectory an ellipse with one focus on the center of mass system, except as concerns the overall location of the solar system within the cosmos.
A star that “exploded to early” puts a bomb under the supernova theory.
This also questions the life cycle of our sun.
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/03/22/star-exploded-too-early-may-blow-apart-supernova-theory/
idlex wrote: I can’t make my satellite orbit a notional thing like the barycentre. Just like I can’t make my satellite orbit a notional thing like the Lagrangian points between the Sun and Jupiter.
Geoff Sharp replied: This might be a limitation with your simulator, perhaps it follows nature, but perhaps not?
No, it’s not a limitation of my simulation model. When it works out where the various planets in the solar system are going, it’s always working out the gravitational force exerted on them by all the other planets individually. That’s about 15 or 20 calculations for each time interval for each planet. That would be very tedious for me to work out, but it’s no trouble for my computer.
What I suspect you are saying is that, for convenience, we can lump together all these 15 masses and put them all at the solar system barycentre, and use this to perform our calculations for planetary motion.
Now, this is fine if all these bodies are a long way away. If we want to work out the gravitational effect of the Andromeda galaxy on the solar system, we don’t really have to calculate it for each and every star in that galaxy. We can instead lump all the stars in the galaxy together and put them at the centre of mass of the galaxy, and just calculate the effect of that single mass upon the solar system. The result will be a good approximation.
But this isn’t quite true once you’re in among some collection of stars or planets. And it becomes less and less true the nearer you get to the centre of mass. For example, for convenience the mass of the Earth is usually located at its centre. But if the Earth may be regarded as a spherical cloud of gas, a stone that was dropped into the Earth from its surface would have part of the Earth’s mass pulling it downwards into the Earth, and part of it pulling upwards. When the stone reached the centre of the Earth, the surrounding mass of the planet would pull it in all directions, and these forces would all cancel each other out. There would be no gravitational force due to the Earth’s mass acting on the stone once it got to the centre of the Earth. However, if we had continued to locate the entire mass of the Earth for convenience at its centre, the forces acting on the stone would be calculated to be infinite once it reached the centre of the Earth. And this would result in the wrong answers being found. What was a good approximation outside the planet becomes a worse and worse approximation once you’re inside it.
And the same goes for the solar system. Once you’re inside it, you really have to calculate the gravitational forces due to the separate individual bodies within it, and stop lumping them all together at the barycentre.
The solar system barycentre is a very useful thing, like a pair of boots, when being used outside the solar system. But, like a pair of wet and muddy boots, it should be left at the door once you’re back inside the house of the solar system.
Leif Svalgaard (08:04:37) :
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/72665-explaining-planetary-alignments-relationship-sunspot-cycle.html
I looked at it carefully and the whole discussion is just nonsense and has been dealt with adequately by the commenters on the thread.
Hi Leif,
I thought most of the critical commenters made fools of themselves by not understanding what he was showing them, but there you go. It took me a few readings to work out the relativistic argument, and I’d be interested to know what you think is nonsensical about his presentation of that part of the theory. He did link to another concurrent thread where the rate of movement of matter and energy from the core of the sun was under discussion. Obviously, the different figures coming out of that affected the outcome of his calculations. I’ll go and have a read of that thread and compare with the figures you have provided. Where are those from by the way?
One of the other things I found interesting about it was that the magnitude of the core displacement Ray calculated matches the size of the ‘corrugations’ which increase the solar diameter during the solar cycle you told us about a while ago.
tallbloke (23:07:55) :
“the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years”
Here is how Ray gets the 10.5 years:
“Clearly this means that this proposal works only if the Sun has some natural resonance of 10.5 years and all of these forces are activating that resonance. Based on that further assumption, I could calculate sunspot numbers over several centuries with a correlation of r=0.66 from the planetary forces.”
Yet another astrologer that can calculate everything centuries in advance.
Geoff Sharp (06:16:50) :
jtom (04:55:13) :
“Can someone give me a simple answer to a simple question?”
It’s not a simple question right now, the answer has been buried for sometime, but we are digging.
The is a simple answer: ‘bogus’
E.M.Smith (05:22:22) :
That would serve as a simple proof that the solar orbital angular momentum was not available for fiddling with spin… Do we have numbers of good enough accuracy to make that measurement?
Let’s do it for the two major players: Sun [s] and Jupiter [j]. Then the angular momenta around the barycenter are respectively:
As = rs ms vs for the Sun and Aj = rj mj vj for Jupiter, where for simplicity we assume that the orbits are circular. rs is the Sun’s distance to the barycenter, ms is the Sun’s mass, and vs is the Sun’s speed in its orbit around the barycenter. similar for Jupiter but with ‘j’s: rj, mj, and vj. Now vs = 2pi rs / 12 years and vj = 2pi rj / 12 years. the two periods [12 years = T] are the same because s and j are always on opposite sides of the BC. By definition of the center of mass rs = a mj / (ms + mj) where a is the distance between s and j which we can take as constant because it does not vary much. we can simplify further: rs = a / (1 + ms/mj) ~ a mj /ms, because ms is 1000 times bigger than mj. rj is very close to ‘a’ [again because mj is 1000 times smaller than ms], so we have vs = 2pi/T a (mj/ms), rs = a (mj/ms), and vj = 2pi/T a. In words: the barycenter is 1000 times [=ms/mj] closer to the Sun than to Jupiter and therefore the Sun moves 1000 times slower than Jupiter, so the orbital angular momentum for the Sun would be 1000 times smaller than that of Jupiter. If this was the only thing going on, the angular momenta would not change as the bodies orbit. Therefore from this we would have no spin-orbit exchange. This is not a surprise, and we did this calculation only to get a feeling for the magnitudes involved.
But let us now introduce other bodies [e.g. Saturn or Uranus]. These would move the barycenter and rs and vs would change and hence As. Let us assume that rs doubles, then vs doubles too with good approximation because the other planets move much slower than Jupiter. Hence As approximately quadruples. We can write rj = (a – rs) and vs = 2pi (a-rs) / T, and thus Aj = (a-rs) mj (a-rs) 2pi/T = [a-rs]^2 mj 2pi/T or Aj = [1 – 2rs/a] a^2 mj 2pi/T because rs is much smaller than a. So, if rs increases, Aj will decrease [because of the -2rs]. In numbers, let rs1 be the old rs and rs2 = 2 rs1 be the new [after addition of Saturn etc]. now 2rs1/a = 2/1000 and thus 2rs2/a = 2 (2rs1)/a = 4/1000, so Aj will now be 2/1000 smaller than before or 2As [because As was a 1/1000 of Aj]. So when As increases by a factor of four, Aj decreases by half that. But as we have added another planet to move rs out by a factor of two, its angular momentum decreases too because Jupiter moving rs out first. So, what the Sun gains, the planets lose. All this can be made exact and horribly complicated, but the type of ‘back of the envelope’ calculation shown here [scientists are trained to do this] is enough to show the essential point, so everybody can see it without anybody having to rely on some complicated table downloaded from the Internet and calculated in ways that cannot easily be checked. A danger with this type of ‘quick’ calculation is that errors easily creep in, but they can be found if enough eyeballs are on the derivation. So there you have it.
tallbloke (10:10:40) :
I thought most of the critical commenters made fools of themselves by not understanding what he was showing them, but there you go.
Well, Ray was not the only fool 🙂
It took me a few readings to work out the relativistic argument, and I’d be interested to know what you think is nonsensical about his presentation of that part of the theory.
It is hard to know where to start. The standard way this goes is that I point out one flaw, then you respond, OK let that slide, but all the rest is good, and we slog our way through the thing, flaw by flaw, and in the end you say: ‘ok, but I still think there is something about it’. Let us start with the 5/3 number. As far as I can tell it comes from averaging the ‘result’ for 6 axes, 4 horizontal and 2 vertical. You don’t find the effective factor by averaging [over a nonsensical number of axes – should be three] but by integrating correctly the radiation over a sphere.
He says: “So taken over the whole sphere of directions for random photons we have 2x in 4 directions and 1x in two directions. That makes an average of 5/3x for random photon directions.”. This is just nonsense. Since you think you understood it, explain to me how the 5/3 comes about. If it is just by saying (2x * 4 + 1x *2) / (4+2) = 10x/6 = 5/3x then you have your nonsense there.
Paul Stanko (05:13:32) : Only if this minimum reaches an epic 3198 spotless days will it be at mean +1 sigma even if we include the Maunder minimum.
To what degree are we sure we are not measuring with a ‘rubber ruler’? Are the corrections and adjustments for differential observation methods certain to a degree sufficient to make that 1 sigma claim? (Or put differently, are we playing in the error bands of the data? Is it really, for example 3198 +/- 1000 ? so that sigma estimate is suspect? )
tallbloke (10:10:40) :
compare with the figures you have provided. Where are those from by the way?
Remind me what they were…
if the Sun has some natural resonance of 10.5 years and all of these forces are activating that resonance. Based on that further assumption, I could calculate sunspot numbers over several centuries with a correlation of r=0.66 from the planetary forces.”
Yet another astrologer that can calculate everything centuries in advance.
This sort of comment should be beneath you by now Leif, you’re a recidivist. 😉
Ray wasn’t trying to calculate sunspots centuries in advance and if you really had “looked at it carefully” . He was testing his theory by achieving a damn good hindcast with a r=0.66 correlation spanning several centuries.
Can your interpretation of the Leighton-Babcock solar dynamo theory do that?
tallbloke (11:42:38) :
from the planetary forces.
implies that it will work in the future, no?
“Yet another astrologer that can calculate everything centuries in advance.”
My definition of astrology may be different from yours. Mine covers the claim that the planets have an influence that does not follow known physical laws.
r=0.66. Can your interpretation of the Leighton-Babcock solar dynamo theory do that?
Dikpati and company claim a correlation coefficient of r=0.958 [figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati-Prediction-2005GL025221.pdf ]. My grow-n-crash mock theory gets r=0.924 http://www.leif.org/research/Grow-N-Crash%20Prediction%20Model.pdf
beats the socks of 0.66.
@ Leif Svalgaard (10:14:30) :
Thank you for your patience, and answers. (So far, kohai has missed hitting floor flat, while practicing unplanned shoulder rolls… 😉
“E.M.Smith (05:22:22) :
That would serve as a simple proof that the solar orbital angular momentum was not available for fiddling with spin… Do we have numbers of good enough accuracy to make that measurement?”
While I appreciate the “thought experiment” you posted in reply, what I was actually thinking about with this sentence was more of an existence proof (which is why I said “measurement”). I like existence proofs most since they are unarguable (and I’d really like a way to get this sticky trap to stop attracting me with slippery sweet arguments… one way or the other.)
So is the data on planetary position and velocity available such that one could actually do the calculation of actual orbital momenta at the two times (sun 2 radii out, vs sun 1/10 radius out). If this can be done with a few digits of precision I think it would be a clean, unarguable, existence proof that could be put up as a tombstone for all time on the spin-orbit couple argument. If the data are questionable, the math intractable, or there is some other complication that make this a dead end, fine. Just tell me to prune it and I’ll let go of the hope for an existence proof.
Back at the answer you posted. So we are doing an incremental calculation by adding each planet one by one, and ignoring the “center of mass” other than as a derived artifact. This argues to me that the basic flaw in the Solar Orbital angular momentum calculation via ‘center of mass of the solar system’ is in fact that it can not be (or ought not be) done that way. That the only correct way to calculate Orbital Angular Momentum for the largest object in a system of n-bodies is to do it as an n-body problem.
Is that a correct statement?
If this is true, and can be demonstrated (by, oh, calculating Solar Orbital Angular Momentum 2 ways, one using center of mass the other via n-body and showing they are not the same) this too could serve as a tombstone.
All my explorations of the n-body problem have led me to statements of the form “There are 6 equations for each body and when n>3 it can not be solved” but I think that an n-body of n=3 would likely be enough to be a proof. (Or, alternatively, if Solar Orbital angular momentum is found to be exactly the same using vectors rooted at the center of mass of a 3 body system vs vectors anchored between the 3 bodies, then the tombstone becomes “Angular Momentum is identical each way, and we can show conservation via 3 body vectors, so ‘center of mass’ does nothing to change momentum exchange between smaller bodies and largest body”
All this may be obvious to you, but it is not to the average non-physicist, and I think that is why the sticky trap hangs around. My interest here is to find a simple way to demonstrate it. (And if that is a sticky trap because there is no simple way to demonstrate an n-body angular momentum problem; well, that would be good to know too. I’d walk away frustrated, but I’d at least know that I would never be able to get a simple demonstration and ought to go do something more productive.)
Basically, I see this as being analogous to a pick-nick table with a big tub of cookies on it. You can put up a sign “Don’t Touch” and people still want to go grab the cookies… and you need to keep fending them off. But if you can put up a sign that says: “Poison. See the Green Ogre in the corner? He poisons cookies” folks will not be attracted to the cookies, no matter how sweet they look, if they can also see the Green Ogre.
I’m just trying to find what to write on the sign (or if the ogre does not really exist, either one.) Clearly saying “don’t touch” has not been enough…
Let us start with the 5/3 number. As far as I can tell it comes from averaging the ‘result’ for 6 axes, 4 horizontal and 2 vertical. You don’t find the effective factor by averaging [over a nonsensical number of axes – should be three] but by integrating correctly the radiation over a sphere.
He says: “So taken over the whole sphere of directions for random photons we have 2x in 4 directions and 1x in two directions. That makes an average of 5/3x for random photon directions.”. This is just nonsense.Since you think you understood it, explain to me how the 5/3 comes about. If it is just by saying (2x * 4 + 1x *2) / (4+2) = 10x/6 = 5/3x then you have your nonsense there.
First I will quote a couple of relevant parts of Ray’s thread, then comment.
“The important thing is that if you accept that there is a doubling (or 5/3 times) effect of gravity on radiation (which was proven in the Eclipse experiments) then the central part of the Sun experiences a different rate of acceleration from what the surface experiences. Because of rapid mixing of momentum between radiation and matter, this acceleration applies to the matter there.
Additionally, there is an argument that this increased acceleration also applies to the relativistic content of ordinary matter as well as to light. This was all explained by G D Birkhoff in 1927.”
“However in the vertical case there is no 2x factor, it is simply 1x the normal acceleration (I will show this soon with equations) which is why I say the effect over all random directions in space for photons in 5/3.”
“So let us start with a definition of a new variable which I will call “pull” and use the symbol “b” (being right next to “a” in the alphabet). Pull is defined as the time rate of change of momentum per unit mass.
b = 1/m.dp/dt
For the vertical photons, there is also a change in momentum predicted by Einstein. This is called “gravitational redshift” and Einstein’s formula may be manipulated by using E=mc^2 and E=hf to find that b = g in both the vertically up and down cases.
df/dt = fg/c (as given by Einstein)
so b = 1/m.dp/dt = 1/m/c.dE/dt = h/m/c.df/dt = h/m/c.fg/c = Eg/E = g
That means there is no 2x factor for vertical photons, just the normal Newtonian rate of change of momentum per unit mass.
So taken over the whole sphere of directions for random photons we have 2x in 4 directions and 1x in two directions. That makes an average of 5/3x for random photon directions.”
“I will add that GR experts do not all agree on the above equations, and this is the part that makes this ATM (against the mainstream) perhaps. Everything else is standard physics. However some GR experts claim that my 5/3 factor is really only 1 and at least one stated that it is actually 2. I cannot see how the bending of light by the sun during an eclipse is double the Newtonian value if the fact is 1. Anyone who disagrees with this factor being 5/3 or at least different from 1 will need to explain that.”
“In the case of vertically moving photons, there is no change in velocity, but a change in frequency. So it cannot be called acceleration. However that change in frequency does change the momentum of the photons and the net result on the whole system of matter and radiation is an acceleration.
So I am happy to accept that there might be a better way of expressing things, but I don’t think the actual concept needed does already exist. It is effectively acceleration but because of the radiation needs to be phrased as change in momentum per unit mass.”
tallbloke’s comment:
Tomes is a practical thinker who is prepared to work with imperfect and unresolved material in order to push ahead in the direction his ideas take him. He recognises and freely admits where there is still work to be done and even provides roadmaps for those who might wish to further investigate and refine the formulae.
It is always easy to rubbish a new theory by subjecting it to death by a thousand nitpicks, much harder to try to understand new frames of reference and grasp the novel ideas of others.
You say it is a nonsensical number of axes, but Tomes explains why he differentiates between X- X+ etc. It is because he treats the vertical case z+ z- separately because this is required in the output of his data. Nothing nonsensical about that.
When you say that “You don’t find the effective factor by averaging but by integrating correctly the radiation over a sphere.” , you are just parroting ‘Tusenfem’ and Tomes answers thusly:
” I agree. However from what Birkhoff wrote I believe that 5/3 is the correct result for the integration. However that remains to be proven.” and further that:
“As we agreed, it needs to be proven over the whole sphere, but the average is going to be somewhere between 1 and 3 and probably near 5/3.”
Now I’m sure a computer could fairly quickly integrate the random paths of the photons over a sphere, and I’m also sure the correct answer will turn out to be somewhere near Tomes finger in the air figure. So let’s talk about the beef, rather than arguing over the seasoning of the gravy.
My definition of astrology may be different from yours. Mine covers the claim that the planets have an influence that does not follow known physical laws.
Well there you have it. Ray Tomes is at pains to point out his theory is standard physics, and that the pull on the differential gradient of the relativistic matter in the sun’s core-surface makeup is at least approximately quantifiable, but you just write it off as astrology because it involves the gravitation of other chunks of matter spinning around the precious inviolable sun.
E.M.Smith (12:21:44) :
So is the data on planetary position and velocity available such that one could actually do the calculation of actual orbital momenta at the two times (sun 2 radii out, vs sun 1/10 radius out). If this can be done with a few digits of precision I think it would be a clean, unarguable, existence proof that could be put up as a tombstone
These things are known to incredible position, [both calculated from theory and measured from radar ranging and positional astronomy], see: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?orbits and links there.
We went over this last year, when the BC people claimed that the since both the Sun and the Earth orbit the BC, the distance between the Sun and the Earth should reflect that. On the JPL site they do this calculation for you with incredible precision and, of course, the distance came out with no regard for the BC. The BC crowd first tried to say that the calculations were faulty, based on ‘assumptions’, then in the end conceded that perhaps they were accurate, but never changed their tune in spite of that, just barreled on as usual, even going to such silly length as positing that only some of planets go around the BC, the others not. So much for ‘clean, unarguable, existence proof’ ! A simple fact of life is that no matter how clean, unarguable, etc, it is, if the ‘proof’ does not confirm people’s convictions, it is by definition no good.
This argues to me that the basic flaw in the Solar Orbital angular momentum calculation via ‘center of mass of the solar system’ is in fact that it can not be (or ought not be) done that way.
It can be done that way. It is the only way and the correct way, because the angular momentum of a collection of particles is simply the sum of the angular momentum of each particle. This is not an n-body problem at all.
All this may be obvious to you, but it is not to the average non-physicist, and I think that is why the sticky trap hangs around.
I don’t think that is the reason. I think the reason is that people of strong enough conviction are not interested in having that overturned, and are very vocally trying to foist their conviction onto others; to change the face of science, to teach NASA a lesson, to tell us that we should keep an open mind [yeah, but not so open that the brain falls out]… the list goes on.
And I realize [and anticipated] that my calculation would have no effect, but offer it anyway, so I can refer to it in the future should I find an occasion for doing so.
tallbloke (12:47:43) :
Well there you have it. Ray Tomes is at pains to point out his theory is standard physics, and that the pull on the differential gradient of the relativistic matter in the sun’s core-surface
There is no ‘relativistic matter’ in the sun’s core. His ideas are not ‘standard physics’ no matter how much pains he goes to claiming that.
The 5/3 debacle is just a sign that he does not have his stuff together. This is an elementary error, and he is not blazing new trails into unexplored territory. But, as I said: “It is hard to know where to start. The standard way this goes is that I point out one flaw, then you respond, OK let that slide, but all the rest is good, and we slog our way through the thing, flaw by flaw, and in the end you say: ‘ok, but I still think there is something about it’.”
There is something called the ‘smell test’. One can very quickly judge if something passes that, and Ray’s stuff stinks. Undoubtedly deeply felt and held by him and his adherents, but junk nevertheless. The simple referral to “pull on the differential gradient of the relativistic matter in the sun’s core-surface makeup” is enough to label the paper appropriately.
Leif Svalgaard (07:45:49) :
A dynamical system like that has only ONE barycenter defined by summing over all bodies
I remember a few months ago when I said the same thing, your reply was that it had infinitely many barycenters (centres of mass), because you introduced a pea in chosen positions millions of light years away.
But I agree with you now 🙂 The SSB is well defined.
There is something called the ’smell test’. One can very quickly judge if something passes that, and Ray’s stuff stinks.
How, er, quaint.
There is no ‘relativistic matter’ in the sun’s core.
And that would mean no energy either, according to Einstein and Birkhoff. It’s a wonder the sun continues to shine at all.
Thanks anyway Leif, your insights have been , invaluable.
anna v (08:28:41) :
Now lets take the sun and the center of mass of the whole solar system. Its own center of mass would be describing an ellipse with one of the focuses of the ellipse on the center of mass, and all the planets could be substituted by their center of mass position and total mass M ( center of mass of the planets) which planetary M would also be describing an ellipse . So the fact that the sun is revolving around the center of mass in an ellipse means that its velocity will be changing so as to keep the angular momentum constant.
Now there is the added complication that the center of mass M of the planets moves in time because the planets change position with respect to each other, and thus the overall center of mass moves. I do not think this invalidates the picture of two elliptic orbits each conserving angular momentum.
Thus the answers is: the sun describes an ellipse around the combined solar center of mass point.
No, this is clearly not the case. The orbit is considerably more complex, here is one example
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/images/1430_1520_d.jpg
I have computed this using both simple centre of mass calculations given orbital element based planetary positions, as well as through gravity simulations. The result is the same. The solar orbit is very complex, that is a fact.
Whether it has any effect on solar activity in any way is another matter.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:40:29) :
I remember a few months ago when I said the same thing, your reply was that it had infinitely many barycenters (centres of mass), because you introduced a pea in chosen positions millions of light years away.
But I agree with you now 🙂 The SSB is well defined.
I don’t think you do. The SSB is well defined once you have picked which bodies to include. If we pick different bodies then we’ll differ in the definition.
Geoff Sharp (20:10:25) :
“Leif Svalgaard (17:26:56) :
Consider a double star, each star with its complements of planets [make the distance between the stars large enough that the tidal effects are not too large]. The barycenter of that whole system lies halfway between the stars. What do the planets orbit?”
This is a minefield question with many variables, and maybe not even physically possible. It might be better if you get straight to your point.”
Maybe the orbit like fig 6 in:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three_body_problem
Transfer orbits can sure be exotic!
I think the “touchstone” for the barycenter / orbit business may be this:
The center of mass of the solar system is calculated as a linear average.
The center of gravitation experienced by any body is an inverse square function of it’s distance from all the individual masses of the solar system.
For most objects in the solar system, these two are dramatically different. Distance dominates.
For the sun, they are only a little bit different, which prompts the notion that the sun orbits the barycenter or that it’s orbital angular momentum can be calculated using a position vector rooted in the barycenter. This is at best a weak approximation and leads to errors (both numeric and errors of understanding as to what the barycenter is and does) and at worst is just flat out wrong as the sun does not orbit anything, it is perturbed a bit by everything and that is not an orbit.
In reality, the only way to calculate the solar orbital angular momentum (or perhaps changes in positional momentum if not really an orbit) is via solving an n-body problem and using the combined vectors from all the masses in the solar system sufficient to reach the desired level of precision.
Sensei, kohai asks: Floor, or no floor? (Nervously not looking at usual spot on the floor…) Does it all come down to just that: One is a linear average, the other a least squares function, never the twain ought to meet?
To clarify, I probably ought to have said:
“Distance dominates, inversely”
Leif Svalgaard (13:42:13) :
It is good form to stay on topic [if possible]. Try to google ‘dark matter’
I moved over here, as the conversation is already around this sort of thing, but does dark matter effect barycentre at all?
tallbloke (13:41:10) :
“There is no ‘relativistic matter’ in the sun’s core.”
And that would mean no energy either, according to Einstein and Birkhoff. It’s a wonder the sun continues to shine at all.
This has nothing to do with Einstein, but simply due to the Sun being hot inside. ‘Relativistic matter’ is matter moving at close to the speed of light and there is no such matter in the core of the Sun.
idlex (09:08:40) :
You have all the machinery to calculate the orbital angular momenta for all the planets and for the Sun. Compute for each time step the barycenter position. For each body, compute the angular momentum as the distance to the barycenter times the mass of the body times the speed around the barycenter. Plot the angular momentum on the same plot [or post a table] that show the AM for each as a function of time.
Leif Svalgaard (13:03:56) :
It can be done that way. It is the only way and the correct way, because the angular momentum of a collection of particles is simply the sum of the angular momentum of each particle. This is not an n-body problem at all.
Drat. Now I’m back where I started…
So I can use the ‘center of mass of the solar system’ as the root of my position vector and everything is fine. And the sun does orbit the ‘center of mass of the solar system’ and we do have a fleur-de-lies solar orbit.
But at least we have settled that to find where the angular momentum went we must look at the position vectors of the other planets? That is where it went, since they were the real gravitational force that changed the solar location relative to the ‘center of mass of the solar system’?
E.M.Smith (15:45:46) :
That is where it went, since they were the real gravitational force that changed the solar location relative to the ‘center of mass of the solar system’?
What the Sun gains in orbital momentum, the planets lose in orbital momentum, and vice versa. The sum stays constant, and the rotation or spin doesn’t enter at all..
Leif Svalgaard wrote:
idlex (09:08:40) : You have all the machinery to calculate the orbital angular momenta for all the planets and for the Sun. Compute for each time step the barycenter position. For each body, compute the angular momentum as the distance to the barycenter times the mass of the body times the speed around the barycenter. Plot the angular momentum on the same plot [or post a table] that show the AM for each as a function of time.
I will be delighted to do this.
[Now I’ll have to go back and read all the posts about angular momentum!]
I already routinely calculate the barycentre position, so that’s no problem. Nor is it a problem to find the distance of any body from the barycentre. And I know the masses of all the bodies. I also know the x,y,z velocities of all the bodies, where the x,y,z origin is the position of the Sun at the time my simulation starts. I don’t compute the speed of the barycentre, however. And I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “the speed [of the body] around the barycenter”. I suspect you simply mean how fast it’s going in whatever direction it happens to be going, relative to the barycentre.
However, since the barycentre is moving very slowly relative to any of the bodies in the solar system, I may be able to neglect the x,y,z velocity of the barycentre, and just use the x,y,z velocities relative to my origin, vx, vy, and vz, that I already have. In which case the speed you want may well be simply sqrt( vx^2 + vy^2 + vz^2).
If I’ve guessed correctly what is meant by “speed”, then it should be no problem to calculate the angular momentum of all the bodies in the solar system for each time interval. But at what intervals? And over what period of time?
Anyway, you’ll have to allow me a day or two to modify the program to calculate these values. It’s maybe best if I produce a table rather than a graph, so that people have raw numbers rather than wavy lines.
My simulation model is written in Java as a Java applet, and I’m planning to post it up on the Web at some point. It’s been – and continues to be – a great pleasure and a real eye-opener to write it.
Adrift in this thread of complexity, and as uncomprehending as a float of polystyrene in the Pacific, I am yet riveted by the interplay of people of obvious knowledge, expressed opinion, charity, and dedicated self-control who are exploring here. There is a seeding of philosophy I will nurture in the hope of a bloom I can record… or at least offer; and certainly personally savour.
idlex (19:24:02) :
I don’t compute the speed of the barycentre, however. And I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “the speed [of the body] around the barycenter”. I suspect you simply mean how fast it’s going in whatever direction it happens to be going, relative to the barycentre.
You don’t need the speed of the BC as it is not a body. What you should calculate is the projection of the velocity vector for each body [Sun and Planets] onto the direction from that body to the BC, then the AM of that body relative to the BC is the distance from the body to the BC times the mass of the body times that projection of the speed.
If I’ve guessed correctly what is meant by “speed”, then it should be no problem to calculate the angular momentum of all the bodies in the solar system for each time interval. But at what intervals? And over what period of time?
Doesn’t really matter, once for each time step would be the obvious choice [but once a month would be fine too – things don’t change that fast], and for several years where there is some variation in the position of the BC.
A table would be fine, the I [and others ] can do the graphing.
Ohioholic (14:52:14) :
I moved over here, as the conversation is already around this sort of thing, but does dark matter effect barycentre at all?
Dark matter in the cosmos has been postulated because of anomalies in the trajectories of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Try the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter though anything that has to do with particle physics has to be taken with a lot of reservations. In my opinion a big open question is still there.
If it exists, does it have relevance for the motions of the solar system?
In a definitional sense ( matter that does not radiate electromagnetically), all solar system planets are dark matter.
In a science fiction sense, i.e. hypothetical not provable, since we do not observe large anomalies in the solar system, if it exists, dark matter will be a part of each massive object, since part of the matter of each body could be composed of dark matter, but since it is undetectable we will not know it. One can go on speculating.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:49:57) :
My simplified picture does not contradict a complex final trajectory like the one you linked. I separated the motion into a calculable from forces motion, and a motion forced by a moving coordinate system origin ( or assuming as a center of coordinates a moving coordinate system with respect to where the forces are expressed).
Example: a satellite is going around the earth. The trajectory with respect to the earth is simple. The trajectory in space with respect to the rotation plane of the earth will be complicated. One does not choose intentional coordinate system complications to calculate something that can be seen simply in the natural, where the force is expressed, system.
Leif Svalgaard (15:26:46) :
tallbloke (13:41:10) :
“There is no ‘relativistic matter’ in the sun’s core.”
And that would mean no energy either, according to Einstein and Birkhoff. It’s a wonder the sun continues to shine at all.
This has nothing to do with Einstein, but simply due to the Sun being hot inside. ‘Relativistic matter’ is matter moving at close to the speed of light and there is no such matter in the core of the Sun.
Ray Tomes is used to people making such assertions, and as he noted in the quote I posted earlier, even the general relativity world experts don’t fully agree on this stuff. On page three of the thread he says:
“the relativistic component of matter is important. Even though the velocities are much less than c (and so often people would say “non-relativistic”), the relativistic component of the matter is actually greater than the radiation content. This was dealt with by Ken G and others in the http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/72252-how-long-does-light-take-centre-sun-its-surface.html thread. This established the ball park of the numbers involved even if it doesn’t get highly precise figures.”
This is the reason I asked you where your figure of 250,000 years for the movement of energy from the solar core to the surface came from. It seems the experts have different opinions about that too. I’m sure that on a forum full of sceptics, you are not going to try to tell us that “the science is settled” here Leif. 😉
anna v (22:27:42) :
My simplified picture does not contradict a complex final trajectory like the one you linked. I separated the motion into a calculable from forces motion, and a motion forced by a moving coordinate system origin ( or assuming as a center of coordinates a moving coordinate system with respect to where the forces are expressed).
This does not make sense to me. The trajectory I showed is calculated from the forces (or can be), a simpler calculation does not exist. Please define precisely in which coordinate system “the sun describes an ellipse around the combined solar center of mass point “, and why it is useful. There is really no such coordinate system as far as I can see, unless you choose one that moves in an ellipse around the Sun…
The trajectory of an object in an N-body system like the solar system, as seen by a distant observer, is most often not a simple ellipse. It is true for the main body (The Sun) in our solar system. It is also true for stars in other planetary systems. The observed complex motions of such stars can be and is being used to determine mass and orbital properties of so-called exo-planets.
Bill Illis (22nd:07:11:22)
“… Atmospheric Angular Momentum […] This is the main cause of the change in the Length of Day […] seems to be modulated highly by ENSO events […] Anyone know where there is monthly average data on this or for the length of day. All I’ve found is daily data […]”
Hi Bill, so far all I’ve found (that is readily available – aside from the daily data) is semi-annual LOD for the interval 1832-1997:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/series/longterm/jpl_c.eop
The associated paper:
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/18309/1/99-1782.pdf
If anyone knows where to find monthly summaries, please let us know – Thanks.
Also, does anyone know how/where to get the LOD series that goes back to 1656?
Anyway Leif, joking and jibing apart, lets allow Ray Tomes to speak for himself again:
“the radiation content and relativistic mass content of the Sun were discussed in http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/72252-how-long-does-light-take-centre-sun-its-surface.html . No-one was of the opinion that the answer is known extremely accurately to the actual figures. There is no disagreement that the core of the Sun has much more radiation than the convection zone. The mean free path of photons is of the order of 1 mm there because of the much higher matter density. Nearer the surface the speed of radiation becomes thousands of times greater.
Mathematically, the speed of particles rises as a power of temperature. That means that the relativistic mass proportion of the matter at the core is much higher than at the surface.
Quote: Tusenfen: If the core of the sun would move differently from the outer layers, then we would most likely have observed that using helioseismology.
No you wouldn’t. The distances that I am talking about are very small and the time periods very long. therefore the velocities are extremely small. Helioseismology measures velocity differences and would not be near to showing this. Actually it would have more chance of measuring the temperature difference in the two hemispheres. That is conceivable over a full solar cycle or two.
In a summary list he states:
6. We wish to calculate the effective acceleration, velocity and displacement of the solar core relative to the surface of the Sun. It is not necessary to do the calculation from the planets because NASA have done that for the total acceleration and we can work as a proportion of that. As the integration of acceleration to get velocity and displacement of the Sun has also been done by NASA we simply use the Z component (the N-S component in the Sun’s rotation axis frame) as given by NASA and multiply that by our (5/3 – 1) * 2*10^-6 proportion for the core relative to the surface. That is, about 1.3*10^-6 which is possibly out by a reasonably large factor (hopefully less than 10).
7. Because the Sun is moving N and S by more than 100,000 km on a time scale of a decade, that means that the core is moving by about 0.13 km relative to the surface on that time scale. That may not seem much, but because the temperature of the Sun has a nearly linear gradient, that will affect the surface temperature by about the same factor of 1.3*10^-6 of 15,000,000 K or 20 K.
8. As radiation varies with the 4th power of temperature that will affect the radiant output of the Sun by something like 4*20/5600 or 1.4%, increasing the polar region in the direction that the core is moving. There will not be an opposite effect at the other pole except to a diminished extent when the direction changes and previously cooler surface layers that sunk are then rising again. This is quite complex to model.
9. I have not allowed for the fact that the core is much denser than the surface and so any movement there will be enormously magnified at the surface. Then again, I have not allowed for the fact that some of the effect will simply set up convection at various depths in the Sun. These are difficult problems for experts in solar dynamics to grapple with.
10. Because the whole question of why the Sun has a cycle of about 11 years is not really understood anyway (as i understand the facts to be) it is difficult to fully explain exactly how this will alter what is happening, but it surely will alter it.
And so to the planetary bit:
So we have agreement that there is some such effect of uncertain degree due to several factors – the uncertainty of whether relativistic matter is affected the same as radiation, and the uncertainty in the actual radiation and relativistic mass content of the Sun. But there is an effect and the calculation based on the general form of the effect (greater acceleration of the core compared to the surface of the Sun) does lead to a clear calculation of the fluctuations in absolute displacement of the solar core.
Analysis of that absolute displacement shows it to have a number of frequencies which relate to planetary periods, especially pairs of the giant planets such as J-N and J+N, J-S and J+S and so on. The strong periods predicted by this means do agree with the strong periods observed in the Sun to the degree of accuracy that sunspot records allow. By this I mean that for the period since about the 1700s where we have annual means that are meaningful, the periods extracted by FFT or other means have a certain accuracy, but for the period from about 500 BC, the dominant 11.08 year cycle has been found by Schove and others to a greater accuracy.
Furthermore, this method actually provides the full mechanism (even if not perfectly quantified) and is the only proposal for how planets influence the Sun that demonstrates that the 11.07 year cycle is predicted to be stronger than the 11.86 year cycle of Jupiter’s perihelion. Both the tidal and COM proposals result in the 11.86 year period being expected to have a much higher amplitude.
tallbloke’s comment:
The difficulties in exact quantification (5/3, correct time for core-surface transfer losses in convective action etc) don’t detract from the validity of the overall result, but cry out for big research grant to improve our knowledge of the solar processes involved.
The fact that the peaks in the fourier analysis of the planetary effects arising from the Tomes theory match the peaks in the fourier analysis of the sunspot record speaks for itself. The gravitation of the planets, especially the big slow moving Jovian planets, will affect the solar rhythm, and a better understanding of how these effects get amplified by harmonic resonance will lead to a better understanding of how the amplitude solar rhythm can be suddenly diminished and amplified by the cyclic alignments of the gas giants.
Finding more supporting evidence and calculating effects is a work in progress for those of us who see the importance of these facts.
“Alan Millar (07:43:34) :
Cannot understand why there is all this interest in the barycenter of the solar system.
It is an artifice that has no mass and no energy, how the hell does it affect anything therefore?
Consider the fact that no physical entity can travel faster than the speed of light in our universe. However we can observe things that do!
For example when a wave hits a sea wall at an angle you can observe a ‘wavefront’ moving along the wall. Given a long enough wall and a shallow enough angle of attack that wave front can exceed the speed of light.
Doesn’t breach the laws of the universe however as it is an artifice with no mass, no energy, and way of transmitting information.
Alan”
Nobody has addressed this issue of artifice. Perhaps the logic is too uncomfortable if you have some sort of belief in the ‘effects’ of barycenters.
Barycenters, like my wavefront, are not ‘real’ things within our universe they are observable, measurable, and calculable but are not subject to the laws of the universe because they are only artifices that exist as a consequence of real forces that are subject to universal laws.
My wavefront can easily exceed the speed of light because it does not exist in any real sense. If it did really exist then it must be subject to universal laws and could not reach the speed of light. Either that or the laws of the universe are wrong as we understand them!!
Because the wavefront is only an artifice and has no separate existence within our universe it cannot affect anything within it. If anyone disagrees perhaps they would describe how this might work.
Barycenters are artifices in exactly the same way and have no separate existence, outwith the real forces that are operating, and therefore have no real existance within our universe and therefore cannot influence anything within this universe.
Talkabout the interplay of real forces and their effects if you will but leave out the effects of a changing barycenter, it has none!
Alan
Leif Svalgaard (19:49:55) :
You don’t need the speed of the BC as it is not a body. What you should calculate is the projection of the velocity vector for each body [Sun and Planets] onto the direction from that body to the BC,
You’ll have to explain this differently to me, because my vector algebra is non-existent. I can handle trigonometry though.
Let us reduce the matter to 2 dimensions in an x-y plane. The barycentre is at the origin, and the body under consideration is at location (x,y) and has velocity (vx,vy), where x,y, and vx, vy are all positive. Let the angle of the chord joining (x,y) and (0,0) to the x-axis be A. Now explain to me what you would like me to calculate.
I initially thought you just wanted the speed of the body, which will be the square root of (vx^2 + vy^2). But I now think that you may actually want either the radial velocity of the body out from the barycentre origin, or the what I think of as the tangential velocity (normal/at a right angle to the radial direction).
Radial velocity = vx.cosA + vy.sinA.
Tangential velocity = -vx.sinA + vy.cosA
once for each time step would be the obvious choice [but once a month would be fine too – things don’t change that fast], and for several years where there is some variation in the position of the BC.
What would you like in this table? It could become fairly large. Time, body name, body mass, distance from BC, speed, AM would seem necessary. But I could throw in (x,y,z) and (vx,vy,vz) if you want them.
I think I’ll restrict it to the Sun and the planets from Mercury to Neptune (I don’t have Pluto), and leave out all the asteroids and comets floating around in my simulation. So that will be 8 planets plus the Sun.
I measure time in seconds from the start of my simulation on 19 March 1940, which is (I believe) the vernal equinox for that year. It would be convenient for me if a “month” was defined as some number of seconds ( the obvious number being /12th of a terrestrial year). If the simulation was run for 12 years (slightly longer than the orbit of Jupiter), this would produce 144 x 9 records. I’ll need to write some code to output this. At the moment I have quite a sophisticated visual display of the solar system, but very primitive data output facilities.
The results, when they come, will have health warnings attached. The orbital period of Jupiter is 4331.572 days. But in my first test of my simulation the period of Jupiter was 4333.48 days from the time it first crossed the ecliptic x-axis to the time it recrossed it 12 years later. I get different figures using different time steps, with the same sort of error.
Messrs Arnholm and Smith
Some five years ago, I devised an equation, which pinpoints solar cycles’ anomalies over last 400 years. It employs orbital periods of the three largest planets (also with largest magnetospheres). Critical points are indicated by oscillating time coincidence (Cos function) of 4xSaturn & 1xUranus+1xJupiter; rounded orbital periods relationship 4x5x6 & 14×6 + 2×6.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
In electrical, electronic and acoustic or mechanical oscillating systems, this kind of relationship normally would be strictly avoided.
With your knowledge of the planetary system, is an equivalent resonance physically possible and if so what kind of interpretation one might consider?
Thanks.
idlex (04:19:07) :
Tangential velocity = -vx.sinA + vy.cosA
is what is needed. That is: perpendicular to the line joining the planet [or the Sun] to the BC.
What would you like in this table?
Time, body name, AM would seem enough for me. Perhaps others would like more. Time step once every 5 days would be more than enough resolution.
tallbloke (02:41:20) :
Ray Tomes to speak for himself again:
“There is no disagreement that the core of the Sun has much more radiation than the convection zone.”
He talks about ‘radiation’ content. I don’t think he has this together. The ‘radiation’ we see at Earth coming from the Sun is the same as in the convection zone and as just outside the core. As you go inwards heading for the center the radiation contents decreases as more and more of it is now generated behind you.
The energy production rate in the core is actually extremely low, lower than than that of an ordinary candle. It would take a week to get a kettle of water to a boil. The ‘relativistic matter’ is pure fantasy. The whole thing is so riddled with nonsense that it is really a pity that ‘the best science blog’ should be polluted by this.
Simple ‘back of the envelope’ calculations of the travel time varies a lot because you can make several different simplifying assumptions, but the travel time estimates are all very long, tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands, to millions of years and that is the important bit. Solar physicists have not bothered making a precise calculation [which is possible, but tedious] because there is no physical significance to the precise number: 100,000 or 250,000 or 500,000 years makes no difference. The time is LONG and that is important. I couldn’t see from your link why the exact time was important; tell us. What difference would it make to the theory if the time was 200,000 years instead of 250,000?
A simple to follow calculation can be found here: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992ApJ…401..759M their result is 170,000 years. Close enough to my estimate.
tallbloke (02:41:20) :
cry out for big research grant
I guess everybody has their motivation…
tallbloke (02:41:20) :
Quote: Tusenfen: If the core of the sun would move differently from the outer layers, then we would most likely have observed that using helioseismology.
No you wouldn’t. The distances that I am talking about are very small and the time periods very long.
But since most of the Sun’s mass resides in the core, a displacement would change the gravitational potential of the Sun [technically the quadrupole[and higher] moments] and THAT would have a strong and measurable effect on the inner planets [Mercury, etc], and THAT is not observed over hundreds of years. There is a tiny GR effect of 0.43 arc seconds per year [shift of perihelion] which is indeed observed and is one of the proofs of GR.
But, there really is no sense in discussing all the non-effects from the rambling non-sense of Ray.
vukcevic (06:14:54) :
is an equivalent resonance physically possible and if so what kind of interpretation one might consider?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
Leif Svalgaard (06:49:21) :
OK, I know what you want now. I’ve been fooling around outputting some text from my simulation. The following is a sample text output of all bodies’ mass, x, and y locations (metres kilograms seconds) over a couple of 200 second interval.
Interval Number: 179 Interval period: 200.0 s Time 35931.32088423952 s
Sol 1.988855E30 4.9039866E-8 2.9333936E-8
Mercury 3.302E23 -5.9132162E10 -1.30915973E10
Venus 4.8685E24 -4.8242397E10 9.5979053E10
Earth 5.9736E24 -1.48997194E11 906710.0
Mars 6.4185E23 2.91857224E10 2.30425051E11
Jupiter 1.8986E27 6.9315946E11 2.60170662E11
Saturn 5.684623E26 1.14870898E12 7.7310866E11
Uranus 8.6832E25 1.79596676E12 2.31738966E12
Neptune 1.0243E26 -4.5038164E12 3.93603809E11
Interval Number: 180 Interval period: 200.0 s Time 36000.32088423952 s
Sol 1.988855E30 4.7715747E-4 2.854188E-4
Mercury 3.302E23 -5.9132133E10 -1.30947328E10
Venus 4.8685E24 -4.8244568E10 9.5977955E10
Earth 5.9736E24 -1.48997226E11 -1155854.4
Mars 6.4185E23 2.9184127E10 2.30425395E11
Jupiter 1.8986E27 6.9315913E11 2.60171547E11
Saturn 5.684623E26 1.14870859E12 7.7310919E11
Uranus 8.6832E25 1.79596637E12 2.31738992E12
Neptune 1.0243E26 -4.5038164E12 3.93603449E11
Is that readable for you? The text handling in my version of Java is a bit primitive, and lining everything up neatly would take more time. Comma-delimited fields would be as easy as the space-delimited fields shown. I can do double precision numbers if you want.
The only problem now is that a text file made up of something like 1000 records will have 10,000 or so lines. I’m not sure I can post a comment that long. Or that Anthony would like it very much. Is that something that people do here?
The other options are to email it to you. Or to put the text file up on my own website (where I’ll be forced to delete it later for lack of space). Any other options I’ve not thought of? There are websites that allow you upload things like images. Is photobucket one?
Leif Svalgaard (15:26:46) :
to
idlex (09:08:40) :
You have all the machinery to calculate the orbital angular momenta for all the planets and for the Sun. Compute for each time step the barycenter position. For each body, compute the angular momentum as the distance to the barycenter times the mass of the body times the speed around the barycenter. Plot the angular momentum on the same plot [or post a table] that show the AM for each as a function of time.
I have this “machinery” as well, and have done the computations using vectors
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/oam_1940_2040.pdf
Second plot shows the variations for each planet (averages subtracted).
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (23:49:02) :
I gave the wiki link in my first post that shows the elliptical orbits in a gravitational field composed of two objects ( the circle is a limiting case of an ellipse, if you know about conic sections).
The “tirck” is using the effective mass and center of mass concept to bundle all the planets into one “effective object”. Instantaneously or in small time scales, the two ellipses as solutions of the gravitational equations hold.
Thus I have separated the motion due to the dynamics, the forces present, and the motion of the overall center of mass poiint, because one of the two ellipses is traced by a non solid body. From Sirius, the wobble of the sun will be an indication that there are planets.
p.s.
The coordinate system is where the origin is on the center of mass point of the solar system
HIjack:) From Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/
last paragraph quote: SSTs however have been influenced by other forcings, such as greenhouse gases, over the last few decades, and these transient changes will obviously affect the solar cycle influence. Similarly, increased carbon dioxide in the stratosphere has led to gradual cooling conditions, which affects the UV influence on the stratospheric circulation. So while the solar influence may have produced a broadly similar hydrologic response for many centuries, it now competes with potentially stronger perturbations. Its effect may well decrease with time.
increased carbon dioxide in the stratosphere has led to gradual cooling.. well isnt that a first.
ps if this is a minimum and it was predicted by someone as I believe it has.. please name it after the guy who was right and not the puppet boys:P
vukcevic (06:14:54) :
Messrs Arnholm and Smith
Some five years ago, I devised an equation, which pinpoints solar cycles’ anomalies over last 400 years. It employs orbital periods of the three largest planets (also with largest magnetospheres). Critical points are indicated by oscillating time coincidence (Cos function) of 4xSaturn & 1xUranus+1xJupiter; rounded orbital periods relationship 4×5×6 & 14×6 + 2×6.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
In electrical, electronic and acoustic or mechanical oscillating systems, this kind of relationship normally would be strictly avoided.
With your knowledge of the planetary system, is an equivalent resonance physically possible and if so what kind of interpretation one might consider?
Thanks.
Vukcevic, I am reading your work with interest and open mind, thank you for sharing it. I don’t have sufficient knowledge of electrical or electronic systems to judge your theories, but the thought that the “electric current sheet” or magnetic fields play a role seems interesting, bearing in mind the non-neglible limits of my understanding.
Regarding resonances in the solar system, I don’t see why such resonances should not exist in this system as it exists everywhere else in nature (electronics, mechanical systems, structural dynamics). I am a structural engineer, and resonances (eigenvalues) are obviously to be avoided in this field as well. The classic example we were taught at school was the Tacoma Narrows bridge that failed due to structural resonance with the wind
As in other fields, undamped resonances in the solar system would probably not be stable in the long run as you could be enhancing gravitational influences and thus change the orbits by exchanging orbital momentum or even throw a planet out of the system (with a speed higher than escape velocity).
Wikipedia may not be the ultimate source, but it speaks of orbital resonances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
As you can see, there is a 1:2:4 resonance of Jupiter’s moons Ganymede, Europa and Io, and a 2:3 resonance between Pluto and Neptune. See also the interesting discussion of ‘near-resonances’ and a suggested previous 1:2 resonance between Jupiter and Saturn
that may have influenced Uranus and Neptune’s orbits in the past.
So I guess the answer is that orbital resonances exist and are quite common. I think our idea that the solar system is fairly stable is just a reflection of the short human lifespan. In the long run the system is chaotic and unpredictable.
A simple to follow calculation can be found here: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992ApJ…401..759M their result is 170,000 years. Close enough to my estimate.
Yes, that’s the paper referred to on the seondary thread I linked. Ray used the 170,000 years figure.
I think your comment about the 0.14km deflection of the core affecting mercury’s orbit is a canard flung out there to try to dismiss Ray’s theory. I doubt very much you’ve done the maths.
Some preliminary results from about May 1940
Body Time Angular Momentum
Sol 7890647.0 9.645767008412017E38
Mercury 7890647.0 9.0339935517356E38
Venus 7890647.0 1.8551726515616468E40
Earth 7890647.0 2.672951724006328E40
Mars 7890647.0 3.5119189036926807E39
Jupiter 7890647.0 1.925818761438606E43
Saturn 7890647.0 7.822949813342728E42
Uranus 7890647.0 1.6975168647358417E42
Neptune 7890647.0 2.4969601894603428E42
Given that the Earth is about 1.489E11 m from the Sun/barycentre and has a mass of 5.97E24 kg, and goes in roughly a circle of that radius in 365.25 days, with a tangential velocity of 29.66 km/s, I’d expect to see a figure of about 2.63E40 for AM. This compares well with the computed figure of 2.672951724006328E40. So I seem to be working out AM properly.
Carsten Arnholm:
I have this “machinery” as well, and have done the computations using vectors
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/oam_1940_2040.pdf
Second plot shows the variations for each planet (averages subtracted).
Very nice! But did Leif want the variation in the sum of the solar system angular momentum? I thought he wanted the angular momentum of the Sun and planets separately.
Do your figures for angular momentum agree with mine?
anna v (08:17:49) :
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (23:49:02) :
I gave the wiki link in my first post that shows the elliptical orbits in a gravitational field composed of two objects ( the circle is a limiting case of an ellipse, if you know about conic sections).
The “trick” is using the effective mass and center of mass concept to bundle all the planets into one “effective object”. Instantaneously or in small time scales, the two ellipses as solutions of the gravitational equations hold.
Thus I have separated the motion due to the dynamics, the forces present, and the motion of the overall center of mass poiint, because one of the two ellipses is traced by a non solid body. From Sirius, the wobble of the sun will be an indication that there are planets.
I know about conic sections. If you bundle the the planets in the barycenter it will obviously not affect Sirius in any way, but it will have a large effect within the solar system (you cannot compute detailed trajectories between planets). If you can compute the orbit diagram I showed (a result of N-body integration) using your approach, fine. If not it is a theory that does not capture the observable effect.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (09:07:17) :
to
vukcevic (06:14:54) :
Mr Arnholm
Thanks for the answer. I had a quick look at wikipedia’s link, I will go back to it for more detail. As far as structural resonances are concerned, I actually experienced one. It was on a Sunday (I was working in nearby TVstudios) when London Milenium (wobbly) bridge was opened. I can assure you it was a unique sensation, I traversed it 4-5 times it was great fun. It was soon closed, and over following months I frequently observed fitting of a dumping system. Unfortunately, now it is rock-steady even in strong winds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Bridge_(London)
p.s. my work is a jumble of hotchpotch ideas, some good (!?), most probably not, but since it is a kind of a hobby (mental aerobics), I am not much worried about errors or frequent excursions into areas I know little about. One day something might come out of it, but for now, it is just an odd occasional distraction.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:04:47) :
If you bundle the the planets in the barycenter
I am not bundling the planets in the solar barycenter.
I am making a planet cms center, with mass the sum of the masses of the planets, thus reducing the problem to a two body mode, sun-planets . There is no reason the solutions would not work. It would be a different way of looking at it and generating successive approximations.
vukcevic: Put the following theory of el Nino tectonic origin (resonances?) in your “melting pot”:
http://www.scielo.org.pe/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1561-08882005000200002&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es
Dear Vukcevic: As I see you are free of preconceptions or prejudices I would suggest you to read:
http://www.amazon.com/Search-Miraculous-Harvest-Book/dp/0156007460/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238009069&sr=1-1
idlex (07:58:12) :
Comma-delimited fields would be as easy as the space-delimited fields shown.
is fine, but I can do any needed conversion and lining up.
The other options are to email it to you.
Then I can put it on my website
Or to put the text file up on my own website
Will work too, then I’ll grab it and put it on mine permanently [if we decide that is worth it in the end]
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (08:07:14) :
I have this “machinery” as well, and have done the computations using vectors
Second plot shows the variations for each planet (averages subtracted).
The second plot shows very clearly that the two biggest players [Sun and Jupiter] simply are mirror images of each other: what one loses the other one gains. When plotting on the same plot, you should add all the planets [including Mars, Earth, etc, just to take that argument out of the equation. Interesting to notice that Uranus and Neptune have no effect. The correct thing to do is to add all the planets first, then compare with the Sun. Or simply add all the planets AND the Sun. That should be constant.
tallbloke (09:33:22) :
Yes, that’s the paper referred to on the seondary thread I linked. Ray used the 170,000 years figure.
I think your comment about the 0.14km deflection of the core affecting mercury’s orbit is a canard flung out there to try to dismiss Ray’s theory. I doubt very much you’ve done the maths.
something you must understand is that I do not fling canards. Have you done the math? The math in the Ray piece is so faulty that it is not reproducible.
idlex (09:34:35) :
I’d expect to see a figure of about 2.63E40 for AM. This compares well with the computed figure of 2.672951724006328E40. So I seem to be working out AM properly.
I’ll basically agree. Of interest is to get a better time figure, like [in addition to your seconds also year, month, day].
Here are some values [4th column] from ‘Carl’s Table’:
1940.0027 29.3857447 1.441543241e+0 3.105195908e+47
1940.0164 29.7692585 1.443421203e+0 3.110540598e+47
1940.0301 30.1524092 1.445292036e+0 3.115656421e+47
1940.0437 30.5351703 1.447155454e+0 3.120519371e+47
1940.0574 30.9175140 1.449011260e+0 3.125116246e+47
that some people have been using. Apart from some powers of ten [different units] the values should be comparable.
idlex (10:03:58) :
Do your figures for angular momentum agree with mine?
or with ‘Carl’s’?
There has been discussion of the 173 year variation. Can the calculation go back that far (several hundred or even thousands of years) [or are the precision of the simulator not good enough?]?
one value per year [e.g. average] would seem sufficient for the long-term variation, and maybe one month for the short term [to make the table shorter] as the AM varies but slowly [contribution from Mercury is so small].
Up to ten times as many notable solar storms occur through solar cycles that follow minimums with long periods of spotless days.
tallbloke (09:33:22) :
I think your comment about the 0.14km deflection of the core affecting mercury’s orbit is a canard flung out there to try to dismiss Ray’s theory. I doubt very much you’ve done the maths.
The orbit of Mercury is known to decimeter accuracy and no effect of the kind called for is seen [stated differently: the calculated (taking GR into account) and measured positions agree to decimeter precision without any need for Ray’s effects – one decimeter is 0.0001 km].
Adolfo Giurfa (11:29:17) :
Dear Vukcevic: As I see you are free of preconceptions or prejudices I would suggest you to read……. P. D. Ouspensky
Mr. Giurfa
Thanks for recommendation, I think I will give it a miss. As part of my education I‘ve done a lot of Russian reading; Pushkin, Tolstoy W&P , A.K. and more, Turgenev, Dostoyevsky, Gorky, Sholokhov, Blok, Nekrasov, Mayakovsky, Yesnin, Nabokov, Pasternak, Yevtushenko, (some in Russian), Lenin’s speeches, lately Solzhenicin and God knows who else, more then enough for a lifetime.
idlex (10:03:58) :
to
Carsten Arnholm:
Very nice! But did Leif want the variation in the sum of the solar system angular momentum? I thought he wanted the angular momentum of the Sun and planets separately.
Do your figures for angular momentum agree with mine?
I did my calculations well before and independent of Leif’s suggestion to you.
I have not been able to compare with yours. It would simplify things if you made a graph like I did.
Leif Svalgaard (12:36:34) :
The orbit of Mercury is known to decimeter accuracy and no effect of the kind called for is seen [stated differently: the calculated (taking GR into account) and measured positions agree to decimeter precision
Hi Leif,
I wouldn’t expect a 1400 decimeter deflection in the N-S direction in the sun’ core to affect mercury’s orbit in the orbital plane by anything measurable at the decimeter scale.
Ulric Lyons (12:36:21) :
Up to ten times as many notable solar storms occur through solar cycles that follow minimums with long periods of spotless days.
Hi Ulric,
are you thinking solar cycle 24 is going to unleash hell-fire and fury on us anytime soon? 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (11:53:23) :
The second plot shows very clearly that the two biggest players [Sun and Jupiter] simply are mirror images of each other: what one loses the other one gains. When plotting on the same plot, you should add all the planets [including Mars, Earth, etc, just to take that argument out of the equation. Interesting to notice that Uranus and Neptune have no effect. The correct thing to do is to add all the planets first, then compare with the Sun. Or simply add all the planets AND the Sun. That should be constant.
I agree that the first thing to observe from that graph is that the Sun and Jupiter are the main players. Anything else would be a miracle. The other planets were taken out as they are a couple of orders of magnitude smaller in magnitude and variation. I also observed that Uranus and Neptune had a relative small effect. But I agree it might be an idea to make the complete graph unfiltered.
The first plot is what you suggest, for the reason you give: The sum of orbital angular momentum for the Sun and the planets (presented as % variation). I made that graph to show it should be constant, and it isn’t. There is an approximate ±0.1% variation. I am perfectly willing to attribute that to numerical issues (or even simple blunders), especially if it can be shown independently that the variation is much less. But for now I keep the possibility open that in fact it might show a real missing AM component.
idlex (07:58:12) :
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (08:07:14) :
Leif Svalgaard:
Here are some values [4th column] from ‘Carl’s Table’:
1940.0027 29.3857447 1.441543241e+0 3.105195908e+47
1940.0164 29.7692585 1.443421203e+0 3.110540598e+47
1940.0301 30.1524092 1.445292036e+0 3.115656421e+47
1940.0437 30.5351703 1.447155454e+0 3.120519371e+47
1940.0574 30.9175140 1.449011260e+0 3.125116246e+47
What we need is a set of values covering the above times [every 5th day] so we can compare.
Leif Svalgaard (11:53:23) :
Of interest is to get a better time figure, like [in addition to your seconds also year, month, day].
I have a calendar function that does that, so I’ll put that in as well.
Here are some values [4th column] from ‘Carl’s Table’:
You don’t say what they are values of, or what the units are.
There has been discussion of the 173 year variation. Can the calculation go back that far (several hundred or even thousands of years) [or are the precision of the simulator not good enough?]?
one value per year [e.g. average] would seem sufficient for the long-term variation, and maybe one month for the short term [to make the table shorter] as the AM varies but slowly [contribution from Mercury is so small].
Is that question for me or for Carsten Arnholm? In my own case I don’t think the precision of my simulation is good enough right now, given that the period of Jupiter’s orbit is 3 or 4 days longer than it should be. That means that over a century Jupiter will be in the wrong position by over a month.
I haven’t really addressed the problem of the accuracy of my model in any depth yet. To some extent it must vary with the time interval I use. But also with the accuracy of the values I use (e.g. for the mass of the Sun). At the moment my results seem to be 99.97% accurate. My Earth was 2 hours early in completing an orbit.
Anyway, I should be able to email you some figures later today. I hope they prove useful.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:29:03) :
There is an approximate ±0.1% variation. I am perfectly willing to attribute that to numerical issues (or even simple blunders), especially if it can be shown independently that the variation is much less. But for now I keep the possibility open that in fact it might show a real missing AM component.
At that level, one has to be VERY careful. Include ALL planets, for example. An numerical errors become an issue very quickly. JPL cautions just that. The main issue is that from [well-known] theory we would expect the ping-pong between the orbital AM of the planets and the Sun and no remaining influence on rotation. A good test of numeric effects is to run the simulation over really long time, e.g. the 6000 years used in Carl’s table, or to compare with JPL’s position of the barycenter over hundreds or thousands of years. Or just two independent simple simulators [yours and idlex’s]. I have reproduced some values from Carl’s table. Do they agree with yours?
idlex (13:45:15) :
Leif Svalgaard (11:53:23) :
Here are some values [4th column] from ‘Carl’s Table’:
You don’t say what they are values of, or what the units are.
First column is fractional year 1940+…
2nd column is longitude of barycenter
3rd column is distance to BC in solar radii
4th column is Sun’s angular momentum wrt BC [don’t know the units -presumably metric, but should be a power of 10 different from yours. The number in front of the exponent should be the same as yours…
Perhaps a separate (democratic) permanent ‘Watts Up?’ ‘BaryUncensored’ forum is the way to go?
Wise words (1970) of economist Edward R. Dewey: “The study of cycles reveals to us our ignorance, and is therefore very disturbing to people whose ideas are crystallized.”
Was that a hint from an enlightened individual to “Let sleeping dogs lie”?
Leif Svalgaard (15:18:53) :
idlex (13:45:15) :
4th column is Sun’s angular momentum wrt BC in CGS units which are E7 times MKS, so subtract 7 from exponent.
Paul Vaughan (15:34:08) :
Perhaps a separate (democratic) permanent ‘Watts Up?’ ‘BaryUncensored’ forum is the way to go?
There is such a playground at:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=488
Only trouble is that the proponents are not content to stay in their pen.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:29:03) :
Carsten, what are your values for the first few 5 day intervals of 1941? for the Sun.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:29:03) :
The first plot is of considerable interest, I will be very interested to see how it stacks up once you have done your planned revisions. With the second plot I have reservations (gut feel) that N & U angular momentum figures are too low. The movements in J at 1970 and now are also unusual, as if that movement was caused by N/U?
I have been plotting all that JPL data I was talking to you about, might have found something. Would appreciate your feedback if possible, there is a spreadsheet on the other forum we have been in.
Leif Svalgaard (16:45:05) :
Only trouble is that the proponents are not content to stay in their pen.
Thats one way of dealing with anyone that challenges your views…just lock them up 🙂
Leif Svalgaard:
I’ve emailed you my results with title “planet angular momentum”
First column is fractional year 1940+…
2nd column is longitude of barycenter
3rd column is distance to BC in solar radii
4th column is Sun’s angular momentum wrt BC [don’t know the units -presumably metric, but should be a power of 10 different from yours.
‘Carl’s tables’ 1940.0574 value of 3.125116246e+47 unknown units is completely different from my figure of 7.099522453822861E31 (m kg s). There’s a slight difference in dates, because my figure is for 19 March 1940 which is probably 1940.23. The date difference will not account for such a disagreement. Either Carl is using completely different units, or I’ve worked out angular momentum wrongly.
But where we do know the units, barycentre Longitude 29.3857447 Solar radii 1.441543241e+0 is very near where I have the barycentre, in the first quadrant about 1.5 solar radii away. so there is at least agreement about that.
But, as I wrote earlier today, my figure of 2.6752962910435593E40 as the Earth’s angular momentum is readily checked by hand. The mass of the Earth is 5.97E24 kg, and its distance from the Sun is 1.489E11 on 19 Mar 1940, and if it’s assumed that it’s going in a circle around the Sun (which is very near the barycentre) it will have to have tangential velocity of 29666.6 m/s or 29.66 km/s if it is complete the journey around the Sun in 365.25 days. If AM = mass x distance from barycentre x tangential velocity, then this works out at 2.637E40. Which is very near the 2.6752962910435593E40 value produced by my simulation. So if AM = m.r.v I’ve got the correct value for the Earth at least.
It’s not easy to carry out the same check with the Sun. But I’m using exactly the same procedure to calculate the AM of the Sun.
…Or am I? I’m using a sun-centred coordinates, so that Sun starts out at location (0,0,0) with velocities (0,0,0). So perhaps I’ve got a very low Sun velocity, and that’s giving these low values? If I had been using barycentric coordinates, the Sun would have not been at (0,0,0) and would have had some initial velocities greater than zero.
I’m thinking out loud here. This may be the problem. But I happen to have barycentric coordinates for 1 Jan 1940. Plugging those in I get:
Date: 01 Jan 1940 00:00:02
Sol 3.100063058062455E40
Mercury 9.030108152553951E38
Venus 1.8309464150557254E40
Earth 2.6548451283360224E40
Mars 3.4948716944082954E39
Jupiter 1.9237917038778328E43
Saturn 7.811585465341348E42
Uranus 1.694032219297966E42
Neptune 2.5038724717331054E42
That compares much better with the Carl’s tables 3.105195908e+47!
So it looks like that was the problem. I shouldn’t have used sun-centred coordinates.
I’ll run the simulation again tomorrow.
Geoff Sharp (18:23:12) :
Only trouble is that the proponents are not content to stay in their pen.
Thats one way of dealing with anyone that challenges your views…just lock them up 🙂
That’s what we got asylums for :~)
Leif, since your attention is in this thread ( the simulations are interesting) can you answer this off topic question?
Somewhere in clicking on links I read the claim that though the total solar energy changes are very small the UV changes are up to 30%. ( no link to claim) Is that true? I would be grateful for a link if you have one.
If true, since this is the component that heats the oceans in depth, it could be very interesting for PDO etc.
anna v (21:27:30) :
the UV changes are up to 30%. ( no link to claim) Is that true? I would be grateful for a link if you have one.
As you go to smaller and smaller wavelengths the variations become relatively larger [several hundred percent of more for the shortest], but the absolute amount of energy received becomes smaller and smaller faster than the variation becomes larger, so the net effect is very small. In http://www.leif.org/research/Erl74.png you can see the spectral distribution of energy. The left-hand part of the spectrum varies a lot with solar activity, but is way down in energy provided.
Leif Svalgaard (21:48:25) :
“but the absolute amount of energy received becomes smaller and smaller faster than the variation becomes larger, so the net effect is very small.”
thanks
Geoff Sharp (18:17:06) :
With the second plot I have reservations (gut feel) that N & U angular momentum figures are too low.
The maximum AM of each body [as a percent of adding them all together] is:
J 61%
S 25%
U 5%
N 8%
Ma 0,01%
E 0.09%
V 0.06%
Me 0.003%
Sol 0.11%
Leif Svalgaard (22:15:02) :
Geoff Sharp (18:17:06) :
With the second plot I have reservations (gut feel) that N & U angular momentum figures are too low.
The maximum AM of each body [as a percent of adding them all together] is:
J 61%
S 25%
U 5% <== but varies VERY little: from 5.469% to 5.476% if you move the BC one solar radius.
N 8% <== but varies VERY little: from 7.779% to 7.788% if you move the BC one solar radius.
Ma 0.01%
E 0.09%
V 0.06%
Me 0.003%
Sol 0.11%
:
Geoff Sharp (18:23:12) :
Thats one way of dealing with anyone that challenges your views…just lock them up 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (20:48:21)
That’s what we got asylums for :~)
I am told the Siberian salt mines were also all the rage.
Leif Svalgaard (22:36:07) :
I have seen many calculations for AM across the planets, no two the same which is a concern, the majority have Jupiter around 50%. I have had the advantage of real world observation in my research and its is clear Neptune & Uranus altho no where near the main players, do have a strong impact. You have them combined at 13% which is workable, but I suspect higher.
It may be of interest to Geoff Sharp that when the vertical barycentric displacement is considered rather than the radial, Neptune and Uranus have a considerably greater proportional effect, due to their long orbital periods.
Planet Mass Distance Period Inclination Acceler. Displacement
M D P I
Mercury 0.056 0.387 0.2408522 3.18 0.021 0.0012
Venus 0.826 0.723 0.6152078 3.75 0.10 0.039
Earth 1.012 1.000 1.0000417 7.14 0.13 0.13
Mars 0.108 1.524 1.880885 5.51 0.0045 0.016
Jupiter 318.4 5.203 11.86233 6.00 1.228 172.9
Saturn 95.2 9.538 29.4568 5.45 0.099 86.2
Uranus 14.6 19.182 84.016 6.36 0.0044 31.1
Neptune 17.3 30.06 164.802 6.36 0.0021 57.6
Leif,
I think the problem yesterday was that I had the Sun motionless at the origin, and the barycentre moving around it. It wouldn’t have mattered if I’d calulated the motion of the barycentre, but I wasn’t doing that. So I had a motionless Sun and a motionless barycentre. No wonder, really, that the Sun AM came out with low values.
I’m now running the simulation again with barycentric coordinates, and more sensible figures are coming out, which agree with Carl’s Tables. Or what I know of them.
But I’m still not calculating the motion of the barycentre. And I think that this must introduce a small error into the results. I should really calculate the x,y,z velocities of the Sun relative to the x,y,z velocities of the barycentre.
Of course the barycentre isn’t a body, so I can’t work out its acceleration as I do with other bodies. But I can work backwards. I know where the barycentre is at any moment in time, and where it has been. So I can work out the speed it must be moving to get from where it came from to where it is now. And once I’ve got the barycentre speed, I should use this in calculating the relative speeds (and angular momenta) of the Sun and planets.
Lots of different scenario’s going on here, all good stuff….but, imagine if we had a quantifiable example of an interaction that warranted a trade off in angular momentum, but instead of more/less solar velocity, we see a rotation change of the Sun?
That would have to prick up a few ears?
Geoff Sharp (23:48:41) :
You have them combined at 13% which is workable, but I suspect higher.
This is one of the problems with this: “suspect”. There is a way of finding out that takes away suspicion and replaces it with knowledge. It is called physics. Angular momentum is defined as distance*mass*speed, which for Uranus is 2.9E12 m, 8.7E25 kg, 6810 m/s which means AMu = 1.72E42. A similar calculation yields AM for all bodies and their sum as AMt = 3.14E43 or AMu = 0.055 of AMt.
Geoff Sharp (05:11:56) :
but instead of more/less solar velocity, we see a rotation change of the Sun?
That would have to prick up a few ears?
No, because physicists know that there is no coupling between orbital motion and rotation.
idlex (03:47:34) :
I should really calculate the x,y,z velocities of the Sun relative to the x,y,z velocities of the barycentre.
I don’t think so. At any given moment you just want to calculate the AM of the Sun with respect to the barycenter, which is simply the distance to the barycenter times the mass of the Sun times the tangential velocity of the Sun perpendicular to the direction to the barycenter. Same with all the other AMs.
I’ve just finished pushing some data around which has yielded a correlation between the distribution of northern/southern hemisphere sunspots and the total sunspot area modulated by the north/south motion of the sun with respect to the solar system barycentre.
The Pearson R squared value is 0.7 over 4 solar cycles.
Looks like there might be some legs on the Tomes theory after all. 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (13:34:35) :
idlex (07:58:12) :
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (08:07:14) :
Leif Svalgaard:
Here are some values [4th column] from ‘Carl’s Table’:
1940.0027 29.3857447 1.441543241e+0 3.105195908e+47
1940.0164 29.7692585 1.443421203e+0 3.110540598e+47
1940.0301 30.1524092 1.445292036e+0 3.115656421e+47
1940.0437 30.5351703 1.447155454e+0 3.120519371e+47
1940.0574 30.9175140 1.449011260e+0 3.125116246e+47
What we need is a set of values covering the above times [every 5th day] so we can compare.
We need to define which units the values are expressed in. I use SI units, meter, second etc.
I have discovered an issue with my calculation so I need to rerun it. Maybe it removes the discrepancy. Because the orbital planes are not all parallel with each other, one needs to use vector mathematics when computing the AM and AM sum. Otherwise there will be ‘apples and oranges’ summed. I need some time to do it. I have a day-job so it takes a bit of time 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (17:19:35) :
Carsten, what are your values for the first few 5 day intervals of 1941? for the Sun.
As mentioned I will redo the analysis and provide all numbers. Patience.
Leif Svalgaard (07:18:09) :
idlex (03:47:34) :
I should really calculate the x,y,z velocities of the Sun relative to the x,y,z velocities of the barycentre.
I don’t think so. At any given moment you just want to calculate the AM of the Sun with respect to the barycenter, which is simply the distance to the barycenter times the mass of the Sun times the tangential velocity of the Sun perpendicular to the direction to the barycenter. Same with all the other AMs.
Are you sure? The reason my simulation failed yesterday was because I had, at the beginning at least, a motionless Sun at the origin and a motionless barycentre nearby. If I’d calculated the motion of th barycentre, as I now believe I should have, the lack of motion of the Sun at the origin would have been compensated by the motion of the barycentre. Changing to barycentric coordinates resulted in a motionless barycentre, and a moving Sun, and the right sort of angular momentum. If the origin is elsewhere (and it is elsewhere in my simulation) then I should, I believe, find out both the speed of the Sun and of the barycentre.
the tangential velocity of the Sun perpendicular to the direction to the barycenter
If, in some coordinate system, at one instant in time the Sun is moving towards Capella at 3 km/s, and the barycentre is alongside the Sun (where ‘alongside’ means in a direction perpendicular to the Sun’s motion), and moving at 1 km/s towards Capella, the tangential velocity of the Sun relative to the barycentre will be 2 km/s. And the same would be true if the Sun was heading for Capella at 103 km/s and the barycentre at 101 km/s. But you would say that in the first case the tangential velocity of the Sun was 3km/s in the first case, and 103 km/s in the second case?
I can calculate both. All being well, I should be able to send you what you’re asking for later on today. And maybe follow that with the figures for when the ‘correction’ I’m proposing for tangential velocity is included. The differences will be slight, I imagine.
Geoff Sharp (18:17:06) :
to
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:29:03) :
I have been plotting all that JPL data I was talking to you about, might have found something. Would appreciate your feedback if possible, there is a spreadsheet on the other forum we have been in.
I am not retired, so everything is on limited free time. I will get back to that on the other forum when I can.
This discussion of the details of angular momentum calculations is actually quite useful, considering how many online discussions there have been in various forums that are heavy on words and light on substance.
One thing I find interesting about the suggested calculations is that the Sun is being treated as a point that has a simply-defined distance and angle from the SSB, when in fact it is a collection of (largely connected) points, each of which has a unique distance and angle from the SSB due to the proximity of the Sun to the SSB and the size of the Sun. My understanding is that most physicists assert that this does not matter for a rigid sphere – and that some will concede that it does matter when there is a fluid envelope. I’m not suggesting there is a spin-orbit coupling (nor do I want to offend some people by suggesting there isn’t one) – I’m just saying this discussion isn’t convincing me it has given this matter the careful & thorough treatment needed to settle the dispute to the satisfaction of all involved parties, even though I acknowledge this thread has now succeeded in evolving past some of the emotions and attempting to focus on so-called objective facts & laws.
This whole barycentre controversy is fascinating from a sociological perspective. Perhaps it does have a place in these forums, which are recording the evolution of influence & power in public debate on the unknowns & uncertainties in contemporary science, in what may be only the early years of an evolving information age. Some future historians & archaeologists might revel in these records – if they are preserved – but I still think we might be doing them a favor if we concentrate as many of these discussions as possible in a dedicated BaryUncensored forum. (On the other hand, that might increase the risk that the whole record will be destroyed easily.) I had a look at the forum Leif suggested as a “pen” – and I’m not convinced that it can handle this topic as well as Watts.
Thanks to everyone for the interesting discussion.
Leif Svalgaard (17:19:35) :
to
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:29:03) :
Carsten, what are your values for the first few 5 day intervals of 1941? for the Sun.
I have done a quick pass for 1941 using vector sums (still running). Numbers for January-May 1941 are available in
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/AM_1941_Jan_May_20090326.csv
There are 3 columns for each object and the sum. These are the (x,y,z) vector components of AM. The sum is vector sum of all the others (should be constant to prove no spin-orbit coupling). I have no idea how this compares with Carl’s as the numbers appear to be orders of magnitude different to what you showed, possibly due to different units.
The sum looks very constant now, so maybe it is an indication of no spin orbit coupling. But a longer series and independent confirmation will be required before I conclude 🙂
I know very little regarding calculations considered above, thus my question may not be entirely relevant.
As far as I remember solar surface g-force is 28 or so ( number = certain birthday), giving acceleration of approx 275 m/s2.
These are extremely large numbers (even the light is measurably bent).
Is the science absolutely certain that, due to high temperatures, where most of the mass is not molecular Hydrogen but in form of free protons, that Newtonian physics laws are entirely valid for calculating mechanical effects for the movement and actions of the solar surface plasma ?
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (09:40:13) :
Here are some values [4th column] from ‘Carl’s Table’:
1940.0027 29.3857447 1.441543241e+0 3.105195908e+47
We need to define which units the values are expressed in. I use SI units, meter, second etc.
Carl’s are cgs, so compared to mks [or SI] you must adjust exponent down by 2[for cm]+3[for g]+2[for cm/s]=7. So 3.105…e+47 is 3.105…e+40
idlex (09:44:30) :
“the tangential velocity of the Sun perpendicular to the direction to the barycenter. “Are you sure?
Yes, because we don’t want ‘absolute movement’ [is no such thing], but just AM relative to the barycenter, so can treat the BC as at rest.
Paul Vaughan (10:22:23) :
My understanding is that most physicists assert that this does not matter for a rigid sphere – and that some will concede that it does matter when there is a fluid envelope.
You can consider two extreme cases: (1) the Sun is rigid and (2) the Sun is a collection of non-interacting particles that are allowed to move freely. In the first case the situation is clear. In the second it is also clear [makes not difference], but some people have problems seeing that, so we can for them calculate the difference between the AM of one half of the Sun and the other half. This is what DeJager et al. did and showed that the resulting difference in acceleration is several orders of magnitude smaller than the ordinary forces acting on the Sun [rotation, plasma flows, etc], so even in that case there would be no observable effect over the noise.
All of this is, however, not needed, because the Sun gains/loses going around the BC the planets lose/gain, so there is no net change and hence no effect.
But, as you point out there are fascinating sociological issues relevant to even AGW, namely how people with strong [but wrong] convictions react when the ground gives way under them.
vukcevic (11:25:03) :
are Newtonian physics laws entirely valid for calculating mechanical effects for the movement and actions of the solar surface plasma ?
Helioseismology confirms that the internal structure of the Sun is just as computed from Newtonian physics [with Maxwell’s equations thrown in]. General relativity does not come into play yet, as it does for pulsar’s and black holes where the accelerations are much, much higher. Of course, there are always fringe people out there that postulate ultradense iron cores, relativistic matter, radiation fields, global electric currents, and many other things in conflict with physical laws as we know them applied to the conditions within the Sun and hence get all kinds of effects, so correct physics does not seem to be a prerequisite for speculation or entertainment.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:31:57)
“[…] The sum looks very constant now, so maybe it is an indication of no spin orbit coupling. […]”
It is an indication of the assumptions that went into your calculations.
Let’s keep in mind:
a) that we are discussing models.
b) the definition of centre of gravity.
While a constructive exercise, this neither proves nor disproves anything about reality (what real-world measurements have been taken in this ‘exercise’?) — but it does highlight a noteworthy property of the model & assumptions.
What we have learned is that if you travel in a circle, you will end up back where you started. Useful information perhaps. Knowledge is power.
I want to again suggest that everyone with an interest in barycentre/sun/earth connections read the following article in-detail, particularly section 3 – including 3.1 & 3.2:
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/09/28/0001230882/425-439.pdf
NS Sidorenkov. 2005. Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions Vol. 24, No. 5, October 2005, 425-439.
For me, this article was a game-changer that cast a demystifying light on many (but certainly not all) of Landscheidt’s claims.
Paul Vaughan (11:57:34) :
What we have learned is that if you travel in a circle, you will end up back where you started. Useful information perhaps. Knowledge is power.
I think the only assumption made is that the laws of physics applies. The same assumptions that allow us to calculate planetary orbits with centimeter accuracy and navigate spacecraft to the far reaches of the solar system.
I want to again suggest that everyone with an interest in barycentre/sun/earth connections read the following article in-detail
All the changes in the Earth’s rotation have to do with redistribution of moment of inertia in the Earth [atmosphere, mantle, core, etc], there are similar redistributions [for some of the same reasons] inside the Sun, giving rise to variations of the rotation of the Sun [ice skater stretching out her arms]. See, for example: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf . What has any of this to do with the barycenter/tidal/planetary influence?
Leif Svalgaard (11:40:42)
“[…] the difference between the AM of one half of the Sun and the other half. This is what DeJager et al. did […]”
Considering the sociological momentum involved, I’m not convinced that their treatment was sufficiently comprehensive to put this matter to rest. Nonetheless, the effort that goes into such contributions is worthy of acknowledgement and the starting point of ensuing discussions has been advanced.
Leif Svalgaard (11:31:25) :
to
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (09:40:13) :
Carl’s are cgs, so compared to mks [or SI] you must adjust exponent down by 2[for cm]+3[for g]+2[for cm/s]=7. So 3.105…e+47 is 3.105…e+40
Thanks for the confirmation. e+40 is the order of magnitude I am getting for the Sun, and 3.12621e+043 for the sum of all planets + Sun
Date , Z_Sun
1940-01-01, 3.0862e+040,
1940-01-02, 3.08734e+040,
1940-01-03, 3.08847e+040,
1940-01-04, 3.0896e+040,
1940-01-05, 3.09071e+040,
1940-01-06, 3.09181e+040,
1940-01-07, 3.0929e+040,
1940-01-08, 3.09399e+040,
1940-01-09, 3.09506e+040,
1941-01-01, 3.40474e+040,
1941-01-02, 3.40539e+040,
1941-01-03, 3.40604e+040,
1941-01-04, 3.40668e+040,
1941-01-05, 3.40733e+040,
1941-01-06, 3.40798e+040,
1941-01-07, 3.40863e+040,
1941-01-08, 3.40927e+040,
An updated graph like yesterday, now with all planets
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/AM_1940_1954_20090326.pdf
Raw results (zipped .csv file) 1940-1975
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/AM_1940_1975_20090326.zip
The sum stays constant now
Leif Svalgaard (12:19:57)
“I think the only assumption made is that the laws of physics applies.”
Exactly.
Leif: “What has any of this to do with the barycenter/tidal/planetary influence?”
Have you read the article in detail?
What has any of this to do with the barycenter/tidal/planetary influence?
Just the occasional correlation here and there.
Leif Svalgaard (12:19:57) :
All the changes in the Earth’s rotation have to do with redistribution of moment of inertia in the Earth [atmosphere, mantle, core, etc], there are similar redistributions [for some of the same reasons] inside the Sun, giving rise to variations of the rotation of the Sun [ice skater stretching out her arms]. See, for example: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf . What has any of this to do with the barycenter/tidal/planetary influence?
And what is the net result on the moon from these earth bound changes that slow our rotation?
Paul Vaughan (13:00:12) :
Leif: “What has any of this to do with the barycenter/tidal/planetary influence?”
Have you read the article in detail?
Yes, and the only reference to anything even close the that is a general statement about tides due to the Moon, Sun, and planets [the planetary tides are negligible]. And, of course, the tides change the Earth’s rotation and the angular momentum and the Moon’s orbit and all that, but that is because of the coupling provided by friction between the ocean, atmosphere and the solid Earth. The tides on the Sun are a thousand times smaller and completely inconsequential. Perhaps, you can guide me to a page and a line number with what I’m supposed to see?
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (12:46:36) :
The sum stays constant now
As expected, so that should settle the matter. Of course, we know it won’t, as people don’t give up deeply held convictions by presentation of facts. We’ll probably begin to hear that it all depends on some assumptions or approximations or that it doesn’t matter because the correlations are so strong that they show there must be a mistake somewhere, etc. Or that you need to take into account some modification of General Relativity, or electricity, or planetary aura, or, …
Leif Svalgaard (13:26:21) :
As expected, so that should settle the matter. Of course, we know it won’t, as people don’t give up deeply held convictions by presentation of facts.
Angular momentum has been conserved, I wouldnt get on your high horse just yet.
As we know the moon increases it’s orbit radius to conserve angular momentum when the earth slows from internal (and possibly external) factors. What if the Jupiter/Sun distance was seen to vary by more than the normal elliptical movements of Jupiter?
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (12:46:36)
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/AM_1940_1954_20090326.pdf
The interesting feature is the rate of change for the Sun. I encourage those interested to look at higher derivatives – and to quote a wise individual:
“There are few things I dismiss out of hand [some might disagree 🙂 ], but for something to be interesting to me I have to put it in context with something else or connect it with another phenomenon. […] I would tend to ignore it until such time that a context becomes apparent.” (Leif Svalgaard, Mar. 16, 2009) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/nasa-solicits-new-studie-on-the-current-solar-minimum/
Leif Svalgaard (13:19:09)
Perhaps, you can guide me to a page and a line number with what I’m supposed to see?
I trust that you have read the paper thoroughly Dr. Svalgaard.
I am in no way trying to suggest that the laws of physics can be violated (nor am I interested in offending those who are upset by the notion that the laws of physics are inviolable).
The main issue I am trying to raise is the issue of confounding. If people do as I have suggested, they’ll see how a devious individual could even go so far as to link all of this to Loebert’s (aka Lobert) ideas (regarding timing). I used to teach Statistics, so I know how the tricks work – and it is easy to establish the phase concordances (if one has the right pieces-of-context in-hand to assemble – & one can do a lot better than Landscheidt did since we now have more puzzle pieces available).
To be absolutely clear:
I’m not making any claims about causation.
I’m encouraging people to think about confounding & lurking variables.
I’m as interested in this from a sociological (& educational) perspective as from a scientific one.
There may be time in the days ahead to discuss this in more detail, but for now I will reiterate Carsten’s wise words: “I am not retired, so everything is on limited free time.”
Leif Svalgaard (13:26:21) :
to
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (12:46:36) :
The sum stays constant now
As expected, so that should settle the matter. Of course, we know it won’t, as people don’t give up deeply held convictions by presentation of facts. We’ll probably begin to hear that it all depends on some assumptions or approximations or that it doesn’t matter because the correlations are so strong that they show there must be a mistake somewhere, etc. Or that you need to take into account some modification of General Relativity, or electricity, or planetary aura, or,
The way I look at these results is that I have now seen a strong argument in favour of no spin-orbit coupling. There could always be mistakes, and keeping an open mind is always important, so I will continue to listen to what other say. I guess it would be a good idea for others to cross check this experiment independenly, presumably with an even more accurate N-body solver. But it works for me now.
If this result holds, then solar activity cannot be driven by spin-orbit coupling. But solar activity varies and is driven by something. We need to find out what it is, and how the variation in solar activity relates to the climate on earth, which I think it does.
Paul Vaughan (14:28:01) :
The interesting feature is the rate of change for the Sun. I encourage those interested to look at higher derivatives
The rate of change for the Sun is just the sum of the changes of the planets except with the opposite sign to make a constant sum reflecting the constancy of the orbital angular momentum, so has no further significance, as there is nothing ‘else’ left for the spin-orbit coupling.
Of course, knowing the sociological aspects of this we would predict a reaction perhaps along these lines: “the calculation means nothing. I’m convinced there is a strong coupling to the spin and that that modulates/drives solar activity. The proof of this lies in the obviously equally strong coupling back to the orbits such as to make it appear that the sum is constant”.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (14:34:30) :
If this result holds, then solar activity cannot be driven by spin-orbit coupling. But solar activity varies and is driven by something. We need to find out what it is, and how the variation in solar activity relates to the climate on earth, which I think it does.
We are working on the problem of what drives solar activity. If SC/24 behaves as predicted, there is a good chance that we can refine the dynamo models and get them to work. Also the coming launch of the Solar Dynamics Observatory [SDO] will give us unprecedentedly accurate helioseismology and magnetic data and should go a long way towards finding out what the internal flows and fields are and how they vary and interact. We know the physics, but not yet the boundary conditions so cannot pin down the process. This will change for the better very soon.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (12:46:36)
Here are my latest comparable figures for angular momentum.
01 Jan 1940 00:00:02 dt=2.0 s
Sol 3.100178979580074E40
Mercury 9.097152193558127E38
Venus 1.8309542696887511E40
Earth 2.654845134965808E40
Mars 3.496656601611212E39
Jupiter 1.923793046204745E43
Saturn 7.811706668062771E42
Uranus 1.69416386967485E42
Neptune 2.504509951212192E42
05 Jan 1940 14:18:44 dt=2048.0 s
Sol 3.105098541160553E40
Mercury 9.084500381337987E38
Venus 1.8296848910723478E40
Earth 2.6562329850822065E40
Mars 3.4967946740055584E39
Jupiter 1.9237904739128043E43
Saturn 7.811683622968431E42
Uranus 1.6941632803414868E42
Neptune 2.5045100239476612E42
..
04 Jan 1941 14:03:48 dt=2048.0
Sol 3.4199141569891264E40
Mercury 9.069588720894514E38
Venus 1.8639159157285903E40
Earth 2.647042077323583E40
Mars 3.532903838869719E39
Jupiter 1.9235546183752257E43
Saturn 7.810642888310002E42
Uranus 1.6941222857237087E42
Neptune 2.504516901158573E42
Spin-orbit coupling is one mechanism, there are other ways angular momentum can be conserved. We see that in the Earth/Moon system where rotation and radius distance are traded off in the interest of conservation. The reasons for earth’s rotation rate changes I think are irrelevant in this case.
If my preliminary findings are correct (and they need to be checked), this is also occurring in the Sun/Jovian systems, but in reverse. The radii are changing (outside of the normal Aphelion/Perihelion changes) which forces a change in the Sun’s rotation rate?
Leif Svalgaard (05:28:13) :
Geoff Sharp (23:48:41) :
You have them combined at 13% which is workable, but I suspect higher.
————————
This is one of the problems with this: “suspect”. There is a way of finding out that takes away suspicion and replaces it with knowledge. It is called physics. Angular momentum is defined as distance*mass*speed, which for Uranus is 2.9E12 m, 8.7E25 kg, 6810 m/s which means AMu = 1.72E42. A similar calculation yields AM for all bodies and their sum as AMt = 3.14E43 or AMu = 0.055 of AMt.
There are 2 OBSERVED areas that put doubt into your AM calculations.
1. On Carl’s graph when S/N/U are together with J opposing we have zero angular momentum. (only time)
2. On Carsten’s Sim1 program the same situation has the Sun dead centre on the SSB.
Therefore Jupiter COULD NOT be more than 50% of the total AM?
So I think you do me little justice…..
In response to Leif Svalgaard (13:26:21) & (14:41:33)
I laughed out loud when I read the former – & laughed again when I read the latter. Thanks for introducing some appropriate humor.
There is intuition to be gained by looking at the higher derivatives, but to be clear: I’m not arguing for spin-orbit coupling.
What I have been trying to help people understand by introducing Sidorenkov’s paper is that there is confounding that should be taken into consideration in assessing any noted solar-terrestrial correlations, but from the way the discussion is evolving I suspect most who are participating are focused mainly on 14C & 10Be – and (perhaps) content to overlook the finer-timescale details that appear in other geophysical time series. If my point doesn’t get through easily (i.e. without going into a lot of details), that is valuable information to have, so I am grateful to the administrators of this forum for allowing this discussion to occur.
Geoff Sharp (18:22:45) :
Therefore Jupiter COULD NOT be more than 50% of the total AM?
So I think you do me little justice…..
One does justice where justice is due. In your case, it is not.
To calculate AM, multiply distance [m], speed [m/s] and mass [kg] (get these from Wikipedia if you must):
For Jupiter: AMj=7.8E11*1.3E4*1.9E27 = 1.93E43
For Saturn: AMs=1.43E12*9.7E3*5.7E25 = 7.90E42
For Uranus: AMu=2.9E12*6.8E3*8.7E25 = 1.72E42
For Neptune: AMn=4.5E12*5.4*E3*1.0E26 = 2.44E42
AMtot=AMj+AMs+AMu+AMn = 3.14E43 [the other planets and sol don’t give any significant contribution], so AMj/AMtot =1.93/3.14 = 61.5%
Your ‘observations’ refer to the Sun which has less than 1/1000 of AMtot and is irrelevant for the ration AMj/AMtot.
Geoff Sharp (16:04:01) :
Spin-orbit coupling is one mechanism, there are other ways angular momentum can be conserved.
(1) there is no spin-coupling
(2) AM is always conserved [the sum was constant]
We see that in the Earth/Moon system where rotation and radius distance are traded off in the interest of conservation.
This is a tidal situation where the friction of the tidal bulge over millions of years slow the rotation slightly, never speed up the rotation as you have asserted is you mechanism. The tides of Jupiter on the Sun are a thousand times smaller than the moon’s on the Earth, and that of Uranus and Neptune enormously smaller still. You are back to the old tidal theory where U+N have absolutely no effect effect [actually they do: 0.0004 mm, 250 times smaller than the thickness of a human hair].
Time to pack up, I would say.
Paul Vaughan (20:17:28) :
I laughed out loud when I read the former – & laughed again when I read the latter. Thanks for introducing some appropriate humor.
Unfortunately it was not humor. As you can already see from some of the latest postings, the reaction i prediction is coming to pass.
There is intuition to be gained by looking at the higher derivatives
Like what? Tell me what you have gained from this particular case.
content to overlook the finer-timescale details that appear in other geophysical time series.
The BC argument is on what happens on a timescale of 173 [or 179] years…
Geoff Sharp (14:08:40) :
What if the Jupiter/Sun distance was seen to vary by more than the normal elliptical movements of Jupiter?
The simulations strive to compute the correct orbit at any time rather than the average [normal – as you call it] elliptical movements. So, the distances involved are the real, true distances [within the numerical error of the calculations – see: giving you the next point to probe]
Leif Svalgaard (20:21:34) to Geoff Sharp
“This is a tidal situation where the friction of the tidal bulge over millions of years slow the rotation slightly, never speed up the rotation […]”
This is potentially a fairly misleading statement. The LoD varies on much shorter timescales – for example semi-annually & annually.
2 simple points to consider:
(a) LoD is in-part a function of the position of the planets.
(b) Solar orbital angular momentum is a function of the position of the planets.
Some people say “the earth and sun share an orbit about the barycentre”. My understanding is that most physicists would regard that as a lazy description of what really happens, but would prefer to leave someone thinking that if they were in a hurry than to let someone think Earth orbits the SSB.
Is it so hard to see the confounding?
If so, this is valuable information to have.
Leif Svalgaard (20:21:34) :
Geoff Sharp (18:22:45) :
Therefore Jupiter COULD NOT be more than 50% of the total AM?
So I think you do me little justice…..
—————————————————
One does justice where justice is due. In your case, it is not.
To calculate AM, multiply distance [m], speed [m/s] and mass [kg] (get these from Wikipedia if you must):
For Jupiter: AMj=7.8E11*1.3E4*1.9E27 = 1.93E43
For Saturn: AMs=1.43E12*9.7E3*5.7E25 = 7.90E42
For Uranus: AMu=2.9E12*6.8E3*8.7E25 = 1.72E42
For Neptune: AMn=4.5E12*5.4*E3*1.0E26 = 2.44E42
AMtot=AMj+AMs+AMu+AMn = 3.14E43 [the other planets and sol don’t give any significant contribution], so AMj/AMtot =1.93/3.14 = 61.5%
Your ‘observations’ refer to the Sun which has less than 1/1000 of AMtot and is irrelevant for the ration AMj/AMtot.
The only AM movement calculation that is important is that which affects the Sun, anything else is not relevant when discussing planetary theory as I have laid out. Your figures are wrong but you refuse to admit it.
Geoff Sharp (16:04:01) :
Spin-orbit coupling is one mechanism, there are other ways angular momentum can be conserved.
——————————————
(1) there is no spin-coupling
(2) AM is always conserved [the sum was constant]
We see that in the Earth/Moon system where rotation and radius distance are traded off in the interest of conservation.
This is a tidal situation where the friction of the tidal bulge over millions of years slow the rotation slightly, never speed up the rotation as you have asserted is you mechanism. The tides of Jupiter on the Sun are a thousand times smaller than the moon’s on the Earth, and that of Uranus and Neptune enormously smaller still. You are back to the old tidal theory where U+N have absolutely no effect effect [actually they do: 0.0004 mm, 250 times smaller than the thickness of a human hair].
Time to pack up, I would say.
Now you are really struggling, I am not talking about spin-coupling and I said the causes of the Earth’s rotation change are not relevant. This is not a matter of tides and you know it. Its about conserving angular momentum. There is a relationship between change of rotation speed and orbit radius, in the earth’s case most of that change is generated internally, to conserve angular momentum the moon must adjust its orbit radius. If the reverse happens where the moon was suddenly moved closer to the Earth theoretically the Earth would have to change rotation speed. Jupiter orbits the SSB and the Jupiter/Sun distance is changing on a constant basis and it has nothing to do with Aphelion/Perihelion changes. I now have JPL data that looks to prove this.
I hope your bags are packed…the house of cards is about to come falling down.
Leif Svalgaard (20:28:03)
“Like what? Tell me what you have gained from this particular case.”
Insight into Landscheidt’s (no longer so) mysterious “phase reversals”.
Leif: “The BC argument is on what happens on a timescale of 173 [or 179] years…”
Many of the claims deal with other timescales. I am well-versed in the literature on this subject — in fact, at this point in time I am considering putting forward a research proposal through an Arts & Social Sciences Faculty (as a project on an intriguing sociological phenomenon).
Leif, I think the trick is not to discourage study of barycentres, but rather to encourage it. This is an ideal way to achieve 3 valuable educational objectives in an interesting context:
1. Illustrate an application of complex numbers. (Polar coordinates are more easily handled using complex geometry.)
2. Help students gain intuition about the basics of harmonics, amplitude cycles, nonlinear dynamics, the differences between randomness & deterministic chaos, etc. in a context of manageable complexity (i.e. 4 simple, physically-understandable base periods).
3. Illustrate the hazards of confounding & lurking variables. (One could illustrate – using a number of examples involving real-world data – how easy it is to use functions of planet positions to support provocative claims of phase concordances & correlations.)
I don’t think it is constructive to try to discourage people from arriving at their own conclusions based on their own learning process (as opposed to being told what to think about barycentres, for example). This is part of the reason why I view your educational contributions to these forums as vitally important – Thank you.
Paul Vaughan (20:59:41) :
This is potentially a fairly misleading statement. The LoD varies on much shorter timescales – for example semi-annually & annually.
These are due to the atmosphere and the oceans and are not tidal effects caused by the Moon.
(a) LoD is in-part a function of the position of the planets.
(b) Solar orbital angular momentum is a function of the position of the planets.
(a) No, not that can be measured. The tidal bulge due to Jupiter is 0.0002 mm high, that due to the Moon 368 mm.
(b) has no effect on the Sun
Is it so hard to see the confounding?
If so, this is valuable information to have.
It seems to be very hard for the BC crowd to see that their correlation is spurious, so, I guess you are characterizing their difficulty correctly. What is ‘valuable’ about it?
Geoff Sharp (21:33:57) :
The only AM movement calculation that is important is that which affects the Sun,
As Carsten has shown, and as is physically obvious from the outset, the changes in the Sun’s AM mirrors precisely the opposite changes in the planets’ AM, leaving no AM to change the rotation.
Now you are really struggling, I am not talking about spin-coupling and I said the causes of the Earth’s rotation change are not relevant.
No spin-orbit coupling anymore?
This is not a matter of tides and you know it. Its about conserving angular momentum. There is a relationship between change of rotation speed and orbit radius, in the earth’s case most of that change is generated internally, to conserve angular momentum the moon must adjust its orbit radius.
The 4 mm/year the Moon is moving away is due to the tides braking the Earth’s rotation, so to conserve AM the Moon must move further out.
Paul Vaughan (21:34:42) :
Insight into Landscheidt’s (no longer so) mysterious “phase reversals”.
And what would that be? I fail to see the connection.
at this point in time I am considering putting forward a research proposal through an Arts & Social Sciences Faculty (as a project on an intriguing sociological phenomenon).
A much more interesting phenomenon [than AM and BCs that have been understood for centuries] is the human reaction to this discussion as revealed by the posts preceding this one. Note, how my prediction about the reaction to the outcome of the BC/AM discussion is coming to pass. Fascinating, actually.
There is another, more sinister, example over in the ‘Oddball’ thread at Leif Svalgaard (22:19:26) : Glenn (21:42:22) :
there is a good chance that we can refine the dynamo models and get them to work. Also the coming launch of the Solar Dynamics Observatory [SDO] will give us unprecedentedly accurate helioseismology and magnetic data and should go a long way towards finding out what the internal flows and fields are and how they vary and interact. We know the physics, but not yet the boundary conditions so cannot pin down the process. This will change for the better very soon.
Good stuff. Will SDO be able to detect small changes in temperature at the poles of the sun Leif? As small as say 20K?
We’ll probably begin to hear that it all depends on some assumptions or approximations or that it doesn’t matter because the correlations are so strong that they show there must be a mistake somewhere, etc. Or that you need to take into account some modification of General Relativity, or electricity, or planetary aura, or, …
Would you regard yourself as an expert on General relativity Leif? I ask, because although you have scoffed at and heaped insult on Ray Tomes, he did actually consult with world leading experts on GR in the formulation of his theory. I found your comment about the energy of the sun’s centre being less than a candle very interesting, and I’m going to ask about that on an astronomy forum I contribute to. I’m going to try to dig out Birkhoff’s 1927 book too.
Some time ago, you told me no-one has ever managed to make any sense of the changes in the relative numbers of sunspots in the northern and southern hemispheres of the sun. I believe I have now achieved this, but your disparaging comment makes it clear you already think this is a spurious correlation without having to consider it. Or even see it.
You said it was a pity that the best science blog was being “polluted” by my attempt to discuss Ray Tomes theory, but I think the person lowering the tone and quality of debate in this thread, is you.
Good luck with getting the solar dynamo to work. If you need help, you’ll find Jupiter and friends have a nice long starting handle.
In response to Leif Svalgaard (21:41:38)
Leif: “(a) No, not that can be measured. The tidal bulge due to Jupiter is 0.0002 mm high, that due to the Moon 368 mm.”
The next time I review claims in the literature I will keep your comments in mind – and I will also keep the communications of other scientists in mind.
Leif: “(b) has no effect on the Sun”
(b) did not claim it did.
Leif: “What is ‘valuable’ about it?”
Information & misinformation are not without context. We are all wise to be wary of framing & context.
Thank you for your comments.
Geoff Sharp
There are 2 OBSERVED areas that put doubt into your AM calculations.
1. On Carl’s graph when S/N/U are together with J opposing we have zero angular momentum. (only time)
2. On Carsten’s Sim1 program the same situation has the Sun dead centre on the SSB.
Therefore Jupiter COULD NOT be more than 50% of the total AM?
So I think you do me little justice…..
Geoff, Ray’s calculations of the Jovian’s effect in the barycentric z axis give the following values:
Jupiter 172.9
Saturn 86.2
Uranus 31.1
Neptune 57.6+
============
S+U+N = 174.9
There’s your balanced forces.
The larger values for Uranus and Neptune are due to the observed fact that their slow orbits keep them above or below the solar equator for many years at a time, thus magnifying their effect on the sun’s core in Ray’s theory.
Leif Svalgaard (22:33:21) :
Geoff Sharp (21:33:57) :
The 4 mm/year the Moon is moving away
should be 4 cm/year.
Just to add, this doesn’t solve the balance in the orbital plane, I’m pointing it up as a hint that there will be a way of solving the forces so they do balance. Otherwise, as you say, the sun would never sit dead centre on the SSB
Leif Svalgaard (22:41:59)
And what would that be? I fail to see the connection.
A ‘satisfying’ answer to your question would be many pages long – and result in lots more ‘ghosts’ to chase. I’m not going down that path – I propose that we call it a day.
Your guidance in this & other threads is appreciated – thank you sincerely.
Regards,
Paul.
So here is a question we need to get a solid answer on….we have 400 years of Astronomy to fall back on.
WHAT POINT DO THE JOVIAN PLANETS ORBIT?
No guesses or hunches…solid data required. Newton’s theory according to others says the SSB. The answer to this question could explain the solid link based on physics for planetary influence.
Leif Svalgaard (22:33:21) :
The 4 cm/year the Moon is moving away is due to the tides braking the Earth’s rotation, so to conserve AM the Moon must move further out.
Thats right and its all measured with laser beams bouncing off mirrors on the moon. For each 4.5cm the trade off is 42nsec per day on Earth…lets reverse that and move the Sun 1.2 million kilometers further away from Jupiter and then back again the other way, that is what happens in reality on a regular basis.
Geoff Sharp (21:33:57) to Leif Svalgaard (20:21:34) :
The only AM movement calculation that is important is that which affects the Sun, anything else is not relevant when discussing planetary theory as I have laid out. Your figures are wrong but you refuse to admit it.
So what are your figures? My figures [upthread idlex (15:55:02)] for Sun angular momentum are nearly exactly the same as Carsten Arnholm’s for early 1940 and 1941.
Paul Vaughan (21:34:42) :
Leif, I think the trick is not to discourage study of barycentres, but rather to encourage it. This is an ideal way to achieve 3 valuable educational objectives in an interesting context:
I wrote my simulation model so that, among other things, I could look at the barycentric theories. I was initially rather attracted to the idea that the motion of the Sun around the barycentre could translate into the Sun spinning faster or slower via ‘spin-orbit coupling’. In the process I seem to have fairly thoroughly freed (perhaps “liberated” would be a better word) myself from this notion.
Some people say “the earth and sun share an orbit about the barycentre”. My understanding is that most physicists would regard that as a lazy description of what really happens,
It may be worse than that. The barycentre seems to become almost an entire new (and invisible and secret) body in the solar system, with its own mass and location and speed. It doesn’t help that NASA’s ephemerides list the barycentre as if it was another body in the solar system.
When I was writing my simulation model I was tempted to treat the barycentre this way. But in the end I refused to do so because I argued that it didn’t really exist and should not be accorded the same status as the Sun or Jupiter. Or no more so than the Lagrangian points in the Earth-Moon or Sun-Jupiter systems.
In my simulation, the barycentre doesn’t enter into any of the calculations. It just doesn’t exist. I don’t need it. All I need are Newton’s law of gravitation, and the laws of motion, and a few numbers about where the planets are. And in my simulation the planets don’t go ’round’ anything. They just go whichever way they happen to be tugged. In practise, this results in them seeming to go ’round’ the Sun. But that’s just what it looks like when I plot their motion on my computer screen with the Sun immobile. When I plot their motion with the Earth immobile, they all go pirouetting around the Earth in elegant little epicycles (Hey! Maybe Ptolemy was right??).
Anyway, the way things are going, I won’t be at all surprised to learn that the barycentre has its own spin and angular momentum. Or to see excursion trips advertised to “visit the barycentre”, and maybe buy a plot of land on it, and experience the thrill of a lifetime as your spaceship passes smack through the centre of it.
tallbloke (23:22:22) :
Will SDO be able to detect small changes in temperature at the poles of the sun Leif? As small as say 20K?
I believe 1K or better, but could check on this if you can give me a reason that might be important. I think you might actually mean if SDO can detect a systematic difference between pole and equator rather than just fluctuations at the pole.
Would you regard yourself as an expert on General relativity Leif?
No, but one does not have to be an expert to spot the obvious flaws.
I ask, because although you have scoffed at and heaped insult on Ray Tomes, he did actually consult with world leading experts on GR in the formulation of his theory.
For me to take that seriously you have to supply me with the names of those leading experts and what their opinion about his theory was.
I found your comment about the energy of the sun’s centre being less than a candle very interesting, and I’m going to ask about that on an astronomy forum I contribute to. I’m going to try to dig out Birkhoff’s 1927 book too.
A lot of progress has happened since 1927. In 1927 we didn’t know how the Sun generated its energy. Here are some other interesting numbers for you: the energy production of the Sun is 0.3 W/m3, or 0.000006 W/kg. As I sit here in my chair my internal metabolism produces 1.2 W/kg, so is 200,000 times more efficient than the nuclear fusion in the Sun.
this is a spurious correlation without having to consider it. Or even see it.
Bring it on.
You said it was a pity that the best science blog was being “polluted” by my attempt to discuss Ray Tomes theory, but I think the person lowering the tone and quality of debate in this thread, is you.
One has to call it as one sees it.
tallbloke (00:45:22) :
the sun would never sit dead centre on the SSB
Clearly the SSB on its meander through the Sun could easily pass through the center, just wait for the planets to have the required positions.
tallbloke (23:22:22) :
“Would you regard yourself as an expert on General relativity Leif?”
No, but one does not have to be an expert to spot the obvious flaws. Right off the bat Ray speaks of ‘relativistic matter’ in the Sun’s core. There is none, so from that point on the rest of the theory doesn’t matter, if already one of the premises is wrong. Perhaps you could correct me on this and show me where the ‘relativistic matter’ is? or what it is (perhaps Ray just uses the wrong nomenclature)?
tallbloke (23:22:22) :
“Would you regard yourself as an expert on General relativity?”
No, but one does not have to be an expert to spot the obvious flaws. Right off the bat Ray speaks of ‘relativistic matter’ in the Sun’s core. There is none, so from that point on the rest of the theory doesn’t matter, if already one of the premises is wrong. Perhaps you could correct me on this and show me where the ‘relativistic matter’ is? or what it is (perhaps Ray just uses the wrong nomenclature)?
—-
I’m no expert on getting the tags right either 🙂
idlex (05:13:49) :
My figures [upthread idlex (15:55:02)] for Sun angular momentum are nearly exactly the same as Carsten Arnholm’s for early 1940 and 1941.
and agree with Carl’s one may add.
Leif Svalgaard (05:17:14) :
the energy production of the Sun is 0.3 W/m3, or 0.000006 W/kg. As I sit here in my chair my internal metabolism produces 1.2 W/kg, so is 200,000 times more efficient than the nuclear fusion in the Sun.
One can crank up the energy production of the Sun, by only considering the inner core out to 0.2 solar radii, so here is a more accurate calculation:
radius of core = R = 696,000,000 m * 0.2
so volume of inner core: 4pi/3 * R^2 = 1.13E25 m3
luminosity of Sun [TSI times surface area] = 1361 W/m2 * 4pi * 1AU squared = 3.83E26 W, so rate per m3 = 3.83E26/1.13E25 = 34 W/m3. Density in inner core = 50,000 kg/m3 so energy production in inner core [rather than spread out through the Sun] is 34/50,000 = 0.0007 W/kg, so my body is only 1765 times as efficient than the Sun.
BTW, it is that feeble energy production rate that means that there is no ‘relativistic matter’ in the Sun. We are not talking about an exploding nuclear bomb here.
idlex (05:13:49) :
I dont have any figures, that work has been done and you seem to be re inventing the wheel. Carsten’s and Carl’s work show when the sun is dead centre on the SSB and at the same time the Sun experiences zero angular momentum, we have S/N/U together with J opposed. You and Svalgaard cannot walk away from those real world observations, J cannot contribute more than 51% of angular momentum towards the Sun.
NASA lists the SSB in JPL for a very good reason, and shortly you will see why. It may rekindle your earlier assertions.
Leif Svalgaard (06:06:16) :
luminosity of Sun [TSI times surface area] = 1361 W/m2 * 4pi * 1AU squared = 3.83E26 W
One can play a bit more with these numbers. Energy has mass (E=mc^2), so conversely that 3.86E26 J has a mass of 4.25E9 kg [the famous 4 million tons the Sun is losing every second] which is 235,000,000,000,000,000,000 times smaller than the mass of the core. If the Sun keeps this up for 10 billion years, the mass of all the energy produced will still be less than a 1/1000 of the solar mass. All this is just to emphasize how feeble the energy production actually is. It only adds up to a lot because the Sun is so big.
Geoff Sharp (06:16:49) :
at the same time the Sun experiences zero angular momentum, we have S/N/U together with J opposed.
The angular momentum of the four planets do not depend significantly on where they are [together or opposed]. Move Uranus in by one solar radius and its AM changes from 5.47% to 5.44% of the total.
Leif Svalgaard (06:39:51) :
Geoff Sharp (06:16:49) :
at the same time the Sun experiences zero angular momentum, we have S/N/U together with J opposed.
—————————————
The angular momentum of the four planets do not depend significantly on where they are [together or opposed]. Move Uranus in by one solar radius and its AM changes from 5.47% to 5.44% of the total.
What an unbelievable statement, with respect I think you may be out of your depth on this topic.
So no answer from you re: what point the Jovians orbit??
Geoff Sharp (06:16:49) :
at the same time the Sun experiences zero angular momentum, we have S/N/U together with J opposed. You and Svalgaard cannot walk away from those real world observations, J cannot contribute more than 51% of angular momentum towards the Sun.
I think you misunderstand [or do not understand] what AM is. At the time when the Sun’s AM about the BC is zero, Jupiter’s is the 1.9E43 [mks, or 1.9E50 in Carl’s units, cgs] it always is [any changes are further out in the decimals to the right.
Geoff Sharp (06:16:49) :
when the sun is dead centre on the SSB and at the same time the Sun experiences zero angular momentum
When the Sun is on the SSB it always has zero AM, no matter where the planets are. This is because the AM is defined as distance*speed*mass and when distance to the SSB is zero so is AM, regardless of where the planets are.
Paul Vaughan (01:44:38) :
I’m not going down that path – I propose that we call it a day.
So you leave me in the lurch…
Geoff Sharp (01:49:57) :
So here is a question we need to get a solid answer on….we have 400 years of Astronomy to fall back on.
WHAT POINT DO THE JOVIAN PLANETS ORBIT?
Why jovian planets? why not the Earth and every comet in the solar system?
Geoff Sharp (02:22:58) :
Leif Svalgaard (22:33:21) :
Thats right and its all measured with laser beams bouncing off mirrors on the moon. For each 4.5cm the trade off is 42nsec per day on Earth…
Every month the Moon moves 4,259,200,000 cm to and fro, for a total of 4.259*42 = 179 seconds or 3 minutes…
The 4 cm/year comes about because there is friction with the tides raised by the Moon [and partly by the Sun too] and that brakes the Earth’s rotation. And there is also friction on the Sun by the 0.46 mm tides raised by Jupiter [and the 0.0004 mm tides raised by Uranus or the 0.0001 mm raised by Neptune] , but that doesn’t amount to much, obviously [being a thousand times smaller than the Moon’s tides on the Earth, or 100,000 times smaller relative to the size of the Sun compared to the Earth].
Hi Leif,
wow, lots to cover. Ok, in the secondary thread on the sun’s radiant energy, there is an interesting exchange:
Tomes: I get that the velocity of nuclei near the centre of the sun are about 400 km/s (which I am roughly calculating based on what I think the velocity relationship is to temperature and atomic mass) which makes their relativistic mass increase only about 2 parts in a million. That is only about 20 times my estimate of radiation and I suppose 200 times yours. OK that sounds about right. But that doesn’t allow for electrons which I suppose are doing more like 18,000 km/s which increases their mass by something of the order of 0.3% but they are only 1/1836 of the mass so that makes roughly the same amount again? Total nearer 3 to 4 millionths. Of course the nuclei and electrons away from the centre are going slower, so correct answer maybe still 2 millionths.
Ken G: Yes, that sounds reasonable. it’s just a rough estimate, but it shouldn’t be too far off.
Tomes: I just realized that I was a bit confused about the gravitational energy component or the relativistic energy of the matter. Are these the same thing?
Ken G: I think the relativistic energy that goes into the gravity includes the rest masses and the kinetic energy, plus the radiant energy, minus the gravitational energy. The kinetic energy tends to be about half the gravitational energy, so it sounds like the gravitational mass of the Sun is actually a tiny bit less than the total rest mass of its constituents.
Tomes: The thing that I am really trying to get (I think) is the relativistic mass content of the Sun. I had been assuming that this was mainly in radiation because the matter was not going fast enough. But of course the matter has a lot more mass, so even a small relativistic factor comes out to a lot.
Ken G: Yes, the speed is not the best way to think about it, consider the kinetic energy. That is at least 10 times the radiant energy. But there’s also the negative gravitational correction, which is even higher.
I’ve asked Ken G for a clarification on this and will come back to this part of the issue when he replies.
Geoff Sharp (01:49:57) :
So here is a question we need to get a solid answer on….we have 400 years of Astronomy to fall back on.
WHAT POINT DO THE JOVIAN PLANETS ORBIT?
My naive physicist’s take on this question:
I think this question can only matter so much to you to put it in capital letters because you have Jupiter in an elliptical orbit with the Sun or SSB at one focus of the ellipse. And I’ll guess that’s how you work out the orbits of the various planets. I can’t see any other reason for wanting to know where this point is.
It seems to me that there are two ways of working out the orbit of a planet [somebody shoot me down if I’m wrong, please].
The first is way might be called the classical or Keplerian method, which entails placing one body at the focus of an ellipse, and another body going round that ellipse. I believe such 2-body systems can be fully described using a number of Orbital Elements. I don’t know for sure because I’ve never tried working out orbits this way. But I think this is what astronomers do as a matter of course when they come across some new asteroid or comet in the solar system.
This is the mathematically elegant way of doing things. But it only works for a 2-body system. But the solar system is an n-body system. Anna V was proposing upthread an interesting way of breaking down the n-body solar system into component 2-body systems, each of which could be solved, and getting an answer by successive approximations. And maybe that would work. I don’t know.
The other way of finding out what the orbit of a body is to forget all about ellipses and foci and so on, and instead compute the forces acting on each body due to gravitation, and their acceleration and speed, and finally their position after some interval of time. This is not mathematically elegant at all. It involves millions of calculations. It’s a brute force solution. Nobody would do things this way if they didn’t have computers to carry out all those millions of calculations.
Now, I believe that the way it’s done at, say, NASA, is to use both of these methods. First an elliptical orbit is worked out using orbital elements to give a good notion of what it will be. And then the whole problem is fed into a supercomputer somewhere to do the brute force solution over a week or two. And the result will be very like the ellipse calculated using the orbital elements, but it won’t be exactly the same. There’ll be little jiggles and wobbles as an orbiting body gets near some other body along the way. And the orbit won’t be an exact perfect ellipse. And it will be a more accurate description of the orbit than one described by an ellipse.
And the method I use in my simulation is the brute force method. There are no ellipses in my simulation. No foci. No barycentres or nodes or semi-major axes. There are just two or three simple equations which get solved about a hundred million times. And it has to be mathematically simple because I’m no great mathematician. Or rather, I have an, um, reduced instruction set.
And it seems to me that the divide between the barycentrists and their sceptics is the division between the classical Keplerians and the brute force computer simulation modellers. One bunch sees the orbital problem in terms of ellipses and foci. The other sees the orbital problem in terms of forces and accelerations. A lucky few can see things both ways. Or maybe only the unlucky few can see things one way only.
And I’m one of the unlucky, one-eyed few who only sees things in terms of forces and accelerations, and who builds computer models to produce brute force solutions. I never think about ellipses and foci and barycentres unless I have to. And the question “What point do the Jovian planets orbit?” is a meaningless question for me. For as I see it, there are only the planets, the forces of gravity working on them, and their consequent motion. They don’t ‘orbit’ about any ‘point’. Or if they do, that’s what drops out at the end of all those millions of calculations, not something I start with.
If the Keplerian barycentrists want a two-eyed view, they will build themselves inelegant, brute force simulations of orbits. And to myself learn how to become a Keplerian, I should do what Kepler did, and try and fit the orbits coming out of my simulations with some geometrical figure, like a circle or an oval or an ellipse.
And maybe I’ll try to do exactly that sometime.
Leif Svalgaard (05:17:14) :
tallbloke (23:22:22) :
Will SDO be able to detect small changes in temperature at the poles of the sun Leif? As small as say 20K?
I believe 1K or better, but could check on this if you can give me a reason that might be important. I think you might actually mean if SDO can detect a systematic difference between pole and equator rather than just fluctuations at the pole.
I asked because a possible test for the Tomes theory would be a fluctuation in the pole temperature alternating with the opposite pole. he estimated around 20K. I don’t know enough to know whether this might be swamped for some other reason.
tallbloke (07:49:05) :
wow, lots to cover. Ok, in the secondary thread on the sun’s radiant energy, there is an interesting exchange:
which just shows how confused Ray is. Now add to the 400 km/s the 225 km/sec around the center of the Galaxy and the 600 km/s relative to the Cosmic Background Radiation, and …
But it is all irrelevant because the orbits of Mercury and Venus and the observed oblateness of the Sun show that the solar core is not wiggling around.
this is a spurious correlation without having to consider it. Or even see it.
Bring it on.
The way you have snipped the quote gives me a sense of foreboding. I’ll keep my powder dry for now and improve the work. Besides, my phone line came down in the wind last night and I can’t upload it over the mobile phone I’m using as a modem as the mobile network blocks the ftp port number.
idlex (07:50:22) :
build themselves inelegant, brute force simulations of orbits. […] simulations with some geometrical figure, like a circle or an oval or an ellipse.
Astronomers [incl. JPL] use the brute force method. There are no orbits in the system, just bodies interacting. The result of the brute force approach is a HUGE file of positions. The data in this file is now fitted to a system of ‘epi’cycles [rather much like the old Greeks did] and the data is expressed as sums of hundreds of cosine waves. The simplified version for Mars [that Jean Meeus gives] contains 238 such cycles.
Geoff Sharp (07:07:05) :
“The angular momentum of the four planets do not depend significantly on where they are [together or opposed]. Move Uranus in by one solar radius and its AM changes from 5.47% to 5.44% of the total.”
What an unbelievable statement, with respect I think you may be out of your depth on this topic.
One last time: to calculate the angular momentum one takes the distance [for Uranus 4134 solar radii], multiply by the speed [6.8 km/s], and finally multiply by the mass [14.5 times the Earths]. Never mind the units are funny, the result is the same: if you move Uranus one solar radius out [typical for BC movement] the distance increases by a 1/4134 part and AM would increase by a similar small fraction. Actually, only half of that as the speed decreases a bit when Uranus is further out. So, the changes in the AM of Uranus [and any and all of the planets] caused by the BC moving around are VERY VERY small.
Your ‘unbelievable’ bit is just a reflection of the depth of your ignorance. Being ignorant is no shame, but refusing to learn is.
tallbloke (07:58:02) :
a possible test for the Tomes theory would be a fluctuation in the pole temperature alternating with the opposite pole. he estimated around 20K.
measured where? at what depth or height in the atmosphere?
Dr. Svalgaard
You frequently commented and rejected validity of my formulas be it polar fields or sunspot periodicity and amplitude envelope correlation.
I did a quick search of all comments, and I could not find any relating to what I call solar cycles’ anomalies formula.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
Here we have many degrees of freedom, but there is still a significant factor of “coincidence” that near zero values of this particular equation, relatively accurately pinpoint most of the anomalies within the train of known solar cycles, and surprisingly even Maunder minimum.
Please note, important time periods here are those when the two factors are (or near) equal but of opposite sign, the rest is of a little influence (kind of a hyperbolic response to it). An interpretation here could be: at certain times effect of factor A is cancelled out by factor B, resulting in an anomaly.
Two factors are rounded off (118 = approx 4*S or 10*J ; 96 = approx J+U or even 8J=94.9, whatever combination used, only significant change is part of the Maunder min graph, but still very clearly identifiable). Length of each lobe (including sum of two within M.min) is 52-3 (period 105-7) years, depending which combination is used.
Therefore, if one is to take all this literally (?), it could be concluded that there is a 52-ish or 106-ish years period within the solar cycles.
I am looking forward to your comment. Do your most severe!
I am opened for any clarifying questions, but shall not contradict your observations, which may be used as guide for a further assessment of this particular equation.
vukcevic (08:36:05)
Additional detail 118-96 = 22 years , one Hale cycle.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
Geoff Sharp (06:16:49) :
I dont have any figures, that work has been done and you seem to be re inventing the wheel.
If you don’t have any figures, how can you possibly tell Leif Svalgaard’s figures are wrong?
Geoff Sharp (21:33:57) to Leif Svalgaard (20:21:34) :
The only AM movement calculation that is important is that which affects the Sun, anything else is not relevant when discussing planetary theory as I have laid out. Your figures are wrong but you refuse to admit it.
I’ll ask again: what do you calculate solar angular momentum to be in early 1940 or 1941? Or any date you care to name?
And yes, I am re-inventing the wheel. I’m doing something that’s already been done many times over. I’ve been getting my hands dirty by trying to do it myself, rather than leave it to other people. I somehow find that doing things that way, I end up learning quite a lot of surprising things I didn’t know before. My little re-invented, home-made orrery has been quite a revelation since I constructed it. It still seems like a bit of a miracle that the planets really do go round in things that look like circles or ellipses (I haven’t checked which). I think that one of the surprises was simply to get an idea of the sheer scale of the solar system, how big it all is, how small the planets. The pictures of it in books, I realised, don’t really quite do it justice.
Carsten’s and Carl’s work show when the sun is dead centre on the SSB and at the same time the Sun experiences zero angular momentum, we have S/N/U together with J opposed. You and Svalgaard cannot walk away from those real world observations
Is the Sun ever dead centre on the SSB? I can’t see how that can happen while there are 4 massive planets pursuing separate orbits around it. I know that the Sun gets quite near the SSB on occasions, but dead centre? I’ll have to wind up my little orrey and look.
And thanks for placing me together with Leif Svalgaard. I don’t deserve such a high honour. I am, at best, a minor asteroid on which his sun exerts a little force, deflecting me slightly in my path. And I should hope not to get too near, because he shines 200,000 times more brightly than the Sun.
Here are some other interesting numbers for you: the energy production of the Sun is 0.3 W/m3, or 0.000006 W/kg. As I sit here in my chair my internal metabolism produces 1.2 W/kg, so is 200,000 times more efficient than the nuclear fusion in the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard (08:13:37)
The data in this file is now fitted to a system of ‘epi’cycles [rather much like the old Greeks did] and the data is expressed as sums of hundreds of cosine waves.
Really? How astonishing! I suppose that it must be a way to compress the data in that huge file. But how strange that the way they should choose to do it is with something that sounds so like the Ptolemaic approach of wheels within wheels in the turning celestial sphere.
One of the little revelations that has come out of my little orrery has been to be able to see the solar system through the eyes of the pre-Copernican Ptolemaic astronomers, simply by plotting the motion of the sun and planets around a stationary Earth. It’s very pretty. Some of the orbits look like flowers. I might try one day to construct my own system of epicycles to explain the phenomena, just like they did. And publish it as my Almagest. Perhaps complete with a suitable error half way through it which will render it useless.
idlex (09:34:31) :
The data in this file is now fitted to a system of ‘epi’cycles [rather much like the old Greeks did] and the data is expressed as sums of hundreds of cosine waves.
Really? How astonishing! I suppose that it must be a way to compress the data in that huge file
That is basically the reason. The initial set of cosine waves come from theory [any formula can be expanded as such a set – Vuk take note :~) ] but the fit incorporates the integration [and even some bits of observation – of some of the boundary conditions, masses, radii, etc]
I believe Carsten used the cosine sums given by Meeus. This is important because then you two use completely different methods, and the agreement becomes trustworthy.
idlex (09:05:55) :
because he shines 200,000 times more brightly than the Sun.
I’ve downsized to 1765 times 🙂
The goal of the rough calculation was, of course, just to point out how feeble the solar furnace is.
Leif Svalgaard (10:29:10) :
I believe Carsten used the cosine sums given by Meeus. This is important because then you two use completely different methods, and the agreement becomes trustworthy.
That’s interesting. How well (or how badly) do our results compare?
idlex (11:44:29) :
“I believe Carsten used the cosine sums given by Meeus. ”
That’s interesting. How well (or how badly) do our results compare?
At first blush it looks pretty good. I haven’t had time yet to do an in-depth analysis. Patience.
Fellow bary-eccentrics,
I’m missing a mechanism for transfering AM from the planets to the Sun. There must be a bearer of all that energy. Is it gravity, magnetism, a new undiscovered force? The last I’m afraid is aming a bit high.
As far as I understand the displacement is a result of gravity alone, a speed component is not visible in what we ‘observe’ using Carsten’s simulator for instance, right? If so I think AM is the wrong path. What we should focus on is what impact the motion of the Sun will have.
I’m assuming the Sun is revolving around the BC. Then the side closest to the BC will carry a smaller momentum than the other side of the Sun because of a much smaller radius. When the orbital speed decreases this must lead to an increase in rotation speed, and since the Sun is not solid the outer parts will speed up relative to the inner parts. http://virakkraft.com/Sun-SSB.jpg
idlex (07:50:22) :
The other way of finding out what the orbit of a body is to forget all about ellipses and foci and so on, and instead compute the forces acting on each body due to gravitation, and their acceleration and speed, and finally their position after some interval of time. This is not mathematically elegant at all. It involves millions of calculations.
This is numerical integration, and it is the only way that you can solve an N-body problem like the solar system (N-body problem = compute the positions and velocities for N objects under mutual gravitational influence). Closed algebraic solutions don’t exist for N>3.
Obviously, my simulator uses the same approach as yours. There are different numerical integration methods, some more accurate than others, but generally they are the same: Given some starting conditions for each object ( mass, position, velocity), future positions and velocities are computed using *only* Newton’s law of gravity F = G*m1*m2/(r^2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
Now, I believe that the way it’s done at, say, NASA, is to use both of these methods. First an elliptical orbit is worked out using orbital elements to give a good notion of what it will be.
The elliptical orbits are expressed as “orbital elements”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements
From them you can estimate positions for an individual object without numerical integration. But orbital elements are only valid for a limited period before they start to get inaccurate.
And then the whole problem is fed into a supercomputer somewhere to do the brute force solution over a week or two.
Or a laptop for a couple of hours 🙂
And the method I use in my simulation is the brute force method. There are no ellipses in my simulation. No foci. No barycentres or nodes or semi-major axes. There are just two or three simple equations which get solved about a hundred million times.
True. The only assumption is what Leif said before. We accept and use Newton’s law of gravity, that’s all.
Leif Svalgaard (10:29:10) :
I believe Carsten used the cosine sums given by Meeus. This is important because then you two use completely different methods, and the agreement becomes trustworthy.
In a roundabout way, yes. The theory for establishing the initial conditions of the simulator is in the book “Astronomical Algorithms” by Jean Meeus
http://www.willbell.com/MATH/mc1.htm
My simulator is written in C++, and luckily there is a C++ library that implements the formulae in Meeus’ book. It is called AA+ and created by P.J. Naughter
http://www.naughter.com/aa.html
I use AA+ to compute initial positions and velocities. After that it is Newton’s law only.
Leif Svalgaard (08:03:25) :
tallbloke (07:49:05) :
wow, lots to cover. Ok, in the secondary thread on the sun’s radiant energy, there is an interesting exchange:
which just shows how confused Ray is. Now add to the 400 km/s the 225 km/sec around the center of the Galaxy and the 600 km/s relative to the Cosmic Background Radiation, and …
But it is all irrelevant because the orbits of Mercury and Venus and the observed oblateness of the Sun show that the solar core is not wiggling around.
Well, I’ve had some help to do the calcs on mercury.
Grav: Now, if we were to consider the the sun spins on the same plane as the orbit of Mercury, and then were to “suddenly” move vertically a distance of x = 300 m, the acceleration directly toward the sun would decrease by a factor of d^2 / [d^2 + x^2] = 1 / (1 + x^2 / d^2), 1 / (1 + 2.685 * 10^-17) = 1 – 2.685 * 10^-17, so only drops by a factor of 2.685 * 10^-17 over all. By comparison, the difference in acceleration for the precession of the orbit of Mercury, which is barely perceivable itself, is only on the order of 3 (v / c)^2 = 7.67 * 10^-8, so the change in the overall acceleration directly toward the sun as you described would be about 10 orders of magnitude smaller, insignificant and unmeasurable.
However, the effect would also transfer some of the overall acceleration of the sun to the vertical direction as well and produce an up and down motion of Mercury that would probably be more noticable. The ratio for the amount of the total acceleration of the sun that Mercury will experience in this direction would be the sine of the angle to the sun’s new position, so x / sqrt[d^2 + x^2] = 1 / sqrt[(d / x)^2 + 1] = 1 / sqrt[3.724 *10^16] = 5.181 * 10^-9, comparable to that of the precession of Mercury, but an order of magnitude or so smaller, although still measurable.
Now consider it’s not the whole sun suddenly jumping 300m but a small fraction of it’s mass and your mercury effect becomes truly tiny. For venus, orders of magnitude tinier. I suppose I might have the opportunity to become the new Einstein, spotting the millimetric effect of the core movement on mercury as it reaches perihelion. 😉
As for the suns oblateness, you told us a while ago about the ‘corrugations’ which rise up on the solar surface during the sunspot cycle. You said these were around half a km high if I remember correctly. I followed the link you provided and saw a graphic showing that perhaps around 20-24 of these mounds would encircle the sun. I think you’d have a hard time differentiating the oblateness caused by a 140m offsetting of the core on a 140,000,000m wide object covered in 500m high lumps randomly distributed over the solar surface.
Hi lgl
I think Landscheidt covered that one didn’t he? You can riffle through his papers at Geoff Sharp’s site. http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
idlex (07:50:22) :
Geoff Sharp (01:49:57) :
So here is a question we need to get a solid answer on….we have 400 years of Astronomy to fall back on.
WHAT POINT DO THE JOVIAN PLANETS ORBIT?
The question assumes such a point exists.
My naive physicist’s take on this question:
[…]
It seems to me that there are two ways of working out the orbit of a planet [somebody shoot me down if I’m wrong, please].
The first is way might be called the classical or Keplerian method, which entails placing one body at the focus of an ellipse, and another body going round that ellipse. I believe such 2-body systems can be fully described using a number of Orbital Elements. I don’t know for sure because I’ve never tried working out orbits this way. But I think this is what astronomers do as a matter of course when they come across some new asteroid or comet in the solar system.
This is the mathematically elegant way of doing things. But it only works for a 2-body system. But the solar system is an n-body system. Anna V was proposing upthread an interesting way of breaking down the n-body solar system into component 2-body systems, each of which could be solved, and getting an answer by successive approximations. And maybe that would work. I don’t know.
The other way of finding out what the orbit of a body is to forget all about ellipses and foci and so on, and instead compute the forces acting on each body due to gravitation, and their acceleration and speed, and finally their position after some interval of time. This is not mathematically elegant at all. It involves millions of calculations. It’s a brute force solution. Nobody would do things this way if they didn’t have computers to carry out all those millions of calculations.
They key phrase is “n-body problem”. Those interested in barycenters who haven’t read about this should. The Wikipedia page is good. Note the references to chaos theory.
Honey, I shrunk the sun by an order of magnitude. My bad.
idlex (07:50:22) :
Geoff Sharp (01:49:57) :
So here is a question we need to get a solid answer on….we have 400 years of Astronomy to fall back on.
WHAT POINT DO THE JOVIAN PLANETS ORBIT?
The question assumes such a point exists.
My naive physicist’s take on this question:
[…]
It seems to me that there are two ways of working out the orbit of a planet [somebody shoot me down if I’m wrong, please].
The first is way might be called the classical or Keplerian method, which entails placing one body at the focus of an ellipse, and another body going round that ellipse. I believe such 2-body systems can be fully described using a number of Orbital Elements. I don’t know for sure because I’ve never tried working out orbits this way. But I think this is what astronomers do as a matter of course when they come across some new asteroid or comet in the solar system.
This is the mathematically elegant way of doing things. But it only works for a 2-body system. But the solar system is an n-body system. Anna V was proposing upthread an interesting way of breaking down the n-body solar system into component 2-body systems, each of which could be solved, and getting an answer by successive approximations. And maybe that would work. I don’t know.
The other way of finding out what the orbit of a body is to forget all about ellipses and foci and so on, and instead compute the forces acting on each body due to gravitation, and their acceleration and speed, and finally their position after some interval of time. This is not mathematically elegant at all. It involves millions of calculations. It’s a brute force solution. Nobody would do things this way if they didn’t have computers to carry out all those millions of calculations.
They key phrase is “n-body problem”. Those interested in barycenters who haven’t read about this should. The Wikipedia page is good. Note the references to chaos theory.
Leif Svalgaard:
Astronomers [incl. JPL] use the brute force method. There are no orbits in the system, just bodies interacting. The result of the brute force approach is a HUGE file of positions. The data in this file is now fitted to a system of ‘epi’cycles [rather much like the old Greeks did] and the data is expressed as sums of hundreds of cosine waves. The simplified version for Mars [that Jean Meeus gives] contains 238 such cycles.
Leif Svalgaard (10:29:10) :
I believe Carsten used the cosine sums given by Meeus.
That means that Carsten’s simulator contains ephemerides which can show where solar system planets will be. And these have been worked out by supercomputers, and then boiled down into hundreds of cosine waves. So effectively Carsten is using extremely accurate values.
My “supercomputer”, by comparison, is the Intel Pentium microprocessor in my notebook. And I’m only using NASA Horizons ephemerides to start the simulation. Carsten’s results will be far superior to mine.
But would I be right in thinking that Carsten can’t fool around with the solar system? And he can only either wind it forward or backward? Last week, toying with ways of looking double stars, I hit on the expedient of simply making Jupiter 10 times heavier. It had a slight effect on the solar system, pulling in the outer planets. 10 times heavier still, and the effect was still greater. 1000 times heavier, with Jupiter about the same mass as the Sun, the result was a motorway pile-up. Saturn collided with Jupiter, and Jupiter began stripping off the inner planets from around the Sun, until only Mercury was left, and the Sun and Jupiter played ball with Mars, with the planet swapping from an orbit round the Sun to an orbit around Jupiter and back again. The whole process was like something out of Velikovsky. If I understand correctly how Carsten’s simulator works, he couldn’t do this.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (12:40:53)
I use AA+ to compute initial positions and velocities. After that it is Newton’s law only.
Scrap my previous comment, then.
Leif Svalgaard (07:46:59) :
Geoff Sharp (01:49:57) :
So here is a question we need to get a solid answer on….we have 400 years of Astronomy to fall back on.
WHAT POINT DO THE JOVIAN PLANETS ORBIT?
———————————–
Why jovian planets? why not the Earth and every comet in the solar system?
Because they could be different….lets just stick with the Jovians. Answer?
idlex (13:06:19) :
But would I be right in thinking that Carsten can’t fool around with the solar system?
And he can only either wind it forward or backward?
You would be wrong. It is only a way to get proper initial conditions for real life planets in the solar system, so it is easier to compute interesting real life problems like we have done.
This does not prevent “fooling around” however. It can also take additional completely hypothetical objects to see what they might cause. For example, I made a heavy planet called “Nemesis” 🙂 and gave it an eccentric orbit in the inner solar system. It really creates havoc, by throwing out Mars and releasing the Moon from the Earth’s gravity field etc. It can be loaded from this XML http://arnholm.org/astro/software/ssg/redist/Planetary_Nemesis.xml
If I understand correctly how Carsten’s simulator works, he couldn’t do this.
Just download and try, you will see it can http://arnholm.org/astro/software/ssg
idlex (13:17:30) : Scrap my previous comment, then.
Ok, noted!
I believe Geoff & Leif were having a misunderstanding – a matter of semantics/nomenclature.
Geoff was citing %s based on the first power of the sun’s distance from the barycentre.
Leif was citing %s proportional to the second power.
The former stem from the definition of barycentre (weightings mr^1 in calculations).
The latter stem from the definition of AM (weightings mr^2).
This misunderstanding was only easy to isolate because I recognized the numbers being tossed around.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
idlex: “They don’t ‘orbit’ about any ‘point’. Or if they do, that’s what drops out at the end of all those millions of calculations […]”
One can devise various summaries (for example statistical) of the properties of dynamic “centres” to facilitate discussion between “camps” – (not necessarily worth your time (or of interest to you) though).
I worked with first-order approximations of Sun-BC distance & AM and compared them with Horizons output. One noteworthy item to report is the sensitivity to Saturn’s assumed orbital “period” (most of you know why I put that in quotes). I was actually able to estimate the “average period” of Saturn in the JPL Horizons model by adjusting my plots to match — my estimate was only off by 0.01 years (when I compared it with the orbital elements).
The point I’m making is mainly for non-physicists:
Don’t underestimate the value of a rough model as a learning aid.
For example, a statistician would toss away the “noise” in favor of parsimony. Interdisciplinary scientists can’t afford to get sucked into becoming specialists in every field, but they can invest their time wisely to extract the most salient points each field has to offer (i.e. take the easy hits from each field, but avoid getting sunk).
Even though I’m unwilling to get sucked into the black-hole, I enjoy following the discussion (& noting the evaded questions, the (seemingly deliberate at times) obfuscation/selective-focus in some answers, etc.)
– – – – – – – – – – – –
lgl (12:27:12) “because of a much smaller radius.”
“Provocative” comments lgl. It’s not just that it can be smaller – angles for different parts vary from 0 to 360 when r<1. Neither the de Jager bucket-of-cold-water nor the crushed fingers in Svalgaard’s door can extinguish the sociological momentum and the interest in striking phase concordances, so there is plenty of potential for the mill of assertions & rebuttals to keep churning for many years to come – what some might call “the barycentre industry” – just think of the number of publications that could come out of the counter-rebuttals alone (in a world with freedom of speech, that facilitates independent study & judgement of claims with the benefit of shaking stagnant paradigms just a-healthy-amount (not more, as too much instability can be dangerous)). And again – to be clear: I’m not arguing for spin-orbit coupling.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
If Landscheidt were with us right now (during the “economic crisis”), he might be putting forward “astrological” models to act as a much-needed baseline-check on economists.
Thank you to all for the various comments – very interesting discussion.
tallbloke (12:48:34) :
Now consider it’s not the whole sun suddenly jumping 300m but a small fraction of it’s mass and your mercury effect becomes truly tiny.
Most of the Sun’s mass is in the core. It’s not a small fraction.
lgl (12:27:12) :
I’m missing a mechanism for transferring AM from the planets to the Sun. There must be a bearer of all that energy.
The AM is not energy. And there isn’t any transfer of anything. What is happening is that we move the point with respect to which we calculate the AM. If we introduce a star moving close to the solar system [not so close as to disrupt the orbits of the planets – this is not so hard as it sounds – planets have moons and the orbits of these moons are not disrupted by another planet coming into conjunction] the BC of the bodies in the space around the Sun will move a lot, perhaps out on the outside of Jupiter’s orbit and the AM with respect to that BC we would calculate for the Sun and all the planets will change a lot, but no energy has been transferred from Jupiter to the Sun because of the passing star. What moves is not the AM but just the point we chose to calculate it around.
Correction to Paul Vaughan (14:58:29) – top part:
The contrast is r^1 vs. r^(1/2)
(Geoff, square Leif’s #s for related insight – if I have diagnosed the misunderstanding accurately.)
lgl (12:27:12) :
I’m missing a mechanism for transferring AM from the planets to the Sun. There must be a bearer of all that energy.
And we must look at this the right way: it is not the case that the Sun is anything special; it is not AM ‘transferred’ between the Sun and the planets. You could just as well calculate the AM of the Earth with respect to the BC and make a plot of that. Then calculate the AM of the rest of the solar system [including the Sun] and lo and behold it would vary as a precise mirror image of the Earth’s AM, so where is the mechanism for transferring AM from the Earth to the rest of the solar system? Nowhere, of course, because nothing is transferred except in our head.
vukcevic (08:36:05) :
I could not find any relating to what I call solar cycles’ anomalies formula.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
If a correlation is good it may merit a second look, but this one is no good. E.g. cycle 10 as you label low cycle is in the middle of a minimum in your curve, while being larger than cycle 12 which is in the middle of the maxima of your envelope. And many other discrepancies as well. If you say that the left hand side of the graph is lower than the right hand side in general [which is true] then we are back to the low number of degrees of freedom again.
Geoff Sharp (13:55:53) :
Why jovian planets? why not the Earth and every comet in the solar system?
Because they could be different….lets just stick with the Jovians. Answer?
Either all of them do or none of them do depending on your choice of coordinate system. All the bodies are in free fall in the combined gravitational field of all of them.
To claim that different bodies obey different laws is what makes this astrology.
Paul Vaughan (14:58:29) :
Thank you to all for the various comments – very interesting discussion.
There is, indeed, some entertainment value, but also a great deal of tedium.
Geoff Sharp (01:49:57)
“So here is a question we need to get a solid answer on….we have 400 years of Astronomy to fall back on.
WHAT POINT DO THE JOVIAN PLANETS ORBIT?
No guesses or hunches…solid data required. Newton’s theory according to others says the SSB. The answer to this question could explain the solid link based on physics for planetary influence.”
Geoff Sharp (13:55:53) “[…] Answer?”
Leif Svalgaard (16:04:15)
“Either all of them do or none of them do depending on your choice of coordinate system. All the bodies are in free fall in the combined gravitational field of all of them.
To claim that different bodies obey different laws is what makes this astrology.”
I believe Geoff raises the most salient point in this whole discussion, with a good awareness of Fairbridge’s motivation.
After integrating the presentations of a number of physicists who have been questioned similarly, my impression is that if you cut through the noise of all the fussy details towards what they would tell you if they were in an absolute hurry (like, say, if they didn’t have time to talk &/or your question was a “nuisance”), the lesser choice among “evils” would be to leave you believing the jovians orbit the BC and the terrestrials orbit the Sun (please don’t snip this out-of-context – thank you all).
While a “simplification” for “lay-people” (particularly with respect to the jovians, according to my understanding), it cuts to the very heart of what Fairbridge was trying to tell us – and resonates my point about confounding (for those who know what that is). I have seen this simplification supported by calculations in some forums – sorry I don’t have the links — perhaps someone can illustrate for us here (with a simple quantitative demonstration) why this is the best “lesser evil” among the very-crudest-of-models – so that all following along, regardless of physics-education, can extract what is perhaps a very salient point from this discussion.
A contrast of the relative merits of this “oversimplification” with respect to its portrayal of jovian & terrestrial orbits would also be valuable. For example, is the oversimplified-view of things most accurate for the terrestrials or for the jovians? – (the former according to what I’ve read in other forums).
These questions are no-doubt a nuisance to some physicists not wanting to oversimplify &/or get quoted-out-of-context, but the answers (about the “average” state of things – nuances of strange attractors aside for second – to assess a more global view) are essential to interdisciplinary investigators in getting around the confounding issue when interpreting “on average” the correlations & phase concordances with geophysical phenomena.
Perhaps it will be easiest if there is a starting-premise to attack:
See the “16 June. Australia” entry at
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=80&Itemid=1
& see
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/orbit2004.htm
for example.
[Note for those interested in LoD/SIM links/confounding: Look in the higher directory hidden at
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers
for some “provocative” ideas — & note the dates of publications in the reference-lists – & compare them with the references in the Russian literature.]
Paul Vaughan (17:50:45) :
Geoff Sharp (01:49:57)
“WHAT POINT DO THE JOVIAN PLANETS ORBIT?”
“To claim that different bodies obey different laws is what makes this astrology.”
I believe Geoff raises the most salient point in this whole discussion
As we have now seen, this is completely irrelevant. Even if one assumed that, there is no AM transfer to the Sun and hence no coupling to solar activity except for the ineffectual tides. So this question is just a straw man to divert attention from the issue [and a nonsensical one at that as Nature does not select some bodies for different treatment]. The ‘problem’ arises from confusion about what ‘orbit’ means.
I’ll repeat my reply to lgl:
lgl (12:27:12) :
I’m missing a mechanism for transferring AM from the planets to the Sun. There must be a bearer of all that energy.
And we must look at this the right way: it is not the case that the Sun is anything special; it is not AM ‘transferred’ between the Sun and the planets. You could just as well calculate the AM of the Earth with respect to the BC and make a plot of that. Then calculate the AM of the rest of the solar system [including the Sun] and lo and behold it would vary as a precise mirror image of the Earth’s AM, so where is the mechanism for transferring AM from the Earth to the rest of the solar system? Nowhere, of course, because nothing is transferred except in our head.
Paul Vaughan (17:50:45) :
Geoff Sharp (01:49:57)
“WHAT POINT DO THE JOVIAN PLANETS ORBIT?”
“To claim that different bodies obey different laws is what makes this astrology.”
I believe Geoff raises the most salient point in this whole discussion
By introducing false picture which is beyond most people the pot is kept boiling and no solution is possible. It is a well known result from elementary logic that from a false premise any conclusion can be drawn and it would even be true.
A simple thought experiment illustrates the fallacy: assume that it is size that determines if a body ‘orbits’ the BC. Then start with a small planet that does not and slowly make it bigger, e.g. by capturing interplanetary material [as the planets actually did when they formed]. Then at some point it will transition to orbit the BC from not doing so. I consider the notion that it can ‘halfway’ orbit the BC as absurd, so the transition must be discontinuous, which also is absurd.
The link you provided http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/orbit2004.htm has Pluto as orbiting the BC, so clearly it cannot be size that is important, but must be location [inner or outer body], but there are bodies, like comets, that traverse the solar system and are in both regions, so they must transition abruptly too. The absurdities mount.
Leif Svalgaard (19:23:23) “The link you provided http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/orbit2004.htm […] The absurdities mount.”
I did not put that link forward as my position, but rather as a starting point for discussion. Your response has been informative.
Leif “well known result from elementary logic that from a false premise […] the fallacy: assume that it is size that determines if a body ‘orbits’ the BC.”
Nowhere have I claimed size is a sole factor determining time-integrated “orbit-centre” for individual bodies in a system. I will raise no issue with your claim about the elementary logic of false premises.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Leif Svalgaard (18:59:38) “The ‘problem’ arises from confusion about what ‘orbit’ means.”
I don’t estimate those contributing to this discussion to be so naive. There is more than just the calculations-time-step timescale – there is a spectrum of timescales to consider.
Leif: “[…] there is no AM transfer to the Sun and hence no coupling […]”
To again be absolutely clear:
I’m not advocating a spin-orbit coupling.
So tossing “straw man”, “irrelevant”, & a repeat of your response to lgl in here is distortion – I’m not involved in that battle, but I do appreciate your concerns about it.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Clarification regarding Paul Vaughan (15:39:10)
Sorry Geoff, it’s not quite as simple as just squaring. (Due to the unique masses of the components it’s not a simple scalar distributive.)
Nut-shell elaboration: I suspect that what is happening is that some people are thinking in squares while others are thinking in mean-squares – that would account for the discrepancies in the conversation, according to my calculations. (This is with regards to the scalar-prefixes on the component wave functions.)
What interests me most about the “misunderstandings” is not the technical details, but rather the capacity of minor irritants to trigger flares.
Paul Vaughan (17:50:45)
I believe Geoff raises the most salient point in this whole discussion
Maybe.
Right now my guess is that the world is divided into two schools. Firstly there are the people who work out the orbits of planets as ellipses with the barycentre at one focus of those ellipses. And secondly there are the people who work out the orbits of planets using Newton’s laws and numerical integration.
I’m a member of the second school. And so is Carsten Arnholm. And so is Leif Svalgaard.
But Geoff is a member of the first school. Or at least I’m pretty sure he is. There was an earlier post from him on this thread which set me thinking this way. I had just set up my (typical school 2) simulation model with a satellite orbiting the Sun at a radius of 2 solar radii, so that it passed quite near the barycentre. And the following was Geoff’s response:
Geoff Sharp (16:58:55) :
You could also try setting up the satellite so it orbits the solar system barycenter instead of the Sun, and then watch the Sun/satellite distance move.
That suggestion didn’t make any sense to me when I first read it, because the bodies in my simulation don’t ‘orbit’ anything: they just go where gravitational forces pull them. But his suggestion makes quite a lot of sense if Geoff believes (in typical school 1 fashion) that bodies orbit the barycentre in ellipses, with the barycentre at one focus.
I came across the same idea in Linkages between solar activity, climate
predictability and water resource development W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe and N Willemse where Bailey wrote
Second, the earth orbits the solar system’s centre of mass (SSCM), and not the sun’s centre of mass.
That Bailey could so confidently assert such a thing is what leads me to believe that there is a whole school (school 1) of people who believe this idea, and have fully absorbed it as an unquestionable truth.
But the idea that the Earth or any other planet orbits the barycentre or SSCM is really a simplification. It’s sort of generally true, as a kind of general rule of thumb. Just like that, as a general rule of thumb, water freezes at 0 degrees C. Except this is not true if the water is a saline solution.
Anyway, this is what I suspect is happening. It’s not that anyone is being deceitful or purposefully obtuse. They are just quite honestly looking at things through very different pairs of spectacles. They are a bit like the Ptolemaic astronomers who regarded the Sun as going round the Earth, and the Copernican astronomers who saw it the other way round. But the present dispute is between those who believe that planets orbit the barycentre, and those who don’t.
That said, it’s just a guess of mine that this is how Geoff thinks. He says that Leif has got the angular momentum of the Sun wrong, but he won’t produce his ‘correct’ figures. I have produced figures for this. And so has Carsten. And we’re in fairly good agreement, it seems (although I think Carsten’s figures are more accurate than mine).
Leif thinks that if it can be shown that the total angular momentum of the solar system can be shown to be constant, with no wiggle room for ‘spin-orbit coupling’, that will be the end of the matter. But it won’t. I don’t think that it will end until the likes of Geoff and Bailey realise that they’ve been using a simplification, a general rule of thumb, rather than an accurate model of the way our solar system really works, once all the general rules of thumb about how it works have been set aside.
Paul Vaughan (14:58:29) :
I believe Geoff & Leif were having a misunderstanding – a matter of semantics/nomenclature.
Rather an issue of non-understanding, instead of mere misunderstanding.
Leif Svalgaard (18:59:38) :
Paul Vaughan (17:50:45) :
Geoff Sharp (01:49:57)
“WHAT POINT DO THE JOVIAN PLANETS ORBIT?”
“To claim that different bodies obey different laws is what makes this astrology.”
I believe Geoff raises the most salient point in this whole discussion
So this question is just a straw man to divert attention from the issue
I did not say that erected the straw man, but that the person who asked the question in CAPITAL LETTERS did.
I don’t estimate those contributing to this discussion to be so naive.
This is, however, a safe assumption as should be evident from the level of their contributions.
Leif,
1. When you tossed around estimated Earth tide magnitudes above, were you referring to the ocean or the atmosphere?
2. You seemed to minimize the role of temporal UV-variation in your response to anna v. I am curious to know if you dismiss the research that suggests it plays a role in climate.
I welcome comments from others.
Paul.
Paul Vaughan (21:28:28) :
1. When you tossed around estimated Earth tide magnitudes above, were you referring to the ocean or the atmosphere?
The tidal calculation refers to a ideal deformable body that does not resist being deformed. Atmosphere, oceans, and even the mantle of the earth actually respond about the same to the tide. For the atmosphere the word ‘tides’ is also used for ‘thermal tides’ caused by solar heating. These tides have nothing to do with the ‘true’ tides, but the wording can cause confusion.
2. You seemed to minimize the role of temporal UV-variation in your response to anna v. I am curious to know if you dismiss the research that suggests it plays a role in climate.
The classical paper on this is by Shindell et al. and they used as the solar input the obsolete Hoyt/Schatten TSI [of which UV is a certain fraction] which has a very much too large variation, so that research is, indeed, flawed or perhaps better: outmoded.
idlex (21:12:35) :
Right now my guess is that the world is divided into two schools. Firstly there are the people who work out the orbits of planets as ellipses with the barycentre at one focus of those ellipses. And secondly there are the people who work out the orbits of planets using Newton’s laws and numerical integration.
Hmm. I am a physicist and I do tend to look at solutions of gravitational equations reducing them to the two body mode. In that mode the general solution is the bodies orbiting their common barycenter in an elliptical form with one focus of the ellipse on the barycenter. That is the analytical solution of the problem, so no computers are required.
One can always reduce any many body problem to a two body problem, by taking center of masses and total mass into two effective bodies, so there will always be the analytical solution. This does not mean that the solution for the individual bodies has been found.
The confusion starts when the many body problem is attributed to orbits for each object similar to the two body problem. There it is easy to double count by hand waving, which cannot happen if you set up an iterative numerical solution in a computer as you have done.
Leif Svalgaard (15:03:29) :
tallbloke (12:48:34) :
Now consider it’s not the whole sun suddenly jumping 300m but a small fraction of it’s mass and your mercury effect becomes truly tiny. The effect on Venus orders of magnitude tinier.
Most of the Sun’s mass is in the core. It’s not a small fraction.
Depends how you define the core. We are not necessarily talking about a mass or volume contiguous with what is defined as the core in other contexts. The amount of mass moved, how far and the gradient’s steepness are still open questions. Where you made an assumption and an a priori judgement (and flung insults around based on them), I have demonstrated mathematically that the effect on Mercury and Venus’ orbits is negligibly small, and shot down your canard. Duck soup anyone?
which just shows how confused Ray is. Now add to the 400 km/s the 225 km/sec around the center of the Galaxy and the 600 km/s relative to the Cosmic Background Radiation, and …
It appears that you are the one who is confused. A relativistic effect of (say) Jupiter on the sun would involve the relative velocity of Jupiter and the sun, not the relative velocity of the solar sytem and the galaxy, the CMB or anything else.
Here’s what Ray says again:
“I get that the velocity of nuclei near the centre of the sun are about 400 km/s (which I am roughly calculating based on what I think the velocity relationship is to temperature and atomic mass) which makes their relativistic mass increase only about 2 parts in a million.”
This is nothing to do with the suns speed relative to anything, but to do with it’s internal temperature, which by the way, and to lay to rest your other canard about candles and kettles, is around 10 million kelvin.
My judgement is that you are out of your depth with questions about relativity, and will be keeping the salt pot on hand from now on.
Correction, relative gravitation of Jupiter and the sun.
And a further point. Ray says in his exposition that the effect he calculated would raise a larger swell on the sun’s surface than the +/-140m, notwithstanding convection currents which would be set up to distribute the displaced matter. It occurs to me this may have something to do with the ‘corrugations’ you told us about. The outer layers of the sun are very fluid, such a displacement would very likely raise ‘corrugations’ which would propogate around the sun to maintain it’s sphericity. What is the standard model explanation for the corrugations please Leif?
In response to idlex (21:12:35)
We, of course, don’t have time to go over every trivial nuance, but we can extend trust and afford opportunity to save face.
I appreciate the comments you have shared.
Leif Svalgaard (21:24:36)
I did not say that erected the straw man, but that the person who asked the question in CAPITAL LETTERS did.
I’m not convinced that no one can give Geoff a more satisfying answer than he has received. (I’ve seen the answer pitched at the right level in other forums, with simple quantification to back up generalizations at an intermediate level of complexity – I just don’t have the links.) I am not the person in this forum best-qualified to address Geoff’s question with authority, nor am I here to judge the constraints on participants’ time/willingness/interest/tolerance/etc.
Paul Vaughan (21:28:28) :
Leif,
1. When you tossed around estimated Earth tide magnitudes above, were you referring to the ocean or the atmosphere?
2. You seemed to minimize the role of temporal UV-variation in your response to anna v. I am curious to know if you dismiss the research that suggests it plays a role in climate.
I welcome comments from others.
Hi Paul, I’ve been enjoying reading your posts.
The tide Leif mentions is on the oceans I think.
I read a book some time ago about the moon’s effect on climate, by a New Zealander. I lost my pdf copy, but I know I sent it to someone who posted on this thread. I’ll see if I can get him to send a copy back and forward one to you. The author has made it freely distributable because of a lack of royalty payments from the current publisher in the UK.
In the book, the author speculates about the tide raised in the atmospher by the moon, and how it might affect the latitude of atmospheric circulations as the moons declination changes over the 18.6 year cycle. Interesting stuff.
Leif Svalgaard (15:52:23) :
to
vukcevic (08:36:05) :
……., while being larger than cycle 12 which is in the middle of the maxima of your envelope. And many other discrepancies as well. ……….
Dr. Svalgaard
Thank you for your response. This is not an envelope. Perhaps my post was to long. Critical part of the is:
….that zero or near zero values of this particular equation, relatively accurately pinpoint most of the anomalies…. Please note, important time periods here are those when the two factors are (or near) equal but of opposite sign, the rest is of a little influence.
I will redo the chart and formula to reflect the above and may try again on some other occasion.
Thank you.
Leif,
the BC of the bodies in the space around the Sun will move a lot
This is a crucial point I thought we agreed upon long time ago, and I really need to understand this. Is the Sun moving or is the BC moving? To simplify lets look at two systems, Sun-Earth-Moon, and GC(Galactic Center)-Sun-Jupiter. Isn’t it the Earth-Moon BC that orbits the Sun? In the same way it’s the Sun-Jupiter BC that orbits the GC, not the Sun, so the BC is the ‘fixed’ point in the solar system (moving through space of course), like Earth-Moon BC is the fixed point of the Earth-Moon system.
In the Sun-Jupiter two-body system they both orbit that system’s BC. Jupiter is accelerated by the Sun towards perihelion (if that’s the right name) and then decelerates again. Same with the Sun, Jupiter will make the Sun accelerate, just far less.
What I really need to know, seen from the GC (or actually from far ‘above’ the GC), will the picture be like Carsten’s simulator is showing, with the Sun moving around, or will you see the Sun moving at a constant speed with the BC moving around, if there were something at the BC to observe of course?
idlex (21:12:35) :
But the idea that the Earth or any other planet orbits the barycentre or SSCM is really a simplification. It’s sort of generally true, as a kind of general rule of thumb.
I agree in general with your descriptions of how things work. As you are a native English speaker, you are able to formulate these things better than I. Maybe your analysis of how different people address these issues are correct too.
Regarding the question that was raised about which point Jupiter orbits: It is a slightly odd question to me. It orbits what it orbits, it is a result and not a premise. Jupiter or any other object in the solar system do not follow intrinsically a circular or elliptical orbit, because the solar system contains more than 2 objects. These objects go where gravity takes them. But as the inner solar system is dominated by the mass of the Sun, the planetary trajectories are ‘near ellipses’ with the Sun at or near one of the ellipse focal points.
So describing the orbit of the planets using ellipses (via orbital elements or similar) is an approximation, however useful.
But, there is one thing that perhaps goes slightly against what has been said before here, and it is the following: I also used to ‘understand’ that the Earth and other planets without exception orbited the solar system barycentre (SSBC), as is evident in some exchanges with Leif a few months ago. Leif asserted that observations show the Earth follows almost exactly an elliptical orbit around the Sun, not the SSBC. I have since realized that this is true, because the Earth is close to the Sun and an object’s orbit is generally affected only by the mass inside its own orbit (the mass outside cancels out on average). To find out if it is true that the Sun is at the focal point, one could approximate the earth orbit (from astronomical observations, NOT derived from orbital elements) as an ellipse, and check where exactly the focal point falls. But observe that since the ellipse is an approximation, its focal point is an approximation too. Then do the same thing for Jupiter, if necessary. The answer will be that it is at or near the Suns centre of mass.
To illustrate further why it is not exact, pick a 3rd object, far away from the Sun. I propose “90377 Sedna” as a good candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90377_Sedna
Sedna is a Trans-Neptunian object with a perihelion distance of some 76 Astronomical Units (AU), i.e. it is always far beyond Plutos orbit. For Sedna, all the mass we have considered relevant so far (Sun+8 planets+Pluto) is inside its orbit. I think if you repeat the experiment described for Earth and Jupiter above, you will find that the focal point of Sednas elliptical orbit approximation will coincide with (or be very close to) the SSBC. If you lump Sun+8 planets+Pluto into one object at the SSBC, Sednas orbit approximation will stay the same.
But does this change anything wrt. spin-orbit coupling or such? No. Pondering over approximated orbit focal points might give some insight to how gravity works, but it really isn’t a central issue.
I still do not have an answer to my question…its not a strawman, and there is a very clear reason for the question. If you dont know just say so.
tallbloke (23:07:55)
Because the matter and energy in the sun has a gradient from core to surface, the Einsteinian relativistic effect of the Jovian planets gravitation is to diferentially pull the matter of the sun north or south, creating internal pressure waves which result in the production of sunspots.
Of what Einsteinian relativistic effect are we talking about?
Special relativity? That is where the notion of “relativistic mass” and “rest mass” belongs.
As far as the general gravitational relativistic theory, where gravity is the deformation of the space time metric it makes no difference if the core of the sun is considered to have nuclei and nucleons with effective relativistic mass or rest mass. General relativity knows nothing of the quanta that are the bread and butter of special relativity. It is really a classical theory and the challenge for current physicists is to wed general relativity to quantum mechanics ( string theory is supposed to do that, but that is another story).
So, me thinks there is semantic confusion in this whole concept.
If we are talking general relativity we can conceive of gravitational waves originating from Jupiter in some way ( one would have to feed energy into this somehow) and impinging on the sun, and creating gravity waves ( usually called tides with the energies available) . Stronger effects than the gravitational tides are science fiction at the moment. General relativity could care less if the sun is a ball of furious photons or an inert crystal.( except for the aforementioned tide, which are small).
Special relativity could care less if there is a Jupiter and a gravitational wave coming from there at the plasma or whatever the core of the sun is.
btw,
: tallbloke (22:40:57)
My judgement is that you are out of your depth with questions about relativity, and will be keeping the salt pot on hand from now on.
I am a particle physicist and I think that to tell somebody at the level of Leif’s knowledge that they are out of their depth about relativity is at least funny. Relativity is the sine qua non for astrophysics.
anna v (22:36:15) :
One can always reduce any many body problem to a two body problem, by taking center of masses and total mass into two effective bodies, so there will always be the analytical solution. This does not mean that the solution for the individual bodies has been found.
The confusion starts when the many body problem is attributed to orbits for each object similar to the two body problem. There it is easy to double count by hand waving, which cannot happen if you set up an iterative numerical solution in a computer as you have done.
You have set out in various messages (anna v (21:32:16) : anna v (08:28:41) : anna v (08:17:49) 🙂 on this thread the analytical approach. As best I understand your proposed successive approximation, this would entail taking the solar system with a sun and 9 planets, and regarding it as 10 two-body problems, which can be solved. So you go away and get the analytical solutions to these 10 problems. And each of these solutions describes an elliptical orbit of some sort. And then you have each body go a bit of the way round their respective elliptical orbits, and then consider the new situation, where everything has moved, and another 10 two-body problems appear. And so you solve all these, and get another 10 ellipses. And you move each body part way along their new elliptical paths. And so on. The net result is that each body in the system is moves along a path which is made up of a series of short arcs of different ellipses. Each body is always moving along an elliptical path with the centre of mass of all the other bodies at one focus, but the succession of elliptical arcs will not itself be an ellipse. It will be some path made up of lots of bits of different ellipses. Right? (Bearing in mind that I myself don’t know how to d elliptical orbits of two-body
I can’t see where the confusion may creep in here by double-counting.
anna v (11:00:48) :
There is no reason the solutions would not work. It would be a different way of looking at it and generating successive approximations.
That seems to suggest that this is a way that the problem might be solved, and so perhaps not how it usually is solved?
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (03:08:38) :
As you are a native English speaker, you are able to formulate these things better than I. Maybe your analysis of how different people address these issues are correct too.
I’m certainly able to express ideas in English. But that doesn’t mean I have anything worth saying!
I was trying to understand how Geoff Sharp thinks about the motion of bodies in a complex system like the solar system, and to see what his disagreement with Leif was all about. But I think this may be beyond me. It’s hard enough dealing with my own limited incomprehension, never mind somebody else’s.
Geoff Sharp (04:56:50) :
I still do not have an answer to my question…its not a strawman, and there is a very clear reason for the question. If you dont know just say so.
Well, I for one don’t know the reason for the question. And I don’t know who is being asked this question either.
tallbloke (12:48:34) :
“Most of the Sun’s mass is in the core. It’s not a small fraction.”
Depends how you define the core. We are not necessarily talking about a mass or volume contiguous with what is defined as the core in other contexts. The amount of mass moved, how far and the gradient’s steepness are still open questions.
Sure, if I define the ‘core’ to be the mass within a cubic inch at the south pole, I’ll get a different answer. And since the displacement 140m is already assumed, it seems hard to argue that there are open questions about what causes it [how much mass move how far].
Where you made an assumption and an a priori judgement (and flung insults around based on them), I have demonstrated mathematically that the effect on Mercury and Venus’ orbits is negligibly small, and shot down your canard. Duck soup anyone?
no mathematics is needed. If the Sun suddenly jumped 300m ‘vertically’ with respect to Mercury’s orbit, Mercury would jump 300m too. But perhaps you don’t mean that, but only that the Sun expanded in all directions by 300m, in which case there will no effect, neither on Mercury nor on the Sun in terms of horizontal displacements.
This is nothing to do with the suns speed relative to anything, but to do with it’s internal temperature, which by the way, and to lay to rest your other canard about candles and kettles, is around 10 million kelvin.
The energy generated per kilogram is 0.0007 W [you generate 1.2W/kg] as I showed or 34 W in a volume of 1 cubic meter.
would propogate around the sun to maintain it’s sphericity. What is the standard model explanation for the corrugations please Leif?
They are hot material welling up near strong magnetic fields in active regions. Take away the magnetic field and the corrugations go away too.
Geoff Sharp (04:56:50) :
I still do not have an answer to my question…its not a strawman, and there is a very clear reason for the question. If you dont know just say so.
The reason for the question, please. My personal opinion should have little influence on what the planets do, lest we overdo the astrological consequences.
tallbloke (12:48:34) :
would propagate around the sun to maintain it’s sphericity. What is the standard model explanation for the corrugations please Leif?
Checking the data I may have given the size of the corrugations as too small if half a kilometer is what was mentioned. The precise measurements by the RHESSI satellite place the height at 0.010 arc second which is 7.2 km.
The ordinary solar granulation consists of near surface convections cells where the material move up in the middle of the cell, then horizontally to the edge, and finally down at the edges. The size of a cell is 1000km [1000,000 meter] and the speeds are of the order of 1 km/s [1000 m/s]. There are ~10 million of such cells at any given time. Contrast that to the 140m.
In all of this discussion nobody has used the word “geodesic”. I’m not about to expound (we have google) but in modern thought, bodies do not orbit, they follow geodesics which are straight lines through gravitationally curved space. As evidenced by the precession of Mercury, all of these calculations involving Newton’s law are themselves approximations.
idlex (05:59:08) :
I have not set up a numerical solution to the many body problem. You have.
I was just saying that a reduction to a two body problem is a first approximation, and as an answer to “what does the sun orbit”. I’d really need to put my thinking cap on to see how to go on from there. I think If I really were writing a program I would start with the heaviest and the sun, and add the next one and the next one as perturbations.
The double counting does not come in the numerical integrations. It comes when people handwave and say “Jupiter this” and “Saturn that”, without doing any calculations, having in mind images of orbits.
As both you and Carsten have shown, calculations show zero changes in angular momentum in the total system.
anna v (07:54:03) :
As both you and Carsten have shown, calculations show zero changes in angular momentum in the total system.
That we knew, of course, but more importantly that the Sun’s AM around the BC is precisely offset by the planet’s, so that no ‘extra’ AM is available for spin-orbit coupling [which couldn’t happen anyway due to lack of a coupling mechanism]. This is the point that was under discussion. If proponents of the correlations still consider them viable, they must now go search for a different mechanism. Progress happens when we can lop off branches of the ‘decision tree’ and the AM spin-orbit mechanism can now be lopped off and that is what all need to acknowledge so that ‘progress’ may be made along a different branch.
pochas (07:23:45) :
As evidenced by the precession of Mercury, all of these calculations involving Newton’s law are themselves approximations.
But they are good enough for this, and the precession of Mercury is only 0.43″ per year and Mercury’s contribution to the center of mass is negligible anyway.
Is it all in the orbital resonance?
Dr. Svalgaard
By altering the form of the equation, and limiting it to short periods as defined with the inequality
-0.1< COS[2pi(t-1941)/118] + COS[2pi(t-1941)/96] < 0.1
the point could be made in more obvious manner
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Anomalies.gif
Thus defined periods isolate consequential part of the graphical representation as shown with purple colour.
When the above inequality is satisfied, a long minimum will occur (Maunder, 1810, 1913), alternating with cycles reduced by about 30% in the amplitude relative to the neighbouring once (on each side inclusive) SC1, 9 & 19 ( not to be confused with low cycles occurring as a part of the general trend).
Two factors are rounded off (118 = approx 4*S or 10*J ; 96 = approx J+U or even 8*J=94.9, whatever combination used, out of 4 possible, only significant change is the part of the Maunder min graph, but still very clearly identifiable. 118-96 = 22 years , one Hale cycle. Length of each lobe (including total of two within M.min) is 52-3 (period 105-7) years, depending which combination is used (a previously not defined short term solar V-cycle (?!), the next one above Hale; 1.5V= 52+26=78= Gleissberg cycle.
Next zero crossing is due around 2024-25, and a prolong (Maunder type) 2180-2240, fortunately for the last one I will be elsewhere, so you want be able to prove me wrong (unless we meet on the “happy hunting grounds” blog).
vukcevic (08:59:09) :
Thus defined periods isolate consequential part of the graphical representation
and hide what doesn’t fit…
Happy cyclomania, here and on those hunting grounds, eventually.
A question I have asked before: how do your cycles agree with nobrainer’s ?
Leif Svalgaard (09:25:03) :
to
vukcevic (08:59:09) :
Thus defined periods isolate consequential part of the graphical representation and hide what doesn’t fit…
That is a total (accidental or deliberate) miss-interpretation of the argument.
We do not get sound vibrations from a bell until it is hit by the hammer (distance between two reaches zero value ).
We do not get solar cycle anomalies (“vibrations” within train of solar cycles) unless planetary orbital resonance generates an impulse as defined by the sum of two factors
COS[2pi(t-1941)/118] + COS[2pi(t-1941)/96]
i.e reaches zero value.
I was hopping for a more constructive (science based) critical comment,
but thanks anyway.
A question I have asked before: how do your cycles agree with nobrainer’s ?
I have no knowledge, method or time to go into proper appraisal of other contributors’ ideas, since you do that far better then I ever could.
vukcevic (10:16:55) :
We do not get sound vibrations from a bell until it is hit by the hammer (distance between two reaches zero value ).
We do not get solar cycle anomalies (“vibrations” within train of solar cycles) unless planetary orbital resonance generates an impulse as defined by the sum of two factors
I was hoping for a more constructive (science based) critical comment
But before it is even worth entertaining such an approach it must be shown that there is good reason to do so, and the curves you present[ed] [before removing some of it] do not IMHO establish that there is something worth investigating. I believe this to be a science based judgment. It is not constructive since there is no foundation on which to build.
,
but thanks anyway.
vukcevic (10:16:55) :
“A question I have asked before: how do your cycles agree with nobrainer’s ?”
I have no knowledge, method or time to go into proper appraisal of other contributors’ ideas, since you do that far better then I ever could.
This is a ‘cop out’ answer as you do have the knowledge to compute the times where your curve goes to zero and you do have the time [since you have the time to visit this and other blogs], and you do have the method as it is simply a listing of the times of minima followed by a listing of nobrainer’s minima for, say, the last 3000 years [only about 30 values]. You should have the motivation too as you are pushing a theory. I have little motivation as I think it is not worth it, but presumably you think your theory is worth it [I could be wrong on this 🙂 ]
tallbloke (23:22:22) :
on Ray Tomes, he did actually consult with world leading experts on GR in the formulation of his theory.
And here is what Ray says about that:
“I have generally had little joy with GR experts. I find that they often say things like “but that bending of light is half due to gravity and half due to the metric” or something similar. When I ask did the vector of the light change by 1 or 2 as a result of passing near the Sun they go quiet. I don’t think that that sort of words helps.”
Apart from the problems he is having the GR, there are other equally problematic issues:
Ray’s fundamental thesis is that [in his words]:
“GR effect by planets on radiation and relativistic matter in the Sun’s core causes slight convection cells in the solar interior leading to a varying amount of heat reaching the surface and to the production of magnetic fields”.
The solar interior is stable against convection and cannot [and therefore does not] convect. The condition for convection is only met in the convective zone, so no convections cells from the core. You can learn more about the interior [and about what we hope to learn from the SDO satellite].
Unfortunately, one cannot see what the outcome at bautforum turned out to be as Ray seems to be banned from the site…
Leif Svalgaard (11:36:02) :
You can learn more about the interior [and about what we hope to learn from the SDO satellite].
from this link: http://esa-spaceweather.net/spweather/workshops/esww/proc/thompson.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (10:37:29) :
vukcevic (10:16:55) :
…it must be shown that there is good reason to do so, ………… establish that there is something worth investigating.
Babcock-Leighton theory does not explicitly tell us why Maunder or Dalton type minima occur or why there are prolonged minima at 1810 and 1913, why medium size SC19 was slotted between two strongest cycles ever.
I could not think of a better reason within solar periodicity (except understanding why cycles happen at all), than to attempt to find out why these anomalies do take place.
My conclusion is:
Planetary orbital resonances generate impulses at specific times as defined by equation:
COS[2pi(t-1941)/118] + COS[2pi(t-1941)/96] = 0
resulting in anomalies within the solar cycles sequence.
and shown (not to scale) in
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/Anomalies.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Anomalies.gif
Two factors are rounded off (118 = approx 4*S or 10*J ; 96 = approx J+U or even 8*J=94.9, whatever combination used, out of 4 possible, only significant change is the part of the Maunder minimum graph, but still very clearly identifiable (118-96 = 22 years, one Hale cycle).
vukcevic (12:16:15) :
Babcock-Leighton theory does not explicitly tell us why Maunder or Dalton type minima occur or why there are prolonged minima at 1810 and 1913, why medium size SC20 was slotted between two strongest cycles ever.
B-L theory easily does that [and in several incarnations of the theory]. I think Figure 2 of Dikpati’s paper http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati-Prediction-2005GL025221.pdf clearly shows that. I come to the same result using the very weak polar fields observed in 1965 [to the extent they could even be observed directly – below the noise level], so although the B-L theories are still hashing out the details [and boundary conditions], the theory itself has no problem with SC20.
attempt to find out why these anomalies do take place.
These are not anomalies anymore than rain in London on Tuesday is an anomaly because it didn’t rain Monday or Wednesday.
The build up of the polar fields is observed to be a rather random process because it is observed that only a handful of ‘surges’ of magnetic flux are getting to the poles [1/1000 of the total].
But that is not the main reason your formula has no use. The main reason is that it is not particularly good, in spite of your persistent claims that it is. Spend some time on comparing your retrodictions with nobrainer’s to get a feel for what poor correlation looks like.
Leif,
That we knew, of course, but more importantly that the Sun’s AM around the BC is precisely offset by the planet’s, so that no ‘extra’ AM is available for spin-orbit coupling
What kind of logic is this? The Sun’s AM varies from 0 to 4.0E40 almost
If it’s not transferred from the planets, where else can it come from than from the Sun’s own rotation?
vukcevic (12:16:15) :
Babcock-Leighton theory […] why medium size SC20 was slotted between two strongest cycles ever.
Let me try to make Dikpati’s result [which is part of a physical model using the induction equation on a realistic solar interior] intuitively clear to you. In her model the poloidal magnetic field from several [2 or 3] solar cycles are present at depth at the same time in the dynamo scheme, but these fields have opposite polarities from cycle to cycle and counteract each other, so two or three strong cycles invariably results in a small or medium cycle [a la SC20 after SC18 and 19, and SC10 after SC8 and 9, and SC5 after 3 and 4]. So, from her model, there is no anomaly. This is but one example. In my scheme there is no anomaly either.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (03:08:38) – “[…] But as the inner solar system is dominated by the mass of the Sun, the planetary trajectories are ‘near ellipses’ with the Sun at or near one of the ellipse focal points. […] […] Leif asserted that observations show the Earth follows almost exactly an elliptical orbit around the Sun, not the SSBC. […] […] […] focal point […] is at or near the Suns centre of mass.”
Thank you Carsten. If anyone can point me to where Leif said that, I will be grateful – this is important.
Carsten – “But does this change anything wrt. spin-orbit coupling or such? No. Pondering over approximated orbit focal points might give some insight to how gravity works, but it really isn’t a central issue.”
This is an insightful comment, as it highlights that we are not all looking at this discussion through a “spin-orbit” lens. For some of us, spin-orbit coupling is not at the gravity centre of our minds today.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
pochas (07:23:45) – ““geodesic” […] in modern thought, bodies do not orbit”
Thank you for bringing this up pochas.
One of the challenges in an interdisciplinary discussion is that we bring different dialects from our respective backgrounds. For example, I use the term ‘orbit’ the way it is used in chaos theory. What I am finding really interesting in this discussion is that many are so unwilling (it seems) to consider the time-integrated properties of ‘orbits’ – but I realize not everyone has been hammered by the same paradigm-shifts that have rippled through disciplines in which I have studied & researched in the past.
Interdisciplinary discussions are the best kind. Thank you for sharing.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Vukcevic: Thank you for reminding us to not allow excessive focus on amplitudes to swamp our attention to the (arguably more important) issue of phasing.
I get your point about null points and resonance – this is, in my view, the salient point for readers to take away (trying to put any cyclo-phobia aside for a second, if possible) from what you (from an electrical engineer’s perspective) have introduced to this discussion.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
In response to tallbloke (00:15:13)
Thank you for your comments tallbloke.
I don’t have time for books, but if there is a related research article online I’ll be grateful if you can share the link.
A related article is:
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401
(full article is available free – online – both html & pdf)
I’m not saying I agree with the interpretation & conclusions – in fact I have strong reasons to suspect confounding based upon other research in which I have participated. Nonetheless, it is important that ideas like this get through, as they provide stimulating context that advances the starting frame of subsequent discussion.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
In response to Leif Svalgaard (21:50:20) – regarding UV variation over solar cycles:
There is more to the story according to my understanding — but I have no interest in digging through files to find the references at this time – perhaps another day.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Leif Svalgaard (08:16:15) – “Progress happens when we can lop off branches of the ‘decision tree’ and the AM spin-orbit mechanism can now be lopped off and that is what all need to acknowledge so that ‘progress’ may be made along a different branch.”
As I’ve said above Leif, this hasn’t been given the thorough treatment that will put it to rest for all parties involved in the discussion – and I’m not just speaking of sociological momentum. I expect some will want to probe what happens when the planets and the sun are not treated as simple points, but rather as rotating balls of layers of spatiotemporally-heterogeneous viscous non-idealized fluids with non-laminar boundary conditions, etc., etc., etc., etc. I don’t think you can stop these people with rational ideas based on today’s conventional thinking — but it is perhaps good that they run into someone like you because it helps them learn about how they might adjust their lines of inquiry & presentation.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Leif Svalgaard (11:36:02) – “Unfortunately, one cannot see what the outcome at bautforum turned out to be as Ray seems to be banned from the site…”
There is a note about that – posted at
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a
Sounds like some pretty messy politics.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Geoff Sharp (04:56:50) – “I still do not have an answer to my question…its not a strawman, and there is a very clear reason for the question. If you dont know just say so.”
Leif Svalgaard (06:18:34) – “The reason for the question, please.”
Following this with interest…
As both you and Carsten have shown, calculations show zero changes in angular momentum in the total system.
The figures I have from Carsten show total angular momentum for the solar system as constant at 3.12621E+043 over 2 months in 1940. My own figures ( which don’t include Pluto like Carsten’s do) give it as 3.13285E+043 and constant over 20 years from 1940 onwards, with some variation after the 5th decimal place. My data for 2000 years seems to be the same, but is rather noisy.
Paul Vaughan (13:08:44) :
Leif asserted that observations show the Earth follows almost exactly an elliptical orbit around the Sun, not the SSBC. […] […] […] focal point […] is at or near the Suns centre of mass.”
Thank you Carsten. If anyone can point me to where Leif said that, I will be grateful – this is important.
not quite what I showed. An earlier discussion on this blog was about if the Earth-Sun distance in any way was influenced by the barycenter and the result was that it was not. This has nothing to do with orbits or ellipses. Carsten’s [and other’s] argument at the time was that if the Earth is orbiting the barycenter then if the barycenter was on the opposite side of the center of the Sun than the Earth, the distance between the Sun and the Earth should be less [by several solar radii] than when the barycenter would be on the same side as the Earth. The highly accurate JPL ephemeris showed that it makes no difference to the distance where the barycenter was. For people that would not accept that astronomers know how to calculate orbits [that was one of the objection – that it was all approximate or based on assumptions or whatnot] we offered an observational test: the total solar irradiance TSI depends on the distance [squared] and our measurements of TSI are now so precise that they confirm the ephemeris [ http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png and
http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA11.png illustrate the barycenter prediction and compares with observations]
As I’ve said above Leif, this hasn’t been given the thorough treatment that will put it to rest for all parties involved in the discussion – and I’m not just speaking of sociological momentum. I expect some will want to probe what happens when the planets and the sun are not treated as simple points…
The JPL ephemeris calculations do not treat the bodies as points but takes into account the physical characteristics of the bodies as far as they are known to have influence on the ‘orbits’, but that is not really the point, which is that after THAT has been taken care off, then there is the distribution of matter in the Galaxy, and after that, the movement of the Galaxy and interaction with other galaxies, etc. This will never end because it is not fact-problem, but a belief-problem. The best we can hope for is that the discussion be taken to sites devoted to such things.
Paul Vaughan (13:08:44) :
Leif asserted that observations show the Earth follows almost exactly an elliptical orbit around the Sun, not the SSBC. […] […] […] focal point […] is at or near the Suns centre of mass.”
Thank you Carsten. If anyone can point me to where Leif said that, I will be grateful – this is important.
Not quite what I showed [and not really important]. An earlier discussion on this blog was about if the Earth-Sun distance in any way was influenced by the barycenter and the result was that it was not. This has nothing to do with orbits or ellipses. Carsten’s [and other’s] argument at the time was that if the Earth is orbiting the barycenter then if the barycenter was on the opposite side of the center of the Sun than the Earth, the distance between the Sun and the Earth should be less [by several solar radii] than when the barycenter would be on the same side as the Earth. The highly accurate JPL ephemeris showed that it makes no difference to the distance where the barycenter was. For people that would not accept that astronomers know how to calculate orbits [that was one of the objection – that it was all approximate or based on assumptions or whatnot] we offered an observational test: the total solar irradiance TSI depends on the distance [squared] and our measurements of TSI are now so precise that they confirm the ephemeris [ http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png and
http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA11.png illustrate the barycenter prediction and compares with observations]
As I’ve said above Leif, this hasn’t been given the thorough treatment that will put it to rest for all parties involved in the discussion – and I’m not just speaking of sociological momentum. I expect some will want to probe what happens when the planets and the sun are not treated as simple points…
The JPL ephemeris calculations do not treat the bodies as points but takes into account the physical characteristics of the bodies as far as they are known to have influence on the ‘orbits’, but that is not really the point, which is that after THAT has been taken care off, then there is the distribution of matter in the Galaxy, and after that, the movement of the Galaxy and interaction with other galaxies, etc. This will never end, because it is not fact-problem, but a belief-problem. The best we can hope for is that the discussion be taken to sites devoted to such things [young Earth, creationism, iron suns, electric universes, planetary influences, correcting Einstein, etc]
idlex (13:43:28) :
give it as 3.13285E+043 and constant over 20 years from 1940 onwards, with some variation after the 5th decimal place.
That it is constant is not the issue [nobody asserts that it is not]. The issue is whether the variation of the AM of any of the bodies is a mirror image of the variation of the AM of the other bodies combined, calculated without taking rotation into account. Remember their crucial argument is that the Sun must rotate slower of faster to compensate for its change of orbital AM. If the AM of the planets precisely mirrors that of the Sun and precisely compensates for it, there is no AM ‘left over’ to change the rotation of the Sun.
I have also looked at the agreement between yours and Carsten’s numbers and I think we can all agree that there are no mistakes.
Leif Svalgaard (14:02:59) :
Paul Vaughan (13:08:44) :
The JPL ephemeris calculations do not treat the bodies as points but takes into account the physical characteristics of the bodies as far as they are known to have influence on the ‘orbits’, but that is not really the point, which is that after THAT has been taken care off, then there is the distribution of matter in the Galaxy, and after that, the movement of the Galaxy and interaction with other galaxies, etc. This will never end, because it is not fact-problem, but a belief-problem. The best we can hope for is that the discussion be taken to sites devoted to such things [young Earth, creationism, iron suns, electric universes, planetary influences, correcting Einstein, etc]
I kid you not:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/posters/P4_01_Lynch_Poster.pdf
lgl (12:41:05) :
What kind of logic is this? The Sun’s AM varies from 0 to 4.0E40 almost. If it’s not transferred from the planets, where else can it come from than from the Sun’s own rotation?
Methinks the hundreds of postings here have been in vain. All the calculations show that when the Sun’s AM goes up by X, the planets AM goes down by X. So there is where it comes from. Because of this the total stays constant: constant + X[Sun] – X[planets] = constant.
Its time to get off the spin orbit coupling…on the small amount of work done and without checking it myself it looks as if angular momentum has been conserved. There are other ways that angular momentum can be conserved, and that conservation can theoretically adjust rotation speed.
This is where I am getting to re the Jupiter orbit point.
Thank you idlex for being honest with your answer to Jupiter’s point of orbit question. Its a pity there hasn’t been anyone else that has come forward, perhaps frightened to put their neck on the line?…. Still waiting on an answer from Svalgaard.
BTW I prefer to be called by real name in this blog.
For future reference I include links to modern ephemeris calculations [beware, heavy stuff]
http://astrometric.sai.msu.ru/1mas_22Kopejkin.ppt
http://www.imcce.fr/fr/presentation/equipes/ASD/inpop/inpop06_preprint.pdf
In response to Leif Svalgaard (14:19:49)
I had a quick glance at the article to which you linked – nothing in there leaped out at me as being easy (for devious minds) to connect with the most interesting patterns I have encountered in geophysical data. I’ll take a more careful look at the article sometime to keep well-informed of the details of the various claims (including the more “provocative” ones) – but this is not a priority for today.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Leif Svalgaard (14:02:59)
“Not quite what I showed [and not really important].”
Bailey’s error was made public – I shared the relevant link upthread. Others in this forum also seem well-informed about that (now old) news.
I’ll repeat my request:
If anyone can provide the link to the earlier discussion Leif & Carsten mention, I will appreciate it — this is important – thank you.
Paul Vaughan (15:58:42) :
I’ll repeat my request:
If anyone can provide the link to the earlier discussion Leif & Carsten mention, I will appreciate it — this is important – thank you.
Well, you can try this thread
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/20/suns-protective-bubble-is-shrinking/
See Leifs reply to me for example
Leif Svalgaard (18:00:29) :
[…] Using the laws of gravity, JPL [ http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides ] calculates theoretically the distance between any two solar system bodies, and the calculated distance between the Sun and the Earth is just what it should be from the Earth following a simple ellipse around the Sun [apart from very, very small planetary perturbations].
“Leif Svalgaard (14:02:59)
[…] This will never end, because it is not fact-problem, but a belief-problem. The best we can hope for is that […]”
I will acknowledge that the information needed to kill this discussion permanently is not available.
As for this particular thread, I’ll keep dropping in to see if Geoff gets a ‘satisfying’ answer from you (or anyone else qualified to provide a ‘satisfying’ answer with authority) — That standoff, to me, is by far the most interesting development that has come out of this thread, as it is a prime example of how trans-disciplinary communication barriers impair progress.
Leif Svalgaard (14:13:00) :
I have also looked at the agreement between yours and Carsten’s numbers and I think we can all agree that there are no mistakes.
That is good news, in the sense that we have a conclusion confirmed through independent analysis. I had really not expected to reach this point.
Geoff Sharp (15:41:59) – “Its time to get off the spin orbit coupling […]”
Geoff is right – the re-hammering of something which has been so well-addressed (repeatedly here) is not productive.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
In response to Carsten Arnholm, Norway (16:25:45)
Thank you for the prompt response Carsten. If anyone else can produce (additional) relevant links – thank you sincerely.
Regards,
Paul.
I’ve put my solar system orbital simulation model online. It isn’t really ready to go, but it’ll just about do for now. There’s If you zoom in on the sun, and increase the time step dt, you can see the motion of the barycentre.
I’ve put it in with my siphon simulation models. An “orbital siphon” is what I called a 200,000+ km chain of masses extending radially from the Earth’s equator into space, and in geostationary orbit. The siphon is a close cousin of a space elevator. But with a siphon, if the chain of masses is extended far enough out into space (about 180,000 km, from memory) the net centrifugal forces on the chain exceed the gravitational forces, and this means that, unless restrained, the chain of masses rises. If masses are released from the top, and fed in at the bottom, the length of the chain stays the same. The result is a continuous stream of masses rising up on the chain, and being released into space at velocities which can exceed escape velocity from the solar system. Unlike space elevators, no power is needed. Or rather, power will be drawn from the kinetic energy of the spinning Earth (to which the siphon is tightly coupled), slowly reducing its rotation rate.
I modelled various siphons in exactly the same way as I model the solar system, as a set of bodies in motion in a gravitational field, with the slight difference that the bodies are connected by elastic cables. One of the reasons that I wrote my solar system simulation model was to see where vehicles released from siphons into space would go in free orbital motion.
Anyway, that’s one of the improbable ideas that interests me.
Leif Svalgaard:
I have also looked at the agreement between yours and Carsten’s numbers and I think we can all agree that there are no mistakes.
Well, not any large ones. But I think my figures are very noisy, and I’d like to improve them. Carsten has much better figures.
Geoff Sharp:
Thank you idlex for being honest with your answer to Jupiter’s point of orbit question.
No problem. I’ve actually been quite sympathetic to this ‘spin-orbit coupling’ notion – the idea that as the Sun loses angular momentum as it gets closer to the barycentre it gains compensatory spin momentum, and this could bring it out in a rash of sunspots. But I really think that Leif has pretty thoroughly demolished that idea, by showing (with the assistance of me and Carsten) that as the Sun loses angular momentum the planets gain angular momentum, and the total angular momentum of the solar system remains constant. E. M. Smith was asking upthread where the Sun’s angular momentum went, and the answer is, as Anna V so elegantly put it, was that it goes “dancing with the planets”.
That said, I’m very simpleminded about all these things. I like to reduce things down to their simplest terms. And my simulation model of the solar system is very, very simple. All it consists of are a number of bodies accelerating and decelerating under the influence of gravitation. There are no orbits in my model. There are no barycentres. There are no ellipses. There is no energy either. Nor is there any momentum. I don’t calculate these things. Or at least I didn’t calculate angular momentum until Leif asked me to calculate it. And when he’s done asking me, I’ll probably strip out the calculations from my model, because they’re not really part of it.
I probably won’t be entirely convinced about this matter until I can think of a way of getting my simple model to explore it. And how would I do that? Well, I was thinking of building a model of the sun, as a spinning set of masses held together by ties, in place of my current point mass Sun – and seeing whether anything happened to it once I’d bolted this new Sun into place in the middle of my simulation model, and started the whole thing up again. But doing something like this is easier said than done. I very soon realised that the 200 or so point masses in my proposed new Sun would collapse into the centre. And what sort of internal structure was I going to give this new Sun? Could it be treated as a hollow polyhedron? Could it be treated as a ‘solid’ body at all? The idea of creating a new Sun that consisted of a whole set of point masses tied together somehow or other began to look more and more difficult, as more and more questions got asked about it.
But I have another proposal. What if I think of the Sun as being a perfectly spherical body, a ‘flat’ surface on which I can place a perfectly spherical ball bearing, with zero rolling resistance? What would happen to such a ball bearing? Would it just sit there immobile on the Sun’s surface? Or would it go rolling around the Sun in some funny way? Since, on the surface of the Sun, the lateral or tangential force of the Sun’s gravitational attraction would be zero, the only tangential forces acting upon the ball bearing would be from the orbiting planets. That’s how it intuitively looks to me, doing this particular thought experiment. But what do I know? Not much! But perhaps my simulation model could tell me what happens to that ball bearing, if I could just think how to model it. But that’s probably easier said than done.
Anyway, that’s the sort of approach I’d take to it all: simplify it right down to the simplest, atomic components.
idlex: What would happen to such a ball bearing? Would it just sit there immobile on the Sun’s surface? Or would it go rolling around the Sun in some funny way?
Well, if we think of the planetary system as just consisting of Jupiter, a ball bearing on the surface of the Sun that happened to be exactly between it and the centre of the Sun would stay exactly where it was. The same would be true of a ball bearing on the exact opposite side of the Sun. It would stay right there. But the ones in between would go rolling round the planet towards Jupiter, some faster than others. The result would be that there’d always be more ball bearings on the side of the Sun nearest Jupiter, and furthest way, and not many in between.
And these small forces due to the circling planets are probably what are called “tidal forces”, because the exact same thing happens on the Earth. And I think that, on the Sun, from what Leif says, all those little ball bearings piled up on the surface of the Sun raise a hill that is about 1 mm high. Does it really matter if one bit of the Sun is 1 mm higher than another?
idlex (19:40:40) :
Geoff Sharp:
Thank you idlex for being honest with your answer to Jupiter’s point of orbit question.
The correct answer is that there are no ‘orbits’ at all. Everything in the solar system follows a set of world lines [one for each particle], which can be very complicated but for the Sun and planets look like a twisting helical path. Now, it is convenient not to have to deal with these [hard to intuit] world lines [that are time-like curves in space-time] and instead to chose a reference system that travels with the solar system, either a Sun-centered, or Earth-centered, or Barycenter centered one. In such a coordinate system the bodies will describe some approximation to the ‘orbits’ we are used to, circles, ellipses, or near parabolas [for comets].
In General Relativity there is a phenomenon called ‘frame dragging’ where rotating bodies modify the curvature of space around them – the Lense-Thirring effect, or gravitomagnetism [because the effect is analogous to magnetic fields]. This effect is extremely small [one in trillions] and can barely be measured. There is a spacecraft [Gravity Probe B] whose data is being analyzed for evidence of this effect. Preliminary results confirm the existence of frame dragging. [By some coincidence the investigators sit just a few offices away from mine at Stanford].
So there is your coupling between orbits and rotation. The effect is unfortunately extremely small under the conditions found in the solar system [the tides are mountains in comparison]. It is, however, just like the AM-idea, the starting point of equally pseudo-scientific explanations of everything. Google it to find inspiration.
Leif Svalgaard (20:30:35) :
The correct answer is that there are no ‘orbits’ at all
You rightly use JPL to substantiate the position of Earth orbiting the Sun and not the SSB. But when asked which point The Jovians orbit you fall into some sort of scientific quasi-land. Be a man and give us an answer.
Do the Jovians orbit the Sun or the SSB.
(and dont say neither, or you maybe subject to some ridicule)
idlex (19:40:40) :
Lets drop spin orbit coupling, while the branch is pruned its not totally cut off, and who knows, someone like you may discover a connection by going down an unused road.
Angular momentum has many facets , and Spin coupling certainly wasnt raised my me, velocity is only one aspect. Lets see where this Jovian orbit might lead us.
anna v (07:54:03) :
The double counting does not come in the numerical integrations. It comes when people handwave and say “Jupiter this” and “Saturn that”, without doing any calculations, having in mind images of orbits.
No hand waving here…we have solid JPL data.
Geoff Sharp (20:48:48) :
(and dont say neither, or you maybe subject to some ridicule)
Bring it on…
Planetary influence can no longer be considered “pseudo-science” The majority of the background data is via JPL, with historic records from Solanki & Usoskin and the rest of the 14C crew. We may possibly now have a “physic’s” based connection that needs to be tested.
Geoff Sharp (15:41:59) :
For me, the solution to your question “This is where I am getting to re the Jupiter orbit point.” is similar to the way I see that the sun revolves around the barycenter.
I make an effective mass of all the planets + sun except Jupiter. I now have an effective two body mode. Instantaneously, the solution is two ellipses with one focus on the barycenter, so instantaneously Jupiter orbits the barycenter in an ellipse. Orbit gets complicated once internal to the effective mass motions are in with the next dt, but I believe the answer is still the same. It orbits the barycenter.
anna v (21:30:22) :
It orbits the barycenter.
Go to the top of the class.
idlex (19:40:40) – “[…] But I really think that Leif has pretty thoroughly demolished that idea […]”
I can’t buy into this language. What happened is that the obvious was shown. In the model I built (which had a very specific purpose), you might say “there’s no sun” – because my “sun” is just a mirror of the planets (loosely speaking) – that’s the whole point of introducing a barycentre – to make the math dead simple.
Now I’m also becoming curious about “the other kind of model” (which is useful for other purposes) after reading idlex’s sales pitches – very intriguing posts you made idlex [(17:56:31), (19:40:40), & (20:12:03)]. Leif’s comments [(20:30:35) = world lines & frame dragging] were also very helpful.
I don’t buy these arguments that small amplitudes are irrelevant – more on that another time.
anna v (05:02:09) :
Of what Einsteinian relativistic effect are we talking about?
So, me thinks there is semantic confusion in this whole concept.
I am a particle physicist and I think that to tell somebody at the level of Leif’s knowledge that they are out of their depth about relativity is at least funny. Relativity is the sine qua non for astrophysics.
Hi Anna, the possible effect described by Ray Tomes in the thread linked in the post you commented on. http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/72665-explaining-planetary-alignments-relationship-sunspot-cycle.html
Ray himself thinks that semantic confusion is partly to blame for the misunderstanding which arises too.
Leif and I are just having our usual wind-up where he heaps abuse and insult on people putting forward theories about effects he won’t entertain, and then I castigate him for failing to back up his from-the-hip falsifications of these ideas. I have huge respect for Leif and his work. It’s just that we are coming from two different directions on this stuff: He is sure that there can’t be a physical causal mechanism for planetary effects on the sun of a sufficient magnitude to affect it’s activity, and dismisses correlations as spurious not matter how good they are. I think about the correlations and realise that since we are always discovering new things about the universe, there could be some causal mechanism which will account for the correlations we haven’t thought of yet.
For his own rhetorical reasons Leif characterises this as ‘wanting to change the laws of physics’, but I regard it as a commonsense pursuit in the face of our obvious ignorance of how the universe works. Sure, we have models which work well enough in some respects, but as far as I can see, there are enough anomalies and mysteries we can’t explain e.g. galactic megawalls in space, that we dismiss the possibility of a different explanation at a loss to our chances of making new discoveries.
Leif is right to keep the bar for acceptance high, but wrong to build a wall to new ideas. The balance is kept in our bickering. 😉
Leif,
Methinks the hundreds of postings here have been in vain
Me too, your are as solar-centric as you’ve always been, feeling free to move the BC around.
“constant + X[Sun] – X[planets] = constant.” Fine, that proves the BC is the BC and nothing more. I call it transferring AM, you don’t, which is also fine.
But when the Sun gains AM it also gains rotational energy around the BC, which is not possible, so the rotation around it’s own axis must decrease to cancel.
Same thing is happening with the Earth-Moon system. Tidal friction slows down the Earth’s rotation. The rotational energy around the E-M BC must remain constant so the Earth has to move away from the BC and then so will the Moon of course, increasing the E-M distance.
Leif Svalgaard (06:18:34) :
if I define the ‘core’ to be the mass within a cubic inch at the south pole, I’ll get a different answer. And since the displacement 140m is already assumed, it seems hard to argue that there are open questions about what causes it [how much mass move how far].
The 140m is not assumed, it is calculated from data Ray clearly states to be uncertain due to disagreement between other physicists, but within a margin which is sufficient for his purpose in proposing an effect.
If the Sun suddenly jumped 300m ‘vertically’ with respect to Mercury’s orbit, Mercury would jump 300m too. But perhaps you don’t mean that, but only that the Sun expanded in all directions by 300m, in which case there will no effect, neither on Mercury nor on the Sun in terms of horizontal displacements.
The whole sun and it’s core go where the combined effects of the planets put it. It doesn’t ‘suddenly jump’. The vertical motion of the sun with respect to the barycentre oscillates between extremes over an average period of around 5 1/2 years. If the overall amplitude of the core shift is 280m this will cause mercury’s orbit to oscillate very slightly. As Grav stated in a follow up reply on my mercury orbit thread on the astronomy forum
“However, since I determined it for the sun “suddenly” moving the distance, instead of gradually as Mercury slowly follows suit, that just might be enough to reduce it another order of magnitude or so as well.”
What is the standard model explanation for the corrugations please Leif?
They are hot material welling up near strong magnetic fields in active regions. Take away the magnetic field and the corrugations go away too.
This is a non sequiteur. There could be a modulating factor which guides the positioning of the magnetic fields. Actually, I’m wondering if we are talking about the same thing, given your other reply about the 7km amplitude of the corrugations. The website with the graphic you linked (lost the link in a disk crash) showed large circular ‘mounds’ on the surface of the sun, the diameter of which was given in earth diameters (can’t remember how many – five?) This was linked to a discussion of apparent changes in the suns diameter over the solar cycle.
Checking the data I may have given the size of the corrugations as too small if half a kilometer is what was mentioned. The precise measurements by the RHESSI satellite place the height at 0.010 arc second which is 7.2 km…. contrast this to your 140m
In his thread, Ray points out that the movement of the dense matter nearer the core of the sun by 140m would have a much greater effect on the surface, notwithstanding the redistribution of matter by any convection currents which might be set up nearer the surface in the more fluid parts of the sun. Presumably, the pressure waves generated might shift stuff around too.
Please could you tell me if these regions you descibe are dynamic, and moving around, or if they are quasi-stable, how long that stability lasts on average.
Thanks.
Leif Svalgaard (12:34:05) :
to
vukcevic (12:16:15) :
B-L theory easily does that [and in several incarnations of the theory]. I think Figure 2 of Dikpati’s paper
http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati-Prediction-2005GL025221.pdf
clearly shows that. I come to the same result using the very weak polar fields observed in 1965 [to the extent they could even be observed directly – below the noise level], so although the B-L theories are still hashing out the details [and boundary conditions], the theory itself has no problem with SC20.
Just a short note:
Your reference to Fig.2 in the above document (reproduced here),
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/LS-Fig2.gif
not only does not give credibility to Babcock-Leighton theory but looks like may discredit it for good.
Any polar fields measured before 1970 appear to be unreliable, and back extrapolation from the sunspot number, it is not only dubious but scientifically of very little value.
“Hashing out the details B-L theories” which are still going on some 50 years since it was formulated, to make it fit “for all man for all time” it is just a joke, indulged by people who consider themselves avanguard of the world of science!
My two formulae, one for polar fields
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
and the other identifying all known anomalies
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/Anomalies.gif
could be considered to have superior descriptive and predictive power of what is actually going on.
Here are rest my case (for the moment).
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk
We are taught that the planets orbit the sun. However it is more complex that.
Jupiter, the outer planets and the sun move around the solar system centre of mass. This can be over a million km outside of the suns surface.
The Earth moves around the sun. Actually, it moves around a point 450 km from the centre of the sun.
The reasons are explained here:
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/orbit2004.htm
So the Earth motion is its motion around the sun the motion of the sun around the solar system centre of mass.
This additional part of the Earth’s motion is usually ignored but it has important effects on Earth’s climate.
Leif Svalgaard (12:34:05) :
to
vukcevic (12:16:15) :
B-L theory easily does that [and in several incarnations of the theory]. I think Figure 2 of Dikpati’s paper
http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati-Prediction-2005GL025221.pdf
clearly shows that. I come to the same result using the very weak polar fields observed in 1965 [to the extent they could even be observed directly – below the noise level], so although the B-L theories are still hashing out the details [and boundary conditions], the theory itself has no problem with SC20.
Just a short note:
Your reference to Fig.2 in the above document (reproduced here),
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/LS-Fig2.gif
not only does not give credibility to Babcock-Leighton theory but looks like may discredit it for good.
Any polar fields measured before 1970 appear to be unreliable, and back extrapolation from the sunspot number, it is not only dubious but scientifically of very little value.
“Hashing out the details B-L theories” which are still going on some 50 years since it was formulated, to make it fit “for all man for all time” it is just a joke, indulged by people who consider themselves
a vanguard of the world of science!
My two formulae, one for polar fields
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
and the other identifying all known anomalies
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/Anomalies.gif
could be considered to have superior descriptive and predictive power of what is actually going on.
Here are rest my case (for the moment).
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk
Geoff Sharp (20:48:48) :
to
Leif Svalgaard (20:30:35) :
The correct answer is that there are no ‘orbits’ at all
You rightly use JPL to substantiate the position of Earth orbiting the Sun and not the SSB. But when asked which point The Jovians orbit you fall into some sort of scientific quasi-land.
Geoff, Idlex has perhaps implicitly identified what may be the root of the difficulties in reaching an understanding on these questions: Nomenclature. If the same words have different meanings to different people it gets complicated.
Let me try to narrow down what ‘orbit’ may mean here. One, possibly too strict, definition is that it only refers to ‘conic section’ type curves, i.e. straight lines, circles, ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas. If using this definition, Leif is right in stating that there are no orbits. Every object in the solar system actually follows a ‘world line’, a curve more complex than these simple ‘conic section’ approximations.
The JPL software attempts to compute trajectories representing the ‘world lines’ from the laws of gravity, much like what the simulators of both Idlex’ and myself do (but the JPL one is more sophisticated). Clearly, what these methods produce are still approximations of the real world, but they are better approximations in the sense that they don’t assume orbits (or orbit focal points) as an input premise, but rather provide resulting trajectories as output.
So we have ‘orbits’ and we have ‘world lines’. For practical purposes, it is often possible to approximate the ‘world lines’ using the much simpler conical section ‘orbits’ for the planets, asteroids or comets. This works for a while, depending on what you want to do, when there is one dominant object (the Sun) and when there are few disturbances.
However, there are real world cases where such simple approximations do not work. In 1994, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 crashed spectacularly into Jupiter, it was correctly predicted and widely reported in the media. The predictions would never have succeeded using a simple ‘orbit’ for SL9, since it was disturbed by a close encounter with Jupiter in 1992. So I presume they used numerical integration (the JPL software) to compute the SL9 trajectory more closely matching the ‘world line’ and thus figure out in advance that SL9 would actually hit Jupiter and when. It worked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9
So “which point” do “The Jovians orbit”? “Jove” means Jupiter, but I guess you mean Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Do they have to ‘orbit’ the same ‘point’? As you may have seen from my previous posts, I don’t think so. Astronomical observations or accurate numerical integration of the ‘world line’ trajectory will provide the answer if needed. But I don’t understand why it is needed.
idlex (19:40:40) :
But I have another proposal. What if I think of the Sun as being a perfectly spherical body, a ‘flat’ surface on which I can place a perfectly spherical ball bearing, with zero rolling resistance? What would happen to such a ball bearing? Would it just sit there immobile on the Sun’s surface? Or would it go rolling around the Sun in some funny way? Since, on the surface of the Sun, the lateral or tangential force of the Sun’s gravitational attraction would be zero, the only tangential forces acting upon the ball bearing would be from the orbiting planets. That’s how it intuitively looks to me, doing this particular thought experiment. But what do I know? Not much! But perhaps my simulation model could tell me what happens to that ball bearing, if I could just think how to model it. But that’s probably easier said than done.
Lets explore this. You say that in your model presently the sun is a point source, so it has no spin?.
Take a small satellite around the sun, orbiting at the distance of the known sun radius. That could be considered a dV ( dxdydz) volume element of the real sun. Give it a rotation about the sun to agree with the sun rotation about its axis. Put it at the equator for a start.
Would it not be like your ball bearing, if the mass is small? Then see what happens in your simulation?
lgl (01:03:56) :
But when the Sun gains AM it also gains rotational energy around the BC, which is not possible, so the rotation around it’s own axis must decrease to cancel.
This is spin orbit coupling again lgl…not a lot different to all bodies in an elliptical orbit, the velocity increases but the rotation can stay the same…just as it does on earth with our slightly elliptical orbit, but the length of day does not vary.
Same thing is happening with the Earth-Moon system. Tidal friction slows down the Earth’s rotation. The rotational energy around the E-M BC must remain constant so the Earth has to move away from the BC and then so will the Moon of course, increasing the E-M distance.
Now your talking…and the reverse is also true. Tidal friction and more causes the slowdown which is not important, but AM must be conserved and the moon responds with a greater radius (and some say a change in rotation rate on the moon). Its an observed trade off in angular momentum. Turn the tables and move Earth closer to the moon and you would expect another trade off. The Sun does this dance every day, changing distance with the Jovians, that is exactly what JPL tells us.
Geoff Sharp:
Lets drop spin orbit coupling, while the branch is pruned its not totally cut off, and who knows, someone like you may discover a connection by going down an unused road.
Why does it have to be someone like me? Why not someone like you? Why don’t you build your own simulation model? Or figure out how to calculate orbits using orbital elements like Anna V does? Why do you dismiss doing that sort of thing as “re-inventing the wheel”?
When Galileo took a set of balls and rolled them down inclined planes, and measured how long it took for them to roll down, I bet some guy said to him, “Hey, Galileo! Why are you re-inventing the wheel? ” Because balls are just wheels. And every kid in the world has rolled balls down inclined planes. And wheels too. And every kid in the world knows that they accelerate. It’s something people learn when they’re 2 years old. Or earlier. So why was Galileo rolling balls down inclined planes? Was he a bit retarded or something?
But Galileo wanted to know something that most kids don’t know. He wanted to know how fast they accelerated. And whether the acceleration was constant.
I think that if you’re going to ask these sorts of deep questions, you have to be prepared to do things like build ramps and roll balls down them, and count the seconds it takes for them to roll down, and then mull over the numbers that came out to see whether they show anything. And Galileo’s numbers were the “soild JPL data” of the 16th century, that gave the acceleration and velocity and position of moving masses in a gravitational field.
Anyone who is going to “go down an unused road” has to do something like Galileo did. And until they’ve actually been down that road, they won’t know what they’ll find along the way.
Paul Vaughan (23:59:06) :
idlex (19:40:40) – “[…] But I really think that Leif has pretty thoroughly demolished that idea […]“
I can’t buy into this language. [snip] …after reading idlex’s sales pitches…
I’m not selling anything. I’m just expressing my agreement with Leif. I think that if there is some physical linkbetween Sun motion and the sunspot cycle, it’ll have to be found somewhere else than ‘spin-orbit coupling’.
And maybe there isn’t any link at all.
“soild JPL data”
Ooops. That should be “solid JPL data”.
lgl (01:03:56) :
to
Leif,
Methinks the hundreds of postings here have been in vain
Me too, your are as solar-centric as you’ve always been, feeling free to move the BC around.
“constant + X[Sun] – X[planets] = constant.” Fine, that proves the BC is the BC and nothing more. I call it transferring AM, you don’t, which is also fine.
But when the Sun gains AM it also gains rotational energy around the BC, which is not possible, so the rotation around it’s own axis must decrease to cancel.
lgl, it appears you have overlooked what the calculations demonstrate. It does not even try to prove anything wrt. BC. It also does not postulate the existence of spin orbit coupling like you do here. It demonstrates that
X[Sun] – X[planets] = constant.
where,
X[Sun] = Change in the Suns orbital AM
X[planets] = Change in the sum of the orbital AM for all the planets
The implication is that all variation in orbital AM over time has been accounted for because the orbital AM components all balance each other out exactly.
If you add an additional hypothetical varying AM component due to varying solar spin, it would have to be exactly balanced out by something else than orbital angular momentum, or else you would violate the conservation law. That “something else” does not appear to exist.
vukcevic (02:57:34) :
Your reference to Fig.2 in the above document (reproduced here), http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/LS-Fig2.gif
not only does not give credibility to Babcock-Leighton theory but looks like may discredit it for good.
Any polar fields measured before 1970 appear to be unreliable, and back extrapolation from the sunspot number, it is not only dubious but scientifically of very little value.
You have not understood what goes on. She does not use the polar fields [the poloidial field is not the same as the polar fields. Magnetic fields at 30 degrees can have a poloidial component]. But basically she takes the data for cycles n and n+1 and calculates the size of cycle n+2, so the small cycle 20 is the result of the large cycles 18 and 19. The very large cycle 21 in the result of cycle 19 and cycle 20. Since cycle 20 is so small, its poloidal field does not cancel the very strong poloidal fields from cycle 19, and similarly for the other cycles.
You formula [back extrapolation from the WSO data] has no physics behind it and is just cyclomania, and as usual one may ask how it matches the perfect correlations of Geoff [expecting, as usual, no answer]? The time you have spent on the present posting might have been better spent on a satisfactory reply…
idlex (04:55:58) :
Dont worry I know the path of the unused….but was leaving a little room for others. We all have our skill sets.
This debate is now verging on the non scientific, with difficulty getting a straight answer to a straight question.
Geoff Sharp (03:51:58) :
lgl (01:03:56) :
This is spin orbit coupling again lgl…not a lot different to all bodies in an elliptical orbit, the velocity increases but the rotation can stay the same…just as it does on earth with our slightly elliptical orbit, but the length of day does not vary.
I think the spin-orbit coupling is gone by now, so interest must turn to other things. lgl, It is a waste of words to keep misunderstanding the spin-orbit situation.
Tidal friction and more causes the slowdown which is not important, but AM must be conserved and the moon responds with a greater radius (and some say a change in rotation rate on the moon). Its an observed trade off in angular momentum. Turn the tables and move Earth closer to the moon and you would expect another trade off
The slowdown is the change in AM. The varying distance between the Earth and the Moon has nothing to do with this. It varies every month by 5,000,000,000 cm. The observed 30 ns/yr change in the LOD results in a 4 cm/yr increase of the lunar distance. The 5 billion cm monthly change [if you turn the tables] corresponds to a monthly 3 minute change of LOD, which clearly doesn’t happen.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (03:24:08) :
No offense, but I am hearing a lot of waffle from you and Svalgaard. Just as the Earth orbits the Sun as Svalgaard demonstrates through JPL, the Jovians orbit the SSB, also via JPL. We dont need to hear about the minor stuff. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
There is a simple test, measure a Jovian planet’s distance to the SSB and then move forward exactly 1 orbit in time, the distance will be the same (give of take a few days) then look at the planet’s distance to the Sun on both occurrences, it will be vastly different. End of story.
anna v (03:48:01) :
>i>Let’s explore this. [..] Take a small satellite around the sun, orbiting at the distance of the known sun radius. […] Give it a rotation about the sun to agree with the sun rotation about its axis. Put it at the equator for a start.
Then it would crash into the Sun. To stay in orbit at that place its speed has to be 426 km/s. The rotational speed is only 2 km/s.
anna v (03:48:01) :
Let’s explore this. [..] Take a small satellite around the sun, orbiting at the distance of the known sun radius. […] Give it a rotation about the sun to agree with the sun rotation about its axis. Put it at the equator for a start.
Then it would crash into the Sun. To stay in orbit at that place its speed has to be 436km/s. The rotational speed is only 2 km/s.
Leif Svalgaard (06:33:15) :
It varies every month by 5,000,000,000 cm.
Poor attempt, dont confuse the normal perigee/apogee distances of about 4.233 billion cm. This is where the data is hidden and has to be removed to see the net change. I am surprised to see how low you will go.
tallbloke (01:17:43) :
The 140m is not assumed, it is calculated from data. Ray clearly states…
and:
In his thread, Ray points out that the movement of the dense matter nearer the core of the sun by 140m …Nowhere in the thread does the number 140, or 280, or 300 appear.
The only number that seems to be important is the 10.5 year period and that is ‘assumed’, not calculated.
Please could you tell me if these regions you descibe are dynamic, and moving around, or if they are quasi-stable, how long that stability lasts on average.
They last as long as the active region [days to weeks]. In a very direct sense, they are the active regions. Here is more: http://www3.kis.uni-freiburg.de/~steiner/kodai.pdf and you can see them directly [as the bright areas] on http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1206/images/1206samplings_sunspot.jpg
Leif Svalgaard (07:03:14) :
anna v (03:48:01) :
Let’s explore this. [..] Take a small satellite around the sun, orbiting at the distance of the known sun radius. […] Give it a rotation about the sun to agree with the sun rotation about its axis. Put it at the equator for a start.
Then it would crash into the Sun. To stay in orbit at that place its speed has to be 436km/s. The rotational speed is only 2 km/s.
Thanks.
Can one go far out enough as to have a heliostationary orbit?
I should be able to calculate this but (blush) my tools are rusty.
Geoff Sharp (07:30:35) :
“It varies every month by 5,000,000,000 cm.”
Poor attempt, dont confuse the normal perigee/apogee distances of about 4.233 billion cm. This is where the data is hidden and has to be removed to see the net change. I am surprised to see how low you will go.
You were asserting [“move Earth closer to the moon and you would expect another trade off”] that there is a relation between distance and LOD and there is not. The tides slow down the Earth’s rotation and the Moon moves away [4 cm/yr] correspondingly. This is not a result of the changing distance. There will be tides on the Sun from Jupiter [0.46 mm] as we have discussed; they will also slow the Sun down, and more so when all the other planets work together. The more in conjunction [direct or opposite] the higher the tide [for a total of 1.38 mm] and the more the Sun’s rotation is slowed down.
A well, good old wiki
By analogy with the geosynchronous orbit, a heliosynchronous orbit is a heliocentric orbit where the satellite’s period of revolution matches the Sun’s period of rotation. These orbits occur at a radius of 24.360 Gm (0.1628 AU) around the Sun, a little less than half of the orbital radius of Mercury.
Similar to the geostationary orbit, the heliostationary orbit is the heliosynchronous orbit of inclination zero and eccentricity zero, so that the satellite would appear stationary to an observer on the Sun’s surface.
To date, no satellites have been put in this kind of solar orbit.
Geoff,
just as it does on earth with our slightly elliptical orbit, but the length of day does not vary.
But it does, it’s shortest around aphelion. It’s of course explained with weather but I don’t think that’s the whole story.
Carsten,
it appears you have overlooked what the calculations demonstrate
No, all that is fine.
That “something else” does not appear to exist.
But you haven’t calculated the AM from the spin of the planets have you?
Leif,
The observed 30 ns/yr change in the LOD results in a 4 cm/yr increase of the lunar distance
This is what I’m referring to, not the monthly change, and it’s a spin-orbit coupling. A change of the Earth’s spin is changing the Moon’s orbit.
If not, what is the mechanism? There is no spin-orbit coupling so how can the moon orbit change?
Geoff Sharp (07:30:35) :
You were asserting [“move Earth closer to the moon and you would expect another trade off”] that there is a relation between distance and LOD and there is not.
If you were to shrink the Moon’s orbit [moving the Earth closer to the Moon] the Earth would indeed speed up because of conversation of AM. similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up. Shrinking Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km every time around would make Jupiter crash into the Sun in 7688 years
Leif Svalgaard (06:10:36) :
to
vukcevic (02:57:34) :
You have not understood what goes on. She does not use the polar fields [the poloidial field is not the same as the polar fields. Magnetic fields at 30 degrees can have a poloidial component]. But basically she takes the data for cycles n and n+1 and calculates the size of cycle n+2,….
Precisely, I may not have understood what goes on, and you may not wish not to understand what I am implying, and I understand that.
As far as Fig.2 is concerned
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/LS-Fig2.gif
which you have put as a winning argument in support of solar scientists’ arguments, by now we should be reading SSN about 120 or above (a conservative estimate), so the theory on which it is based , to say it
politely, is inconsistent with reality we observe.
Suggested method of calculation is, and can be easily discredited, by starting with say SC14 and 15 and carry on forward, by now we would have been in a Maunder Minimum No.2 for about 50 or more years.
As far as polar fields are concerned, in my view, that argument has been more than exhausted, you may whish to have another go, but I will let my formula speak for itself “a picture is worth a thousand words” as per granddad of the visual advertising.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
anna v (21:30:22)
“I make an effective mass of all the planets + sun except Jupiter. I now have an effective two body mode. Instantaneously, the solution is two ellipses with one focus on the barycenter, so instantaneously Jupiter orbits the barycenter in an ellipse.”
I think it is worth it for us to all pause again to realize that more than one barycentre can be defined. It may be instructive to consider the relative motion of different barycentres to gain intuition.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (03:24:08)
“If the same words have different meanings to different people it gets complicated.”
Yes, but we don’t have to let it get complicated – we just need to be careful — and judging by the expressed awareness, we are on the right track.
“Let me try to narrow down what ‘orbit’ may mean here. One, possibly too strict, definition […]”
Orbits come in an infinite variety of shapes in chaos theory – the main point is “goes around”. From context I can generally tell when people are using the word in a different sense. We can ask for clarification when necessary. We won’t be able to stop definitions from varying – they vary even within fields (for example the definition of “standard deviation” can be discussed philosophically for hours).
“So “which point” do “The Jovians orbit”? […] Do they have to ‘orbit’ the same ‘point’? […] But I don’t understand why it is needed.”
In first-year university courses “simplified” (some would say “wrong”) concepts are introduced. The reason is that it facilitates the introduction of more “advanced” concepts. If a 4-year-old asked what point the earth orbits, one might answer “the sun” or “a point very close to the centre of the sun that moves ever so slightly over time”.
What has mainly interested me (to date) is the harmonics of the collective motion of the system – not the exact positions of the bodies. However, it is entirely obvious to me that there are other jobs.
We can match tools with jobs. For example, Horizons output would cause me substantial computational headaches and add little value. It would be like building a dump-truck to move one box. But I do need to compare my model with other models to get a sense of bounds on estimates (relative to some “convention”).
I also need to work with measures of time-integrated centre in my work – & for different timescales — otherwise I might misinterpret findings (it’s a long story).
The ‘dynamic orbit point’ (or whatever one wants to label it) is just a time-integrated summary of geometrical position (over cycles) – i.e. a spatial average in a reference frame that moves with time — and the use of such quantities is well-justified in a variety of computations. In fact, in some work, the standard is to work with deviations – and to get deviations, you need to first define a centre.
We’re all looking at different problems – and furthermore some of us have to communicate with non-specialists since we are involved in interdisciplinary work. It is important to be able to pitch ideas at the appropriate level of abstraction for a given audience — generalizations, when applied with wisdom, can ease communication — and details are appropriate (& necessary) among specialists in the same field.
So to sum up: (1) different jobs & (2) different audiences are (in a nutshell) why a hierarchy (& variety) of modeling complexity (& summary) arises.
I’m finding it very interesting to learn of the variety of perspectives. It gives not only new ideas, but also a sense of the potential of a team with sufficient variety.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Clarification for idlex:
I find some of the ideas in your recent posts intriguing, particularly the balls-rolling-on-a-solid-sun idea.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Many have said “Look for another mechanism” – heard loud & clear.
Some house-cleaning though:
Leif, what is the consensus view on this paper now?
Juckett, D. 2000. Solar activity cycle, north/south asymmetries and differential rotation associated with solar spin-orbit variations. Solar Physics 191, 201–226.
Also, have there been any other developments on that front (that was 9 years ago) regarding which the consensus would caution us?
If this has been addressed elsewhere, a link from anyone will suffice.
Leif,
similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up
So, if you shrink the orbit the Sun will speed up, you wait 11,8 years and expand the orbit again and the Sun will slow down. But if you do this shrink/expand every 5.9 years and do it smoothly so that you get an orbit looking similar to the present elliptical orbit you will not see this speed up/down of the Sun?
vukcevic (08:32:06) :
I may not have understood what goes on, and you may not wish not to understand what I am implying, and I understand that. […] by now we should be reading SSN about 120 or above (a conservative estimate), so the theory on which it is based , to say it politely, is inconsistent with reality we observe.
One can only understand that which makes sense. You are not paying attention. The curve shows what the solution of the induction equation gives. This is well-known physics. She does not just eyeball and add up the cycles. This is science [even if wrong]. Now, it turns out that the prediction is wrong from SC24 on. This is not a fault of B-L or of Maxwell’s equations, but of her using the poloidal field instead of the polar fields. Choudhuri [her teacher, BTW] uses the polar fields [as I do] and gets a much better result http://www.leif.org/research/Jiang-Choudhuri-2007.pdf or at least consistent with solar activity now being low. It is, in fact, fortunate that SC24 will decide which of the two fields to use [and also as a side issue, the depth of the dynamo].
lgl (08:00:49) :
The observed 30 ns/yr change in the LOD results in a 4 cm/yr increase of the lunar distance. This is what I’m referring to, not the monthly change, and it’s a spin-orbit coupling. A change of the Earth’s spin is changing the Moon’s orbit. If not, what is the mechanism? There is no spin-orbit coupling so how can the moon orbit change?
But there is, as we have said so many times. It is called friction, and is caused by the tides. As just said in a posting: “There will be tides on the Sun from Jupiter [0.46 mm] as we have discussed; they will also slow the Sun down, and more so when all the other planets work together. The more in conjunction [direct or opposite] the higher the tide [for a total max of 1.38 mm] and the more the Sun’s rotation is slowed down.”
There are two important points:
1) the tides are extremely small [1 mm] and will have no measurable effects. If you want to postulate one, then the second point kicks in:
2) friction is ‘one-way’, so the change of the rotation [of the Earth and the Sun] is always in the same direction: slower. And does not go in cycles, 11, 22, 173, or any other number of years.
As I have also pointed out there is General Relativity effect [Frame Dragging] that also couples spin and orbit. Again this is very very tiny [and is also one way].
I’m perfectly happy with tidal effects, they happen all other over the place, are well understood, and are too small to affect anything on the Sun. Not too small on the Earth, or on Jupiter’s moon Io that is ‘kneaded’ and kept hot [has volcanoes of molten sulfur] by tides, or on comets where tides caused by Jupiter broke apart comet Levy-Shoemaker into 19 pieces that slammed into Jupiter some years back, or on neutron stars orbiting close to each other [combined with the GR effects], etc. On the sun, they are too tiny.
lgl (09:12:05) :
So, if you shrink the orbit the Sun will speed up, you wait 11,8 years and expand the orbit again and the Sun will slow down. But if you do this shrink/expand every 5.9 years and do it smoothly so that you get an orbit looking similar to the present elliptical orbit you will not see this speed up/down of the Sun?
AsI just posted: No! because friction is ‘one-way’, always slows down. There is no anti-friction.
Paul Vaughan (08:56:35) :
Juckett, D. 2000. Solar activity cycle, north/south asymmetries and differential rotation associated with solar spin-orbit variations. Solar Physics 191, 201–226.
Paul,
You may be interested to look at this for N/S asymmetries:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/MaunderN-S-excess.gif
the equation referred to as “Maunder equation”, is the one I have exhaustively discussed with Dr. Svalgaard over the last few posts
Y= COS[2pi(t-1941)/118] + COS[2pi(t-1941)/96]
as demonstrated here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
Interesting, but not surprising that the equation pinpointing solar cycles anomalies, would also define N/S asymmetry; both controlled by (sub-) harmonic resonance!
Paul Vaughan (08:56:35) :
anna v (21:30:22)
“I make an effective mass of all the planets + sun except Jupiter. I now have an effective two body mode. Instantaneously, the solution is two ellipses with one focus on the barycenter, so instantaneously Jupiter orbits the barycenter in an ellipse.”
anna’s argument can also be stated: “I make an effective mass of all the planets + sun except Earth. I now have an effective two body mode. Instantaneously, the solution is two ellipses with one focus on the barycenter, so instantaneously Earth orbits the barycenter in a ellipse”…
“So “which point” do “The Jovians orbit”? […] Do they have to ‘orbit’ the same ‘point’? […] But I don’t understand why it is needed.”
This is, of course not needed. Carsten’s and idlex’s and Carl’s calculations remain the same regardless. The issue is one of introducing red herrings that can derail the discussion forever.
Some house-cleaning though:
Leif, what is the consensus view on this paper now?
Juckett, D. 2000. Solar activity cycle, north/south asymmetries and differential rotation associated with solar spin-orbit variations. Solar Physics 191, 201–226.
It was and has always been that since there is no spin-orbit coupling [above the inconsequential tides and even more remote Frame-Dragging] the paper is spurious, and represents a failure of the peer-review process [which fails a lot, so nothing special there].
If this has been addressed elsewhere, a link from anyone will suffice.
Most scientists do not address spurious, even if specious, papers as they are a waste of time.
Leif,
AsI just posted: No! because friction is ‘one-way’, always slows down. There is no anti-friction.
This is not answering my question. This is about Sun-Ju and not about friction.
You said the Sun would speed up, and that is not because of friction. Then if you expand the orbit it will slow down again, which is not about friction either.
In case of the Earth-Moon the point is that the change of orbit is a result of the Earth slowing down, not a result of the friction. We would observe the same regardless of the cause behind the slowdown.
Are you saying the Sun will not slow down again if you expand Jupiter’s orbit?
Geoff Sharp:
There is a simple test, measure a Jovian planet’s distance to the SSB and then move forward exactly 1 orbit in time, the distance will be the same (give of take a few days) then look at the planet’s distance to the Sun on both occurrences, it will be vastly different. End of story.
The orbital period of Jupiter is 11.85920 yrs or 4331.57 days. According to my simulation model on 1 Jan 1940 the distance of Jupiter from the Sun is 7.4044526E11 m, and the distance of Jupiter from the SSB is 7.3948122E11 m. 11.85 years later takes us to early November 1951, when my simulation says the distances are 7.4027794E11 m and 7.4020631E11 m.
So Jupiter isn’t exactly back at the same distance from the SSB in my simulation. Neither is it anywhere near exactly the same distance from the SSB the month beforehand or the month after.
My simulation is not highly accurate however. Jupiter way well be going round my little orrery a bit too quick, or a bit too slow. So let’s see where NASA’s Horizons says Jupiter is. I asked for the barycentric coordinates of Jupiter on 1 Jan 1940, and on 4 Nov 1951 and 10 Nov 1951 and 15 Nov 1951, and used these figures to calculate Jupiter’s distance from the barycentre. Here are my results:
01 jan 1940: 7.39481E8 km ( compared to my figure of 7.39481E11 m )
04 nov 1951: 7.40214E8 km
10 nov 1951: 7.40206E8 km ( compared to my figure of 7.40206E11 m )
15 nov 1951: 7.40201E8 km
So, give or take a few days, Jupiter’s distance from the SSB is NOT the same after one period of Jupiter’s orbit. Not according to my simulation model. Nor according to NASA’s figures. And my model agrees pretty much exactly with NASA.
Or have I made some mistake?
For good measure, here are the barycentric coordinates of Jupiter (in km) that I got from NASA earlier today:
Format is
JD CT
X Y Z
2429629.500000000 = A.D. 1940-Jan-01 00:00:00.0000 (CT)
7.194246621139235E+08 1.702271440375659E+08 -1.682340398584206E+07
2433954.500000000 = A.D. 1951-Nov-04 00:00:00.0000 (CT)
7.218417664006727E+08 1.630257426980975E+08 -1.685591899744311E+07
2433960.500000000 = A.D. 1951-Nov-10 00:00:00.0000 (CT)
7.202350920612265E+08 1.699487677005070E+08 -1.684836088603407E+07
2433965.500000000 = A.D. 1951-Nov-15 00:00:00.0000 (CT)
7.188475796024904E+08 1.757062812790314E+08 -1.684094361616382E+07
Geoff Sharp (06:39:06) :
to
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (03:24:08) :
No offense, but I am hearing a lot of waffle from you and Svalgaard. Just as the Earth orbits the Sun as Svalgaard demonstrates through JPL, the Jovians orbit the SSB, also via JPL. We dont need to hear about the minor stuff. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
No offense taken, but what you consider “waffle” is actually a serious attempt to communicate my understanding in some detail. I am replying to your questions, but it is unclear whether you have read my answer or whether there is something you don’t understand or disagree with. It isn’t designed to be “waffle”.
There is a simple test, measure a Jovian planet’s distance to the SSB and then move forward exactly 1 orbit in time, the distance will be the same (give of take a few days) then look at the planet’s distance to the Sun on both occurrences, it will be vastly different. End of story.
If you read my previous replies, you will have seen the answer is not necessarily the same for each of the gas giants. I could do the simple test, or you could do it. And why is it important? I could spend some time figuring out the numbers, and maybe I will, but it would help if I understood why.
If we shall test your assertion, it must be clearly defined first. My interpretation of what you are saying is the following: “Geoff asserts that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all orbit the SSB in elliptical orbits. The distance to the Sun will be “vastly different” for subsequent passes of the same orbit point”. Ok? How much is “vastly different”?
lgl (08:00:49) :
But you haven’t calculated the AM from the spin of the planets have you?
No we have not computed the AM from the spin of the planets, that is correct. But we know that the value is a constant one, or very nearly so. There is no significant short term variation in the planet rotation rates. Do you mean to suggest spin-spin coupling between the Sun and the planets?
Roger Clague (01:55:45) – ”
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/orbit2004.htm
So the Earth motion is its motion around the sun the motion of the sun around the solar system centre of mass.
This additional part of the Earth’s motion is usually ignored but it has important effects on Earth’s climate.”
They make some blunders (including one very serious blunder that is easily spotted), but they also present some stimulating ideas that are well-worth the mining effort. I looked at the following too:
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/nwp50th.pdf
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/paper18.pdf
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/coriolis2col.pdf
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/50nwp.ppt
The first paper in this list explains (with diagrams) the method anna v was describing (i.e. breaking a problem down into pieces).
Both the 1st & 2nd papers listed provide some helpful examples (with illustrations & calculations) — for example “is jupiter big enough to affect earth’s orbit seriously? what if jupiter was the size of the sun? – and then we shrunk it? what would happen to earth’s orbit?” These scenarios are explored.
Anecdote:
During the early stages of my efforts to assess Landscheidt’s work I approached physicists. When none could tell me how to approximate the sun’s orbit, I turned to the internet. Looking at 100s of sites I discovered no well-presented descriptions of the calculations – just a lot of “talk” about barycentres. It was the .ppt file listed above that made me realize how simple the calculations were – it was the wording of one sentence on one of the slides.
When I was researching wavelet analysis, I had an analogous experience. For anyone interested – the site that made wavelets super simple:
http://www.ecs.syr.edu/faculty/lewalle/tutor/tutor.html
Hopefully someday there will be a better selection of sites devoted to people who think mathematically in words so that everyone who is interested will be empowered to easily assess the various claims of solar-terrestrial connections for themselves, instead of being told what to think. Even just the very most basic foundations go a long way towards recognizing the numerous misleading statements in these threads.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
In response to vukcevic (09:59:24)
You bring a noteworthy pattern to the discussion. I haven’t analyzed the N/S sunspot-asymmetry time evolution, but if/when it ever becomes a priority you can be sure I’ll keep your notes in mind. To breach the walls of ‘the fraternity of science’ independently, you would have to get serious about introducing more formality into your communications (something that might take the fun out of this for you).
Here’s a paper I liked:
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/MursulaAndZieger2001.pdf
K. Mursula & B. Zieger. 2001. Long-term north-south asymmetry in solar wind speed inferred from geomagnetic activity: A new type of century-scale solar oscillation? Geophysical Research Letters 28(1), 95-98.
For some “fun”, here’s an exercise:
1. Cut/paste figure 3 – middle panel – into an image editor (like ‘Paint’).
2. Stack it upon itself several times (remember 0=360 – i.e. december becomes january).
3. Have some good ‘cyclo-mania’ fun and report back. (Note: You will see striking patterns you would have little hope of noticing without step#2 — empower yourself to “spin the cylinder” and overcome helical/dimensional-visualization challenges.)
I may have another ‘fun’ stick to throw in the wheel, depending upon what you report back.
lgl (10:31:56) :
You said the Sun would speed up, and that is not because of friction. Then if you expand the orbit it will slow down again, which is not about friction either.
Never said such things.
Paul Vaughan (11:27:51) :
Even just the very most basic foundations go a long way towards recognizing the numerous misleading statements in these threads.
I think you miss the point. The misleading statements are an important part of the world view of the various cults. They are designed to deflect serious consideration from dissenters. An example which is typical: in the discussion about if the Earth is 6000 years old, the geological time scale is dismissed by finding examples where one layer on top of another layer is found by radioactive dating to be 100 million years older than the layer underneath.
Leif,
What did you mean here then:
Leif Svalgaard (08:18:47) : similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up.
Leif Svalgaard (10:22:30) – “anna’s argument can also be stated: “I make an effective mass of all the planets + sun except Earth. I now have an effective two body mode. Instantaneously, the solution is two ellipses with one focus on the barycenter, so instantaneously Earth orbits the barycenter in a ellipse”…”
Good example to illustrate my point – (i.e. a casual reader of this thread might get confused about the different barycentres being discussed).
—
Carsten – “So “which point” do “The Jovians orbit”? […] Do they have to ‘orbit’ the same ‘point’? […] But I don’t understand why it is needed.”
Leif – “This is, of course not needed. […] The issue is one of introducing red herrings that can derail the discussion forever.”
There has been a misunderstanding/distortion here – but it is not of sufficient priority to warrant further attention.
—
Thank you for the assessment of the Juckett (2000) paper.
Carsten,
Do you mean to suggest spin-spin coupling between the Sun and the planets?
Guess it can be called that and that it must go both ways: gain revolution AM/loose rotation AM and loose rev AM/gain rot AM.
There is no significant short term variation in the planet rotation rates
Not in the interior, no, but:
“When confronted with determining the length of a day on one of the gas giant planets, planetary scientists have a difficult time. The interior of the planet is masked completely by the clouds in the upper atmosphere.”
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMB0RJV3AF_index_0.html
lgl (11:58:33) :
What did you mean here then:
Leif Svalgaard (08:18:47) : similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up.
Not by moving one body closer [that happens all the time] but to make the orbit smaller [if you could] or larger. The AM scales with the square root of the distance, and the total AM of the system has to remain constant. But we know of no way of shrinking the orbit [which will speed up the Sun], but we do know of a way to enlarging the orbit, namely by slowing the Sun by tidal friction.
Paul Vaughan (08:56:35) :
anna v (21:30:22)
“I make an effective mass of all the planets + sun except Jupiter. I now have an effective two body mode. Instantaneously, the solution is two ellipses with one focus on the barycenter, so instantaneously Jupiter orbits the barycenter in an ellipse.”
I think it is worth it for us to all pause again to realize that more than one barycentre can be defined. It may be instructive to consider the relative motion of different barycentres to gain intuition.
By construction, there is only one barycenter of the totality of masses in the solar system, no matter how one bunches them up before calculating it. It is to this unique barycenter of the solar system I am referring to.
If by “more than one” barycenters you mean that ” for any n of the N bodies of the solar system , where n<N , one can calculate a center of mass between them”, then the statement “more than one barycenters” is true.
This Jupiter orbit discussion is a bit strange. If there were only the Sun and Jupiter. Is there any doubt they would both orbit the barycenter?
Then add the rest of the planets and Saturn will give a strong perturbation, the rest much weaker perturbation.
Paul Vaughan (11:27:51)
“[…] […] […]Even just the very most basic foundations go a long way towards recognizing the numerous misleading statements in these threads. […] […] […]”
Leif Svalgaard (11:49:34)
“I think you miss the point. The misleading statements are an important part of the world view of the various cults. They are designed to deflect serious consideration from dissenters. […]”
I agree on your latter points.
There are different scales of expertise. Fortunately there will always be some advanced minds on the case. If a skilled corrupt-leader emerges (perhaps a wolf in sheep’s clothing, celebrated by the masses), then more ethical people might consider themselves to have an obligation to raise their game to neutralize that.
I don’t think we are of different minds on this issue – and I understand why you took the precaution of addressing this.
anna v:
Lets explore this. You say that in your model presently the sun is a point source, so it has no spin?.
This the case in my current simulation model. Point source. No spin.
Take a small satellite around the sun, orbiting at the distance of the known sun radius. That could be considered a dV ( dxdydz) volume element of the real sun. Give it a rotation about the sun to agree with the sun rotation about its axis. Put it at the equator for a start.
I have to agree with Leif that a satellite of that description would fall into the Sun. But for the purposes of your experiment we might speed up the rotation period of the Sun so that its equator is moving at 436km/s. Either that, or we could swell the Sun so that its radius is 0.12 AU. That is, if Leif can’t think of an objection to doing this.
Would it not be like your ball bearing, if the mass is small? Then see what happens in your simulation?
I’m not sure that it would be. It’s quite easy for me to simulate a satellite in heliocentric orbit. Leif suggested upthread that I construct one that went through the barycentre. Which I did. It had to be given speeds of the sort of order he was mentioning. And it went round quite happily in a circle, and straight through the barycentre.
It’s not so easy for me to simulate a ball bearing on the surface of a solid sun. What I’d have to do is to put a body there, and then work out all the accelerations due to the different bodies in the solar system, just like I would with a body in free motion. But then I’d have to make the radial acceleration towards the Sun’s centre equal zero, because my ball bearing is not allowed to move towards the Sun’s centre (because the sun in this case is regarded as solid).
However, if any of these ball bearings try to form tidal hills, I think they’ll have to do a great deal of work to just rise one mm above the surface of the Sun.
And that’s not the same as a body in a heliocentric orbit, even if we adjust the size or spin of the Sun so that they start at the same place on the Sun’s surface. Or at least I don’t think it is.
lgl (12:23:35) :
This Jupiter orbit discussion is a bit strange. If there were only the Sun and Jupiter. Is there any doubt they would both orbit the barycenter?
If there were only the Sun and Earth, would the Earth still orbit the Sun or the barycenter? If I add Jupiter why does the Earth no longer [per Geoff] orbit the [new] barycenter as well? The confusion comes in by using the word ‘orbit’ which depends on the reference frame. Both bodies simply follow geodesics and are in free fall in their combined gravity field.
What is more strange [but a standard technique] is the red herring introduced by the question. Why is that important as direct calculation shows that the orbital AM is constant and what one loses/gains the other gains/loses, so nothing left over for spin coupling [which is good as there is no couple to do this (apart from tidal friction and GR effects) in the first place].
The result of the exhaustive investigation here is that we must look elsewhere if we want to explain correlations that are claimed. This alone is a significant result as so much of the pseudo-science is based on the uncritical assumption [or timid non-understanding] of a spin-orbit coupling.
Leif Svalgaard (12:50:35) :
What is more strange [but a standard technique] is the red herring introduced by the question. Why is that important as direct calculation shows that the orbital AM is constant…
Several people has now asked why the question is important? What difference would it make to the argument?
lgl (12:23:35) – “This Jupiter orbit discussion is a bit strange.”
Indeed.
The way I am thinking about it:
If you were required to testify to a general audience under very formal settings, what would you say? – assuming you could use as many words as you needed to give a fairly thorough word-description (…and assuming you had to say something to which Leif Svalgaard would not object).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
In response to anna v (12:23:18)
So to clarify:
You regard “except planet A” as a n=N-1<N case?
idlex (12:27:28) :
Lets see if I understand this: The objective is to nail the spin orbit business by a different angle, by demonstrating that a ball bearing on a solid sun would get a tangential ( that is what transfers spin) motion consistent in size with the tides .
I think that a heliocentric satellite would change rotation rate so would lose synchronization , the magnitude should be commensurate with the tides expected if the sun were a ball of gas up to 0.1628 AU. If there were spin orbit coupling more than tidal effects, it would show. I am hand waving of course.
Oh, my english- perturbation, moderator please correct.
Leif Svalgaard (08:18:47) :
Geoff Sharp (07:30:35) :
You were asserting [“move Earth closer to the moon and you would expect another trade off”] that there is a relation between distance and LOD and there is not.
————————————–
If you were to shrink the Moon’s orbit [moving the Earth closer to the Moon] the Earth would indeed speed up because of conversation of AM. similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up. Shrinking Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km every time around would make Jupiter crash into the Sun in 7688 years
I am wondering if you typed this correctly? You seem to be agreeing with me.
The Sun is constantly moving in relation to the barycenter, moving away for about 10 yrs then coming back for 10 years. This would have an acceleration/deceleration effect keeping the system in balance. The jovians are like yoyo’s on a string with no danger of crashing into the Sun or being flung into other galaxies. This also totally explains why we have stronger solar cycles when angular momentum is high, there is more acceleration/deceleration in the system. When we have a disturbance like we are entering now that normal pattern is disrupted, and in the case of Type “A” disturbance (inner loop) the Sun would normally be accelerating (majority of Jovians are closer) but that process is brought to a halt, perhaps entering a limbo state of very slow or zero acceleration/deceleration.
Check JPL as I described earlier and this is easily seen, The Sun is changing its distance to the Jovians everyday. The method I suggested eliminates any confusion associated with Aphelion/Perihelion distances.
There is no need to include any discussions about tides.
anna v (13:09:54) :
the tides expected if the sun were a ball of gas up to 0.1628 AU. If there were spin orbit coupling more than tidal effects, it would show.
The expected tide (h) can be calculated from h/R = (m/M) (R/a)^3
where radius of the body on which the tides will appear is R, its mass M and the distance to the body, with mass m, raising the tide is ‘a’.
Example [all mks or SI units] where I have used accurate values [from reference texts] rather than the usual ‘back-on-the-envelope’ numbers we remember by heart:
for Moon on Earth: M = 5.97E24, R = 6.378E6, m = 7.3483E22, a = 3.84403E8, h = 0.36752
for Jupiter on Sun: M = 1.99E30, R = 6.96E8, m = 1.8986E27, a = 7.7792E11, h = 0.0004765
Geoff Sharp (13:21:49) :
when angular momentum is high, there is more acceleration/deceleration in the system.
It seems we are back to square one. The angular momentum of the system is constant. The accelerations/decelerations cannot be felt in a free fall.
The Sun is changing its distance to all bodies of the solar system all the time, Jovians, Earth, comets, interplanetary dust, etc. The changing distance cannot be felt except for tidal forces. If you jump of the Eiffel Tower you will change the distance to the Earth all the time, but feel nothing [until the distance stops changing 🙁 ]. Barycenter or not, doesn’t matter.
Paul,
I would say what I just said (and spell, or pronounce, perturbation correct 🙂
Leif,
If there were only the Sun and Earth, would the Earth still orbit the Sun or the barycenter? If I add Jupiter why does the Earth no longer [per Geoff] orbit the [new] barycenter as well?
The Earth would orbit the barycenter, but that would be only 470 km (from memory) from the center of the Sun. When you add Jupiter the Earth will follow the Sun around the new BC because Jupiter’s orbit is outside Earth’s orbit.
(This time I think even Leif will agree, almost..)
Several people has now asked why the question is important? What difference would it make to the argument?
It’s important because the BC is the ‘fixed’ point of the solar system, so if Jupiter accelerates around the BC so does the Sun, which will change it’s rotation.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:43:29) :
Here is an example I ran a few days ago.
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. Measure J distance to Sun & SSB.
Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.
This date is April 7 1963. Then measure J to Sun and compare with 1951 figure. The result is .0046AU longer, this translates to roughly 700,000 kilometers.
If we also measure the Sun to SSB distance over the same timescale we get .0053AU difference which looks to be perfect. The sun doesnt return to the 1951 position in 1963 so there is some loss in the arc and the full offset is not taken up.
Geoff Sharp (13:21:49) :
Leif Svalgaard (08:18:47) :
If you were to shrink the Moon’s orbit [moving the Earth closer to the Moon] the Earth would indeed speed up because of conversation of AM.
I realize now that this can [would] be misunderstood and taken out of context. What was meant was if you could change the orbit that would change the rotation. but the point that is missing is that you cannot change the orbit in the contemporary solar system except by friction which goes only one way. And perhaps drag by the solar wind’s magnetic field [which is minuscule]. When the solar system was first born, solar activity and the solar wind were MUCH stronger than today and did in fact change the orbits [making them larger] and slow the Sun’s rotation [from less than a day to 25 days] by magnetic braking of the Sun, thus transferring angular momentum to the planets – one of the reason the planets have several hundred times more AM than the Sun has now. Right now, noe of these mechanisms are effective and the orbits and solar rotation do not change, and such change there is, is one-way: slowing down the Sun [always].
idlex (10:41:59) :
The orbital period of Jupiter is 11.85920 yrs or 4331.57 days. According to my simulation model on 1 Jan 1940 the distance of Jupiter from the Sun is 7.4044526E11 m, and the distance of Jupiter from the SSB is 7.3948122E11 m. 11.85 years later takes us to early November 1951, when my simulation says the distances are 7.4027794E11 m and 7.4020631E11 m.
The Aphelion/Perihelion distances are masking whats going on in the background and they need to be stripped away to see the detail. This is probably why it has not been noticed in the past.
anna v:
Lets see if I understand this: The objective is to nail the spin orbit business by a different angle, by demonstrating that a ball bearing on a solid sun would get a tangential ( that is what transfers spin) motion consistent in size with the tides .
I wasn’t really thinking of the spin orbit business. I was thinking more about what sorts of things, which had nothing to do with the Sun’s angular momentum or spin momentum, might happen on the surface of the Sun.
The ball bearings (I was thinking of sprinkling quite a few of them liberally all over the sun) just seemed to be one way to think about events on the Sun’s surface. Maybe the ball bearings would do something obvious, like all collect under Jupiter. But I don’t think they would. I think they would maybe pursue some interesting “orbits” around the surface of the Sun. For example, if a ball bearing rolled all the way round the Sun towards Jupiter, then when it got to the point below Jupiter on the Sun’s surface it wouldn’t stop there, but would carry on moving, only now decelerating. Or so I imagine. Maybe I’d see something like “weather systems” of ball bearings eddying around on the surface of the Sun. The initial conditions would also have an effect. If I placed the ball bearings in stationary positions, they would all start to accelerate in one direction or other across the surface of the sun, and would take a while to ‘get their act together’. Or maybe I’d have to start with a Sun with no planets. Would the ball bearings go round and round on the rotating sun with no planets, and behave like islands? Or would they stay exactly where I’d put them, because there was no rolling resistance, the Sun turning under them?
I really don’t know how they would behave. But my simulation model might be able to tell me. Whether it would be meaningful experiment is another question, because the Sun isn’t really like that at all.
I think that a heliocentric satellite would change rotation rate so would lose synchronization , the magnitude should be commensurate with the tides expected if the sun were a ball of gas up to 0.1628 AU. If there were spin orbit coupling more than tidal effects, it would show. I am hand waving of course.
It’s an interesting wave of the hand, though. But I think there are two separate ‘experiments’ here. I agree that the satellite would lose synchronisation, because it would always be being tugged forwards or backwards by the planets, and going too fast or too slow. If it moved too fast, it would move further away from the Sun, and if too slow it would move nearer the Sun (something the ball bearings can’t do). And, if they are to be in heliostationary orbit, these satellites would have to be restricted to the Sun’s equatorial plane. The ball bearings could be put anywhere.
Roger Clague (01:55:45) :
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/orbit2004.htm
I was in contact with Jill Hasling last week when looking for some evidence on the Jovian orbit point. Their papers inspired me to look further. Sadly Dr. Freeman passed away Nov 2004.
Leif Svalgaard (13:40:39) :
What was meant was if you could change the orbit that would change the rotation. but the point that is missing is that you cannot change the orbit in the contemporary solar system except by friction which goes only one way.
But we ARE seeing a change in orbit of the Jovians not related to friction?
lgl (13:47:51) :
The Earth would orbit the barycenter, but that would be only 470 km (from memory) from the center of the Sun. When you add Jupiter the Earth will follow the Sun around the new BC because Jupiter’s orbit is outside Earth’s orbit.
(This time I think even Leif will agree, almost..)
So if I add Pluto, it would follow the Sun because Jupiter in inside Pluto’s orbit. And even the Sun is inside Jupiter’s orbit. No, this is nonsense.
so if Jupiter accelerates around the BC so does the Sun, which will change it’s rotation.
No, as we have seen so many times. There is no transfer of AM.
Here is What Shirley of JPL has to say:
Axial rotation, orbital revolution and solar spin–orbit coupling
James H. Shirley
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, MS 183-601, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
Accepted 2006 January 19. Received 2005 November 23
ABSTRACT
The orbital motion of the Sun has been linked with solar variability, but the underlying physics remains unknown. A coupling of the solar axial rotation and the barycentric orbital revolution might account for the relationships found. Some recent published studies addressing the physics of this problem have made use of equations from rotational physics in order to model particle motions. However, our standard equations for rotational velocity do not accurately describe particle motions due to orbital revolution. The Sun’s orbital motion is a state of free fall; in consequence, aside from very small tidal motions, the associated particle velocities do not vary as a function of position on or within the body of the Sun. In this note, I describe and illustrate
the fundamental difference between particle motions in rotation and revolution, in order to dispel some part of the confusion that has arisen in the past and that which may yet arise in the future. This discussion highlights the principal physical difficulty that must be addressed and overcome by future dynamical spin–orbit coupling hypotheses.
P.S. Shirley used to believe in this [has published papers with Fairbridge], but has seen the light. The bottom line is that if one wants to believe in the correlations, there is no known physical mechanism. So, one can cross out: “so if Jupiter accelerates around the BC so does the Sun, which will change it’s rotation”. It will not.
Geoff Sharp (13:58:10) :
The Aphelion/Perihelion distances are masking whats going on in the background and they need to be stripped away to see the detail. This is probably why it has not been noticed in the past.
How do you ‘strip away’ the distances? and what has not been ‘noticed in the past’?
Leif Svalgaard (14:59:55) :
Geoff Sharp (13:58:10) :
The Aphelion/Perihelion distances are masking whats going on in the background and they need to be stripped away to see the detail. This is probably why it has not been noticed in the past.
How do you ’strip away’ the distances? and what has not been ‘noticed in the past’?
You might need to read back, some of my comments were caught in the moderation queue.
To see the changing length of the semi-major axis between the Sun and Jovians that is not a product of the normal Aphelion/Perihelion function, you strip away the difference by doing a complete orbit and coming back to the exact point in space and time (allowing for movement though the galaxy)to eliminate all the Aphelion/Perihelion effects. This will leave you with 2 identical semi-major axis lengths when measuring from the planet to the SSB. Then you simply look at the difference in the planet to Sun distance over those 2 time frames.
Leif Svalgaard (14:57:38) :
Here is What Shirley of JPL has to say:
What he is saying is that you can believe in correlations [as he himself does or at least did 20 years ago], but you cannot use the AM-mechanism and accelerations/decelerations and barycenters and any of that as the mechanism, if you want to stay within physical law. You have to come with something else. Angles perhaps 🙂 but not AM.
Leif Svalgaard (14:59:55) :
The Aphelion/Perihelion changes are significant at around 100,000 kilometers per week, making it very difficult to see the Sun to SSB changes which are much smaller over a week. This has hidden the semi-major axis changes that are happening from the shift in SUN to SSB distance. I think it might be an example of two different angular momentum trade off’s occurring simultaneously.
Geoff Sharp (13:58:10) :
The Aphelion/Perihelion distances are masking whats going on in the background and they need to be stripped away to see the detail. This is probably why it has not been noticed in the past.
What on earth do you mean? You’ve moved the goalposts! You described a “simple test”, and I went and worked out the answer. There wan’t anything about perihelion or aphelion distances in that test.
Geoff Sharp (06:39:06) :
There is a simple test, measure a Jovian planet’s distance to the SSB and then move forward exactly 1 orbit in time, the distance will be the same (give of take a few days) then look at the planet’s distance to the Sun on both occurrences, it will be vastly different. End of story.
I wrote: “According to my simulation model on 1 Jan 1940 the distance of Jupiter from the Sun is 7.4044526E11 m, and the distance of Jupiter from the SSB is 7.3948122E11 m. 11.85 years later takes us to early November 1951, when my simulation says the distances are 7.4027794E11 m and 7.4020631E11 m.” And when I took a look at NASA’s positions of Jupiter, and worked out the same numbers using their figures, they agreed with mine.
So, I did exactly what you said, and measured the distances. And I did it in two different ways. And the answers I got agreed with each other. And Jupiter’s distance from the SSB wasn’t the same after one orbit of 11.85 years like you said it would be. Neither was the distance to the Sun “vastly different”.
Look. There are two points. There’s position of Jupiter (xj1, yj1, zj1) and the position of the SSB (xb1, yb1, zb1) on the same date, and there’s the distance between them, d1. And 11.85 years later there are another two points, (xj2, yj2, zj2) and (xb2, yb2, zb2) and another distance between them, b2. It’s very, very simple. You said that d1 and d2 would be the same. But they’re not. And there’s nothing “masking what’s going on in the background” that needs to be “stripped away”.
Not unless your Jupiter and SSB inhabit some sort of separate reality which is inaccessible to mathematics. For this is just a mathematical problem, not a physical one. We can get these points from the NASA Horizons website without doing any physics at all.
Maybe it is indeed end of story.
Geoff Sharp (15:20:01) :
doing a complete orbit and coming back to the exact point in space and time (allowing for movement though the galaxy) to eliminate all the Aphelion/Perihelion effects.
I didn’t think one can ever come back to the same time [and what is the allowing for movement though the galaxy – how do you do that?] as a complete orbit takes ~12 years.
This will leave you with 2 identical semi-major axis lengths when measuring from the planet to the SSB. Then you simply look at the difference in the planet to Sun distance over those 2 time frames.
One can compute the semi-major axis, a, as the half the sum of the minimum and maximum distance and do this separately for a sun-centered and a SSB-centered orbit. I have done that for two complete orbits [and will do for many more when the computer is done grinding]. for the first orbit [1940+] we find
aSUN = 5.165150842 AU, aSSB = 5.158674340 AU, and for the second [1951+]
aSUN = 5.164615727 AU, aSSB = 5.160087547 AU.
Ideally the ‘real’ orbit is the one [if we want to define an orbit] with the least variation of ‘a’ with time [as the SSB moves around].
The difference between the SUN ‘a’s is dSUN = -0.000535115, and between the SSBs: sSSB = 0.001413207 or almost three times as large. The difference will not be zero as there are residual perturbations. But it seems that dSUN is the most stable…
idlex (15:43:21) :
Your completely missing my point…its not easy to get this across on here.
I am talking about using the figures off JPL to derive distances from Jupiter to SSB.
Here is my scenario again.
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. Measure J distance to Sun & SSB.
Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.
This date is April 7 1963. Then measure J to Sun and compare with 1951 figure. The result is .0046AU longer, this translates to roughly 700,000 kilometers.
If we also measure the Sun to SSB distance over the same timescale we get .0053AU difference which looks to be perfect. The sun doesnt return to the 1951 position in 1963 so there is some loss in the arc and the full offset is not taken up.
Do this exercise yourself (if JPL is online today) and you will quickly see my point. The Jupiter to SSB distance does not vary if we take a start and end point in the orbit as being the same (1 complete orbit, in my case 4339 days). The Jupiter to SUN distance will vary 700000 kilometers.
If you have trouble I can provide the original files I downloaded from JPL
Leif Svalgaard (15:50:27) :
Geoff Sharp (15:20:01) :
doing a complete orbit and coming back to the exact point in space and time (allowing for movement though the galaxy) to eliminate all the Aphelion/Perihelion effects.
———————————————–
I didn’t think one can ever come back to the same time [and what is the allowing for movement though the galaxy – how do you do that?] as a complete orbit takes ~12 years.
I phrased that badly, time should not have been mentioned. A better way to say it would be that Jupiter comes back to the exact point on the orbit ellipse as it was 4339 days before. The J to SSB distance is exactly the same in JPL for both of the time frames I mentioned, you dont need to calculate anything, its all in JPL.
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.
Except that the period is 4332 days, not 4339 days…
I’m following this discussion about comparing the respective distances of the Sun & BC from J.
In a general sense, what is needed is a comparison of the 2 spreads, measured by (for example) range, IQR, variance, &/or SD.
…But that hides a lot of interesting & useful info, so better yet:
A plot of the deviations from the mean for both Sun & BC on the same plot. Both will be jumping around, but we’ll be looking to see which one is jumping around less.
With a long enough series (i.e. many J cycles – & preferably a good number of U-N cycles or a whole 2402 year cycle), there won’t be any need to worry about seasonal/elliptic/epitrochoid confounding obscuring our view.
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. Measure J distance to Sun & SSB. Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.
this is where your selection effect comes into play. You look for a time where the distance is the same and then wishfully assert that that is a complete orbit 4339 days. It is not, because the SSB has moved in the mean time. The orbital period is 4332 days. Since you define a full orbit as the time from a given distance to the same distance no wonder that the distance doesn’t vary. This is wrong. But it all doesn’t matter because it is irrelevant. The AM is what it is without making any assumption or test of what orbits what, and there is complete balance between what the Sun has and the planets have, so no going back and forth between them and changes to rotation periods or anything. Take it from the reformed sinner [Shirley] from JPL http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf and learn from him if you don’t want to learn from us. There is no spin-orbit coupling and it doesn’t matter what orbits what. Let not the progress we have all achieved here slide back into obscurantism again. Real progress has been made, one branch has been lopped off, and you can blaze a new trail down another branch [tides, General Relativity, gravitomagnetism (you’ll have lots of fellow travelers on that one].
I just read the Shirley (2006) paper to which Leif referred. [See Leif Svalgaard (14:57:38).] That was a constructive exercise.
My sense of “something fishy” (from reading the abstract) was warranted.
No attempt is made in the article to address rotation, let alone differential rotation. The treatment is too simplistic and surely will not be the final influence on our thinking.
And before there is any opportunistic distortion: I am not arguing for spin-orbit coupling.
Also noteworthy: It was interesting to see an error in De Jager & Versteegh (2005) pointed out.
Geoff Sharp:
I am talking about using the figures off JPL to derive distances from Jupiter to SSB.
Let me stop you right there and ask you what you mean by “the figures off JPL”. Earlier today I went to the NASA Horizons website and asked for this::
Ephemeris Type [change] : VECTORS
Target Body [change] : Jupiter [599]
Coordinate Origin [change] : Solar System Barycenter (SSB) [500@0]
Time Span [change] : Start=1940-Jan-01 00:00:00.0000, Stop=1940-Jan-15 00:00:00.0000, Step=1 d
Table Settings [change] : output units=KM-S; quantities code=2
Display/Output [change] : default (formatted HTML)
This is exactly what I did. What exactly did you do to get “the figures off JPL”?
I’ll return to the matter tomorrow, if I have time, and pursue you step by step the rest of the way.
Paul Vaughan (17:33:10) :
I just read the Shirley (2006) paper to which Leif referred. […] The treatment is too simplistic and surely will not be the final influence on our thinking.
I agree that it will not sway the die-hards. I’ll disagree that it is too simplistic. Because the problem is a simple one. What is not simple is to cope with fundamental science illiteracy or selective blindness. [And one can find that even among scientists once they become obsessed with a wacky idea – Arthur Eddington and Linus Pauling come to mid]
idlex (18:06:12) :
This is exactly what I did. What exactly did you do to get “the figures off JPL”? I’ll return to the matter tomorrow, if I have time, and pursue you step by step the rest of the way.
Geoff has a knack for obfuscating with grandiose claims [like ‘galactic motion taken into account’] to make things look more ‘scientific’ and at the same time select what he thinks fits and ignore the rest combined with ‘game over’, ‘end of story’, and similar bombastic utterings.One can usually cut through all of that with quiet, methodical, and patient replies. Let us take the ‘Jovian orbits the Barycenter, it’s all in JPL’ strawman, as an example. I have already pointed out the selection effect he had, but that is, of course, not enough as it will just be ignored. so, one has to be a bit more methodical:
JPL allows you to compute ‘orbits’ of any body around any other body. What is an orbit? There is the concept of an ‘osculating orbit’ at a given moment of time which is the gravitational Kepler ellipse that is precisely tangent to (“kissing” – osculate means to ‘kiss’) the actual path taken. So at any point in time one can for any body define an osculating orbit around any other body or any point whatsoever somewhere in space, e.g. for Jupiter around the Moon. If that other body or point is not the ‘real’ body around which Jupiter moves, the osculating orbit will vary wildly with time and look very strange with ‘trefoils’ and other things, strange cusps and general nonsensical excursions, but pretty and impressively looking. If, on the other hand, we have selected the ‘real’ orbit, the orbital elements will be very stable as they are related to the [conserved] energy [potential and kinetic] in the system. Geoff has picked that up, “This will leave you with 2 identical semi-major axis lengths when measuring from the planet to the SSB” namely that such constancy is a sign that the ‘real’ orbit has been found. The JPL interface allows to to calculate the osculating elements for any pair of bodies, in particular the Sun and the Barycenter, BC. This graph shows a plot of the semi-major axis ‘a’ in AU [blue scale and curves] and of the orbital period ‘P’ in days [red scale and curves]: http://www.leif.org/research/Jupiter-Orbits-P-a.png
The curves with little circles on them are for a sun-centered orbit, while the curves without symbols are for the BC-centered orbit. It is clear that the sun-centered curves are very stable [you can just see little wiggles every ~20 years due to perturbations by Saturn] while the BC curves vary rather much, basically just reflecting the fact that the BC moves around. It is, of course, no coincidence that the BC curves resembles the Angular Momentum curves that we have seen several times. Had I chosen the Moon as the central body, JPL would have produced a very convoluted curve not so subtly telling me that perhaps another central body would have been better.
Finally, all of this was a typical strawman as it has nothing to do with the AM curves we have independently calculated verifying the perfect balance between the AM of the Sun around the BC and the AM of all the other stuff in the solar system.
Leif Svalgaard (17:31:11) :
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. Measure J distance to Sun & SSB. Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.
—————————————————————
this is where your selection effect comes into play. You look for a time where the distance is the same and then wishfully assert that that is a complete orbit 4339 days. It is not, because the SSB has moved in the mean time. The orbital period is 4332 days. Since you define a full orbit as the time from a given distance to the same distance no wonder that the distance doesn’t vary. This is wrong. But it all doesn’t matter because it is irrelevant. The AM is what it is without making any assumption or test of what orbits what, and there is complete balance between what the Sun has and the planets have, so no going back and forth between them and changes to rotation periods or anything. Take it from the reformed sinner [Shirley] from JPL http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf and learn from him if you don’t want to learn from us. There is no spin-orbit coupling and it doesn’t matter what orbits what. Let not the progress we have all achieved here slide back into obscurantism again. Real progress has been made, one branch has been lopped off, and you can blaze a new trail down another branch [tides, General Relativity, gravitomagnetism (you’ll have lots of fellow travelers on that one].
You give up way too easy. I dont know the reason why its 4339 days instead of 4332 but its not important. Perhaps the orbit period is wrong or its a case of the orbit changing due to planetary influences, but at best its worth 100,000 kilometers. That still leaves 600,000 kilometers and this example is nowhere near what the Sun is capable of moving. My logic is 100%
You will have to concede, if my data checks out there is no doubt that the Jovians orbit the SSB.
Here is a list of the data tables used from JPL (idlex might like these also)
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jpl1.txt
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jpl2.txt
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jpl3.txt
And here is a graphic I made with pretty pictures and selected data, it might conceptualize it better for some.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jovian_big.jpg
The JPL interface allows to to calculate the osculating elements for any pair of bodies, in particular the Sun and the Barycenter, BC.
Just clarifying [as this is important] ‘to calculate the osculating elements of Jupiter with respect to any central bodies, in particular the Sun and …’
idlex (18:06:12) :
Ephemeris Type should be OBSERVER. I have also given Leif my original data files in my last post.
Leif Svalgaard (17:31:11) :
Since you define a full orbit as the time from a given distance to the same distance no wonder that the distance doesn’t vary.
This is the crux of the argument, if Jupiter orbited the Sun we would see the Jupiter-Sun figures near the same at this point, just like we do with the Earth (which I have checked with the same logic). BUT WE DO NOT.
The Jupiter- SSB figures are the same and 7 days will not make any difference. Calculate it for 4332 days and you will get the same answer. Unless there is a mistake in the JPL data or how I have selected it then surely Jupiter must orbit the SSB.
Paul Vaughan (17:33:10)
“I just read the Shirley (2006) paper to which Leif referred. […] The treatment is too simplistic and surely will not be the final influence on our thinking.”
Leif Svalgaard (19:11:16)
“I agree that it will not sway the die-hards. I’ll disagree that it is too simplistic. Because the problem is a simple one.”
I acknowledge Shirley’s contribution (and I should have done this before). He pointed out a simple (but very substantial) error. This is very important.
Clarification:
I would have greatly appreciated a few paragraphs on how rotation & differential rotation fit into the picture.
Shirley: “In order to isolate the motions of revolution, we will initially suppose that our subject body is not rotating.” [p.280 (p.1 of article)]
…But he never proceeded past his “initially” – he left us hanging.
http://www.leif.org/research/Jupiter-Orbits-P-a.png
I see the 30’s 60-70’s and now all are common type orbits.
very interesting!
Tx geoff sharp! and Leif too
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jovian_big.jpg
BUT HOW, can it be that, we orbit the center of the SS when the sun is the attraction? How easy it is for me to forget all is moving in the milkyway.
A dumb question then is.. do the planets weight more than the sun, there for “drag” the sun along?
Paul Vaughan (20:35:08) :
Hi Paul,
I have been looking for that paper for some time, esp interested in his answer to De Jager. Is it available online?
Last week I plotted the Jup/Sun/SSB numbers for a short period, not sure if its what your suggesting but its interesting. The scale doesnt give much away, but the small differences are big when you consider the distances involved. Also interesting when comparing dates and distances up and down the curve is how the acceleration and deceleration occurs on each side. I can email you the spreadsheet if you want to have a play….who knows we might find the 11 yr cycle somewhere in here.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/j_s_ssb.jpg
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/j_s_ssb.jpg
Paul Vaughan (13:04:36) :
In response to anna v (12:23:18)
So to clarify:
You regard “except planet A” as a n=N-1<N case?
Yes
Geoff Sharp (21:06:41)
“Hi Paul, I have been looking for that paper for some time, esp interested in his answer to De Jager. Is it available online?”
Yes Geoff:
Leif Svalgaard (17:31:11)
“Take it from the reformed sinner [Shirley] from JPL http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf […]”
I’m looking at what you and Lief are posting. I have a number of concerns already, but I don’t want to comment in detail just yet.
p.s .
true in the sense that the (n-1) have a barycenter of their own, and so does the 1.
Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) (20:55:12) :
A dumb question then is.. do the planets weight more than the sun, there for “drag” the sun along?
By memory the Sun has 99% of the solar system mass, but the 4 outer planets contribute 99% of the angular momentum that force the Sun to take its most unusual path around the barycenter.
Leif Svalgaard (13:52:29) :
repeat for clarity.
When the solar system was first born, solar activity and the solar wind were MUCH stronger than today and did in fact change the orbits [making them larger] and slow the Sun’s rotation [from less than a day to 25 days] by magnetic braking of the Sun, thus transferring angular momentum to the planets – one of the reason the planets have several hundred times more AM than the Sun has now. Right now, none of these mechanisms are effective and the orbits and solar rotation do not change, and such change there is, is one-way: slowing down the Sun [always].
I am intrigued by the above.
NOTE to all, the following is science fiction at present.
I am exploring “angels” :).
In string theory, the theory that theoretically has a consistent quantum gravity, there are many more forces than the four we have observed and measured in our reality. Dark matter, postulated to conserve conservation laws in the cosmos, in string theory has a full application. In a minimum model there are 11 dimensions to our 4, some of them time like dimensions and some space like and there are so many possibilities of model making with these bricks that I am sure that a smart graduate student could come up with anything. Some of the extra forces are like electromagnetic forces. We do not see them because they do not interact with our known reality particles except through gravity. For this reason standard string theories curl the new dimensions into tiny hyprespheres around every point, but there have been theories of “cosmic strings” stretching from one end to the other of the universe, and as I said a smart graduate student …
So here comes the science fiction triggered by your above description.
[ science fiction : Suppose a hefty part of the masses we calculate for the solar system are dark matter. ( 9/10 of the universe are postulated to be dark matter). Then a dark matter to dark- matter- magnetic interaction like the one you describe above at the beginning of the solar system, might still be going on, introducing correlations, if there are correlations.
/science fiction]
I say “if there are correlations” because I am affected by looking a bit into dynamical chaos . I give again the example of wave trains in the pacific and the atlantic. One will surely be able to correlate them particularly for the same strength wind, but no causation can be claimed in any way.
A way out of the ‘orbit’ problem is very likely that the concept of an orbit becomes mushy when the very movement of, say, Jupiter changes the point around which Jupiter is supposed to orbit. This makes the ‘orbit’ elastic with a period and a semimajor axis that vary significantly with time. As everybody’s calculations of the AM does not need the concept of an orbit, perhaps it is not fruitful to try to push the ‘orbit’ concept too far, if we have to continuously vary the size and period of the ‘orbit’ to make it fit.
I think that the solid result that came of all this is that the AM coupling does not work on rotation as all the AM is already accounted for. The orbit discussion has no bearing on this result and thus qualifies by definition as a strawman and we should treat it as such.
Geoff Sharp (21:30:51) :
By memory the Sun has 99% of the solar system mass, but the 4 outer planets contribute 99% of the angular momentum that force the Sun to take its most unusual path around the barycenter.
the angular momentum does not determine the barycenter. Just the masses and the distances, not the speed, and hence not the AM.
Leif Svalgaard (07:38:07) :
tallbloke (01:17:43) :
The 140m is not assumed, it is calculated from data. Ray clearly states…
and:
In his thread, Ray points out that the movement of the dense matter nearer the core of the sun by 140m
…Nowhere in the thread does the number 140, or 280, or 300 appear.
My bad, I was 10m out:
“Because the Sun is moving N and S by more than 100,000 km on a time scale of a decade, that means that the core is moving by about 0.13 km relative to the surface on that time scale.”
I’m not entirely sure whether this figure is the positive peak to negative peak amplitude or the maximum amplitude for the deviation form the dead centre.
Thanks for the detail on the cells. I’m still thinking these are different to the other study you told us about. I wish I could find the link again.
Preface:
This isn’t about AM. This is about addressing Geoff’s question. We’re making serious headway on that front now.
Leif Svalgaard (19:11:16)
http://www.leif.org/research/Jupiter-Orbits-P-a.png
Request clarification:
Is the plot for (a) Jupiter-system-centre or (b) Jupiter?
tallbloke (22:41:44) :
“Because the Sun is moving N and S by more than 100,000 km on a time scale of a decade, that means that the core is moving by about 0.13 km relative to the surface on that time scale.”
How does he get from 100,000 km to 130 m?
Paul Vaughan (22:51:57) :
Request clarification:
Is the plot for (a) Jupiter-system-centre or (b) Jupiter?
Don’t know what you mean. red/blue are for period/size.
circles on curves are for ‘orbit’ centered on Sun; curves with no circles are for ‘orbit’ centered on barycenter.
Paul Vaughan (22:51:57)
“Request clarification:
Is the plot for (a) Jupiter-system-centre or (b) Jupiter?”
Leif Svalgaard (23:07:46)
“Don’t know what you mean.”
The Jupiter system (i.e. Jupiter & its moons) has its own BC = (a). Jupiter by itself = (b).
Leif Svalgaard (22:13:44) :
A way out of the ‘orbit’ problem
The problem might be yours…you still havent told us in simple terms if Jupiter orbits the Sun or SSB. You have told us what the Earth orbits and backed it up with JPL data, but cant do so with Jupiter?
Alos I haven’t heard any problems with my data
lgl (01:03:56) :
Leif,
Methinks the hundreds of postings here have been in vain
Me too, your are as solar-centric as you’ve always been, feeling free to move the BC around.
Perhaps we could send the ghost of Galileo to jump up and down on the sun and yell
“AND YET IT MOVES!”
anna v (21:53:44)
“I say “if there are correlations” because I am affected by looking a bit into dynamical chaos . I give again the example of wave trains in the pacific and the atlantic. One will surely be able to correlate them particularly for the same strength wind, but no causation can be claimed in any way.”
Good example of confounding anna v.
People who don’t know each other may go to work at the same time every day – so if that happens consistently for a pair of people we can say there is a relationship between when one of them goes to work and when the other one does. We can say that much. And perhaps we cannot stop people from changing our words in ways that might make it look like we are claiming complete strangers are causing each other’s behaviour.
“We have found strong relationships (r>.9; n>100; p<.01) involving the jovian planet positions and …” gets twisted into “They claim planets cause …”
Botanists were drawing leaf morphology long before it was known how biochemical processes generated leaves. I doubt they encountered relentless, vehement charges that “Leaves do not exist!”
Interesting ideas you shared (re strings etc.)
Leif Svalgaard (22:54:20) :
tallbloke (22:41:44) :
“Because the Sun is moving N and S by more than 100,000 km on a time scale of a decade, that means that the core is moving by about 0.13 km relative to the surface on that time scale.”
How does he get from 100,000 km to 130 m?
You need to read the context around the proposition.
Tomes:
“We wish to calculate the effective acceleration, velocity and displacement of the solar core relative to the surface of the Sun. It is not necessary to do the calculation from the planets because NASA have done that for the total acceleration and we can work as a proportion of that. As the integration of acceleration to get velocity and displacement of the Sun has also been done by NASA we simply use the Z component (the N-S component in the Sun’s rotation axis frame) as given by NASA and multiply that by our (5/3 – 1) * 2*10^-6 proportion for the core relative to the surface. That is, about 1.3*10^-6 which is possibly out by a reasonably large factor (hopefully less than 10).”
Another smoking gun
http://1.2.3.10/bmi/www.bnhclub.org/JimP/jp/scaled.JPG
“These laws describe the motion of any two bodies in orbit around each other. The masses of the two bodies can be nearly equal, e.g. Charon—Pluto (~1:10), in a small proportion, e.g. Moon—Earth (~1:100), or in a great proportion, e.g. Mercury—Sun (~1:10,000,000).
In all cases the both bodies orbit around the common center of mass, the barycenter, with neither one having their center of mass exactly at one focus of an ellipse. However, both orbits are ellipses with one focus at the barycenter. When the ratio of masses is large, i.e. with planets orbiting the Sun, the barycenter is deep within the larger object close to its center of mass”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion
And if you reduce the size of the Sun to the size of Jupiter it will look like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit5.gif
i.e Both the Sun and Jupiter is accelerating (positve&negative) around the barycenter. And an object moving in an arc and being accelerated can’t keep a constant rotation.
tallbloke,
I think it is already there yelling.
Leif Svalgaard (22:29:30) :
Geoff Sharp (21:30:51) :
By memory the Sun has 99% of the solar system mass, but the 4 outer planets contribute 99% of the angular momentum that force the Sun to take its most unusual path around the barycenter.
————————————————————
the angular momentum does not determine the barycenter. Just the masses and the distances, not the speed, and hence not the AM.
So all those correlations on Carl’s AM graph matching Carsten’s diagrams that control the path of the Sun must be just a fluke, high AM pushes the Sun’s path out to 2.2 radii, low AM puts the Sun on the barycenter, this is science and the ways its going planetary influence will have more scientific evidence than the Babcock-Leighton theory could ever hope for. The barycenter is just the central point, nothing flash really, but the Jovians do seem attracted to it.
Your arguing on semantics, running out of options as the evidence builds…its good to be tested, but it would also be good to be appraised by a non biased approach.
Geoff Sharp:
Ephemeris Type should be OBSERVER.
Geoff Sharp:
I dont know the reason why its 4339 days instead of 4332 but its not important.
Leif Svalgaard (16:50:22) :
Except that the period is 4332 days, not 4339 days…
I’m now beginning to think that Geoff Sharp is trying to work out the orbit of Jupiter from its observed positions. And, after fitting an ellipse to it, he has worked out its period as 4339 days. Something like that.
Observer Table: Use this table type to generate a table of observer quantities (such as R.A./Dec.) for any object with respect to a geocentric or topocentric observer.
And he accuses me of re-inventing the wheel! I’m certainly not trying to do what he’s doing. I don’t know how to do it, for starters. I use the JPL figures simply to tell me the positions and speeds of the Sun and planets within the ecliptic coordinate system to kick off my Newtonian simulation model.
I now think that Geoff Sharp has his own alternative solar system, in which Jupiter has an orbital period of 4339 rather than 4332 days, and presumably everything else in it also have their own equally unorthodox periods. Quite possibly Geoff Sharp’s Earth goes round the Sun in 367 days. But it’s “not important”.
I don’t see anything wrong with Geoff doing this (if that’s what he’s doing). It’s rather admirable, in fact. I might try it myself one day. Take the observed positions of the planets and try and fit a curve to them. It’s what Kepler did.
But if I was doing it, I would be deeply worried if I came up with an orbital period of 4339 days for Jupiter, given that it’s pretty well (no, VERY well) established that it’s 4332 days. I certainly wouldn’t think that it was “not important”. And rather than thinking that JPL had got its numbers wrong, I would strongly suspect that I’d got mine wrong.
Its rather pathetic how Dr. Svalgaard is now supporting Shirley’s paper (who is sitting on the fence right now). This paper directly criticizes DeJager’s paper on planetary influence which Svalgaard very recently held up as a re buff for planetary influence mechanisms (very similar to holding up Usoskins grand minima paper before it reversed on him) . Also noted is his continual reference to Carsten’s recent amateur (no disrespect, amateur here myself) outcome that solar AM = planets AM. There are a few straws still floating on the surface……
Paul Vaughan (00:14:51) :
“We have found strong relationships (r>.9; n>100; p<.01) involving the jovian planet positions and …” gets twisted into “They claim planets cause …”
Well, I personally see two options: either correlations are fortuitous, or there is unknown physics behind them, as the explanations given have been shown to be inadequate energetically, and wrong kinetically (above).
Botanists were drawing leaf morphology long before it was known how biochemical processes generated leaves. I doubt they encountered relentless, vehement charges that “Leaves do not exist!”
I think you are confusing the issue. Describing something is not the same as predicting the future, unless you have very many experiments. Leaves growing offer innumerable experiments, and the same can be said for the day night correlations that people used predictively when their theory was that there was a sun chariot driven by the god Helios.
In the planetary/climate history we have one line of a few hundreds of years observation and no possibility to experiment. It is a leap of faith to use these observations in a predictive manner. Leaps of faith are allowed. They should not be confused with science.
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. Measure J distance to Sun & SSB. Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.
Tell us again how you move on 1 complete orbit? What is the criterion that the orbit is complete using the three tables you have4 provided?
Leif,
I realize now that this can [would] be misunderstood and taken out of context. What was meant was if you could change the orbit that would change the rotation. but the point that is missing is that you cannot change the orbit in the contemporary solar system except by friction which goes only one way. And perhaps drag by the solar wind’s magnetic field [which is minuscule]. When the solar system was first born, solar activity and the solar wind were MUCH stronger than today and did in fact change the orbits [making them larger] and slow the Sun’s rotation [from less than a day to 25 days] by magnetic braking of the Sun, thus transferring angular momentum to the planets – one of the reason the planets have several hundred times more AM than the Sun has now. Right now, noe of these mechanisms are effective and the orbits and solar rotation do not change, and such change there is, is one-way: slowing down the Sun [always].
What is there to misunderstand, after you have described the spin-orbit coupling in three different ways.
Whenever a revolving body, for whatever reason, changes rotation speed, the distance to the barycenter it is revolving around will change.
And it must go the other way also; whenever the distance to the barycenter is changed, the rotation will change. (at the same point of the orbit of course, not the aphelion/perihelion difference)
The solar rotation do not change, and such change there is, is one-way: slowing down the Sun [always]?? Is this also rubbish then:
http://www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_22.pdf
(yes, the convection zone, not the interior)
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. Measure J distance to Sun & SSB. Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.”
Tell us again how you move on 1 complete orbit? What is the criterion that the orbit is complete using the three tables you have provided?
From your table (2) we have:
Target body name: Solar System Barycenter (0)
Center body name: Jupiter (599)
Shown is distance in AU
1951-Jun-19 00:00 4.95509008582573
1951-Jun-20 00:00 4.95499927241922 * start
1951-Jun-21 00:00 4.95490872132356
1963-Apr-05 00:00 4.95512926483708
1963-Apr-06 00:00 4.95503231548752 * 4308 days
1963-Apr-07 00:00 4.95493622818420
1963-May-06 00:00 4.95238783851465
1963-May-07 00:00 4.95230888839073 # 4339 days
1963-May-08 00:00 4.95223031117184
—-
After 4308 days we have very nearly the same distance J-SSB, but 4339 days later the distance is different by 0.0027 AU or 404,000 km …
Geoff Sharp (02:56:03) :
to
Leif Svalgaard (22:29:30) :
the angular momentum does not determine the barycenter. Just the masses and the distances, not the speed, and hence not the AM.
So all those correlations on Carl’s AM graph matching Carsten’s diagrams that control the path of the Sun must be just a fluke, […]
Geoff, the dagrams of my two simple 2d simulators are
Sim1: http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/1985_2040_d.html
Sim2: http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/SolarSim2_sunonly.gif
These diagrams have been computed using “just the masses and the distances, not the speed, and hence not the AM”.
You don’t need or use the AM to compute the barycenter. Computing the barycenter is a simple engineering style operation using given object masses and positions only. There are no velocities involved. It is just like finding the balancing point of a balance scale.
The masses you can look up in any solar system table. The positions can be obtained either from orbits (as in Sim1 & Sim2, using orbital elements) or as a result of numerical time integration, as in my 3d simulator
http://arnholm.org/astro/software/ssg/
All of the above produce [very nearly] the same solar trajectories and hence the barycenter is the same for all. None of these techniques use AM in any way to do this.
The correlations don’t control the path of the Sun, gravity does. The AM graph of an object is a function of the objects position and velocity. So if there is a correlation with AM, it is AM that follows from the positions and velocities, not the other way.
Geoff Sharp (04:30:32) :
Its rather pathetic how Dr. Svalgaard is now supporting Shirley’s paper (who is sitting on the fence right now). This paper directly criticizes DeJager’s paper on planetary influence which Svalgaard very recently held up as a re buff for planetary influence mechanisms (very similar to holding up Usoskins grand minima paper before it reversed on him) . Also noted is his continual reference to Carsten’s recent amateur (no disrespect, amateur here myself) outcome that solar AM = planets AM. There are a few straws still floating on the surface……
So what is your opinion of this outome? Is it right or is it wrong?
lgl (07:08:21) :
Whenever a revolving body, for whatever reason, changes rotation speed, the distance to the barycenter it is revolving around will change.
And it must go the other way also; whenever the distance to the barycenter is changed, the rotation will change. (at the same point of the orbit of course, not the aphelion/perihelion difference)
No, it does not go the other way. In the first case the AM of the revolving body is changed, in the second it is not, it is the speed in the orbit that is changed to keep the AM constant.
The solar rotation do not change, and such change there is, is one-way: slowing down the Sun [always]?? Is this also rubbish then:
http://www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_22.pdf
(yes, the convection zone, not the interior)
You are confusing rotation and AM. And taking tings out of context. For a body that does not rotate as a solid body one can nevertheless define an ‘average’ rotation and derive it from the AM. This does not mean that different parts can rotate differently while still the average is constant. The paper deals with the surface rotation [even refers to one of my papers]. So no contradiction, even though the ‘relic field’ is highly speculative and probably wrong [the agreement between calculated and observed neutrino fluxes argues against such a relic field].
Leif
For a body that does not rotate as a solid body one can nevertheless define an ‘average’ rotation and derive it from the AM. This does not mean that different parts can rotate differently while still the average is constant.
It does in a viscous fluid body where varying eddy’s can change the amount of friction between layers which rotate at different speeds.
And doesn’t the rate of rotation of the suns surface vary between the equator and poles? How constant is that variance?
662 responses.
Why, this thread is beating the Hansen threads length record !
Are we starting to go in circles too? Soon we will have to calculate our angular momenta 😉
tallbloke (08:27:29) :
It does in a viscous fluid body where varying eddy’s can change the amount of friction between layers which rotate at different speeds.
And doesn’t the rate of rotation of the suns surface vary between the equator and poles? How constant is that variance?
sure, but none of this has any bearing on transfer of AM from orbit to spin, which does not happen.
The difference between poles and equator varies with solar activity that creates winds in the solar atmosphere.
Leif Svalgaard (08:40:58) :
tallbloke (08:27:29) :
And doesn’t the rate of rotation of the suns surface vary between the equator and poles? How constant is that variance?
sure, but none of this has any bearing on transfer of AM from orbit to spin, which does not happen.
The difference between poles and equator varies with solar activity that creates winds in the solar atmosphere.
Interesting. How do you know it isn’t the varying rotation speeds which cause the winds rather than vise versa? What are the relative masses of the solar atmosphere and the fluid layers which are changing in rotation speed?
What’s going on here? No-one wants to be the one with post #666?
Heh! Ok well, now that’s out of the way, teabreaks over, back on your heads!
Leif,
This is hopeless. First you say:
similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up.
(or was that another Leif Svalgaard)
and when I repeat almost the same thing it is not true.
And you say solar rotation do not change,
I link to a paper showing exactly that, that a large portion of the Sun has a varying rotation, and you reply it’s out of context. Of course there is an average of this variation. Have you ever seen one without an average?
How is spin-orbit coupling working then? Conservation of AM, fine. Tidal friction slows down the rotation of the Earth, but how does that lead to increased distance to the Moon (and to the E-M BC)?
tallbloke,
How do you know it isn’t the varying rotation speeds which cause the winds rather than vise versa?
Exactly, you can’t.
Leif,
Returning to the ‘spin-orbit coupling’ business, another way of looking at it all might be to imagine what the solar system would be like if it actually did happen. I’m not sure if the following calculations are right, but this is what I’ve found.
I estimate the Sun’s spin angular momentum, assuming a 26 day rotation period, to be about 1.0E+42 kg/m^2/s. The Sun, from my simulation model, has an orbital angular momentum that ranges from near zero when the SSB is near the centre of the Sun, to about 3.7E+40 when it’s furthest away. So the Sun’s spin angular momentum is 27 times larger than its orbital angular momentum, so if the Sun actually did gain spin angular momentum when it lost orbital angular momentum, its angular velocity would have to increase by 28/27 or about 1.04, and its rotation period would fall from 26 days to about 25 days.
But if this happened with the Sun, it would also happen with the Earth. And here the picture is rather different. I estimate the Earth’s spin angular momentum to be about 7.07E+33. But in 1960, from my simulation model, the orbital angular momentum of the Earth varied from about 2.638E+40 to 2.684E+40, with the minimum in June and the maximum in November, a change of 4.754E+38. And this is change is far larger than the current spin angular momentum of the Earth. And if all the orbital angular momentum lost between June 1960 and November 1960 was turned into a gain in spin angular momentum, the Earth’s rotation period would fall from 24 hours to 1.3 seconds!
Life would be very different on the Earth. Days would get longer from January to July, gradually returning to a 24 hour day. And get shorter and shorter in the subsequent months, until days were flashing by with nights lasting 0.65 days and daylight 0.65 days, producing a flickering twilit world.
However, because life isn’t like this on Earth, ‘spin-orbit coupling’ can’t be happening.
tallbloke (09:02:01) :
Interesting. How do you know it isn’t the varying rotation speeds which cause the winds rather than vise versa? What are the relative masses of the solar atmosphere and the fluid layers which are changing in rotation speed?
I know all these things because they are in my field of specialty. The solar atmosphere is extremely thin. You are looking at 1 in a 1000 or less depending on how you delimit the regions.
idlex (11:13:34) :
However, because life isn’t like this on Earth, ’spin-orbit coupling’ can’t be happening.
Your calculations are correct, but the ‘standard argument’ from the enthusiasts is that the Sun is a gas and the Earth is not. [doesn’t make any difference, but that is what they will say].
lgl (10:49:33) :
This is hopeless.
Indeed it is.
Leif Svalgaard (07:17:08) :
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. …
After 4308 days we have very nearly the same distance J-SSB, but after 4339 days the distance is different by 0.0027 AU or 404,000 km …
Anthony,
These people need rest, block access to this thread !
Geoff Sharp (06:39:06) :
to
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (03:24:08) :
There is a simple test, measure a Jovian planet’s distance to the SSB and then move forward exactly 1 orbit in time, the distance will be the same (give of take a few days) then look at the planet’s distance to the Sun on both occurrences, it will be vastly different. End of story.
You have already seen how the story ends. But here is my analysis as per your request.
This PDF contains to plots
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/Distance_Jupiter_Sun_SSBC_1940_2037.pdf
On page 1 is shown the Jupiter-Sun distance (in AU) for every second day since January 1940 to June 2038, about 17620 different distances evaluated. As you can see from the curve, the upper and lower extreme distances are more or less constant, typical for a stable orbit.
Then turn to page 2. This is for the same period, but shows instead the Jupiter-SSBC distance. This time, the upper and lower extreme distances are not constant, observe for example the lower values in 1987 vs 1998.
Raw data for you to check
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/Distance_Jupiter_Sun_SSBC_1940_2037.zip
So there you have it. I have computed the values without really knowing why it was so important to you, maybe you can now.
“flashing by with nights lasting 0.65 days and daylight 0.65 days, producing a flickering twilit world.”
That should be flashing by with nights lasting 0.65 seconds and daylight 0.65 seconds, producing a flickering twilit world.
anna v (04:33:40)
“[…] either correlations are fortuitous, or there is unknown physics behind them […]”
= lurking factors – a point I raised upthread.
anna v: “I think you are confusing the issue. Describing something is not the same as predicting the future, unless you have very many experiments. Leaves growing offer innumerable experiments […]”
While I disagree on the former, the latter points you introduce are worthwhile – & very important. I will add 2 comments:
1) Leaf experimentation didn’t always offer the present variety – the point I would hope people take away is about the ongoing struggle science has with scaling phenomena.
2) I have no interest in forecasting.
Elaboration on point#2:
I do, however, have a strong interest in investigating patterns – and I do everything within my power to apply careful, level, conservative judgement in interpreting findings & assessing claims. (Of course not all people can be stopped from misunderstanding &/or twisting words out of context (qualifiers go missing, adjectives get overlooked, etc.))
Here is (in a nutshell) what I think has happened.
1) Some people found some credible patterns.
2) They got frustrated – and this led to them lowering some of their behaviour standards (very substantially in some cases – to the point of being unethical), but probably some of them considered the sacrifice of their credibility & reputations justified to keep interest in the line of inquiry alive.
3) People with devious agendas hitched their wagons onto the train, making a bad situation worse.
I would say that the line of inquiry now has so much momentum that no one at present need consider sacrificing their credibility (i.e. by throwing themselves upon their sword) to keep the line of inquiry alive. Low behaviour standards are not justified under the present scenario.
I will also add that having all these devious wagons on the train is an absolute nuisance. If these folks want to offer polite, neutral support, that’s tolerable, but by barking twisted words, they’re only creating a serious optics problem for the people who already have their hands full trying to pursue legitimate science in a very challenging environment.
I thank you for the wise words you have shared in this forum anna v. You demonstrate a solid handle on what statisticians call pseudoreplication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoreplication#cite_note-0
Warning – heavy reading:
http://evolution.unibe.ch/teaching/ExpDesign/Hurlbert_EcMonogr1984.pdf
Hurlbert, Stuart H. (1984). Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54(2), 187-211.
My focus was intensely on ecology for many years. It often takes ecologists a phenomenal amount of time & effort to get a tiny amount of data. People get pretty desperate come data analysis time. I’ve seen far worse “wishful thinking” in that field (generally speaking) than in the solar-terrestrial relations literature. Few ecological systems are closed and scaling phenomena wreak havoc with measures & interpretations. In many ways, it’s a worse zoo than what we’ve been seeing here.
I recommend the Hurlbert (1984) article as a mental exercise for folks who casually toss around the word “cause”.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Dr. Svalgaard:
Can you please address my request [Paul Vaughan (23:20:56)].
This is an important loose end, since I am not convinced that people following this thread are necessarily aware that this makes any difference to the distances that were discussed.
This is the last item keeping my attention strongly focused on this thread.
To all who have contributed: Thank you. The tail end of this discussion went somewhere very important.
Regards,
Paul.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (11:35:31) :
Geoff Sharp (06:39:06) :
“There is a simple test, measure a Jovian planet’s distance to the SSB and then move forward exactly 1 orbit in time, the distance will be the same (give of take a few days) then look at the planet’s distance to the Sun on both occurrences, it will be vastly different. End of story.”
As my two posts on this show, this claim is not even true.
You have already seen how the story ends. […]
So there you have it. I have computed the values without really knowing why it was so important to you, maybe you can now.
The object was not to ‘know’ this, and it is not important in itself. The goal is diverting attention from the AM result, to throw doubt on it, to discredit people, to create enough confusion that other people don’t WHAT to think about it, etc. This is all standard fare and is surprisingly effective as every politician knows.
My post, (11:35:31) :
last sentence correction
…. maybe you can tell us now.
Leif Svalgaard (11:20:51) :
I know all these things because they are in my field of specialty.
Heh, good answer. I’m still trying to work out if this is an argument from authority, or a claim to hidden knowledge. 😉
Paul Vaughan (11:57:01) :
Can you please address my request [Paul Vaughan (23:20:56)].
This is an important loose end, since I am not convinced that people following this thread are necessarily aware that this makes any difference to the distances that were discussed.
The Jupiter system (i.e. Jupiter & its moons) has its own BC = (a). Jupiter by itself = (b).
(a), of course. It makes almost no difference because that point is well within Jupiter itself [almost at the center]. For the Earth, one should also use the Earth-Moon barycenter, and for all planets, as well in principle. Only for the Earth-Moon and Pluto-Charon are there any differences of note.
tallbloke (12:44:07) :
Leif Svalgaard (11:20:51) :
“I know all these things because they are in my field of specialty.”
Heh, good answer. I’m still trying to work out if this is an argument from authority, or a claim to hidden knowledge. 😉
Not an argument, just a simple reply to your question, and nothing hidden about it. Hundreds [perhaps thousands] of other scientists and possibly millions of ordinary educated or interested folks know too. Even you could find out, by investing a bit of your time [instead of mine 🙂 ].
Leif Svalgaard (12:44:16)
“(a), of course. It makes almost no difference because that point is well within Jupiter itself [almost at the center]. For the Earth, one should also use the Earth-Moon barycenter, and for all planets, as well in principle. Only for the Earth-Moon and Pluto-Charon are there any differences of note.”
I remember seeing a plot somewhere (sorry I don’t have a link) produced by an expert on ephemerides that showed the instantaneous-orbital-period of both Saturn & the Saturn-system-BC relative to the solar-system-BC. The Saturn variation was an order of magnitude larger than that for the Saturn-system-BC.
idlex,
Thanks for some hard facts but unfortunately you can’s do the Earth this way because it orbits the Sun-Earth/Moon barycenter and not the SSBC.
You also need to include the Moon in the calcs making it rather complicated I guess.
Carsten,
Thanks to you too but it doesn’t prove anything. How large is the distance variation and which point do they orbit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit2.gif
I know it’s not an identical situation but you get the picture.
It seems some in here are trying do refute Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, surprising.
request/suggestion for Geoff & Carsten:
When you produce these plots with time spanning decades (or centuries) on the x-axis, please consider adjusting the x-axis number-type to “number” (rather than ‘date’). This will dramatically improve the readability of your plots.
And – of course – thank you for sharing the plots – much appreciated.
Paul Vaughan (13:19:15) :
I remember seeing a plot somewhere (sorry I don’t have a link) produced by an expert on ephemerides that showed the instantaneous-orbital-period of both Saturn & the Saturn-system-BC relative to the solar-system-BC. The Saturn variation was an order of magnitude larger than that for the Saturn-system-BC.
I don’t think so, but in any case that would make the situation [the variation] even worse compared to the [corresponding] Jupiter-Sun period. Checking for Jupiter, I find that it makes only a fraction of a day difference compared to a total swing of a month so is not a worry, and in any case, the correct thing to do is to use the Jupiter-BC.
Leif:
Even you could find out, by investing a bit of your time [instead of mine 🙂 ].
Ah, but I don’t get to challenge the book author, and have him call me names and start an argument then.
Seriously Leif, thanks for your stamina, knowledge sharing, patience and sweet friendly good nature. Ok, I lied about the last bit, you’re a bit of a cantankerous old git I reckon. But anyway, it’s been good to kick the football about again, and I reckon we’ve sneaked a couple of curving volley’s into the net this time. There will no doubt be a post mortem by email, and a return match at a venue to be decided.
Paul Vaughan (11:57:01) :
To all who have contributed: Thank you. The tail end of this discussion went somewhere very important.
You mean the debunking of this mendacious claim?
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. Measure J distance to Sun & SSB. Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.”
Leif Svalgaard (07:17:08) :
After 4308 days we have very nearly the same distance J-SSB, but 4339 days later the distance is different by 0.0027 AU or 404,000 km …
lgl (13:29:31) :
It seems some in here are trying do refute Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, surprising.
already Isaac Newton did that…
To all concerned
In England expression “cantankerous old git” is a term of endearment for an an elderly gentleman.
tallbloke (13:46:38) :
you’re a bit of a cantankerous old git I reckon.
Science can be cruel, cold, and hard.
Maybe it would be a sensible plan to wait until Geoff is back online having had the opportunity to double check his data before ascribing motivation to his observations.
Words like mendacity tend to create more smoke and heat, than light. Unless that’s your aim. See how easy it is to cast aspersions?
Leif Svalgaard (14:10:07) :
tallbloke (13:46:38) :
you’re a bit of a cantankerous old git I reckon.
Science can be cruel, cold, and hard.
And wrong while it’s at it.
vukcevic (14:07:37) :
To all concerned
In England expression “cantankerous old git” is a term of endearment for an an elderly gentleman.
Thanks Mr V, but I think you may be putting out the fire with gasoline here. 😉
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (07:37:04) :
The correlations don’t control the path of the Sun, gravity does. The AM graph of an object is a function of the objects position and velocity. So if there is a correlation with AM, it is AM that follows from the positions and velocities, not the other way.
I dont really care, and would rather leave that detail to the boffins. At the end of the day Carl’s AM graph lines up exactly with your diagrams. You can argue about the semantics all day, but we have a scientific result that can be tested.
Your 2 graphs on Jupiter’s orbits need to be overlaid so we can see the differences. I have done it here.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/j_s_ssb.jpg
But that was not what I was asking, but interesting to see what method you chose.
vukcevic (14:07:37) :
In England expression “cantankerous old git” is a term of endearment for an an elderly gentleman.
I’m sure that is what he meant …
Leif Svalgaard (14:30:35) :
vukcevic (14:07:37) :
In England expression “cantankerous old git” is a term of endearment for an an elderly gentleman.
I’m sure that is what he meant …
Wisdom comes with age. Or as Frank Zappa said:
Wisdom is the domain of the wis, which is extinct. 😉
tallbloke (14:15:59) :
Maybe it would be a sensible plan to wait until Geoff is back online having had the opportunity to double check his data before ascribing motivation to his observations.
I pointed out the error early this morning. Even showed him his own data. He has been online since. Has it been me, I would have acknowledged my error, retracted all ‘end of story’ posts, both here and on other sites, where the same mistake is referred to. Not doing so, being silent, seems to me to indicate a hope that this would just go away with time, and that is a powerful motivation of the type I implied.
Words like mendacity tend to create more smoke and heat, than light.
I normally would not use this tone, but allow me to ‘retaliate’ a bit in the face of words used about me like ‘how low you can go’, ‘waffle, ‘pathetic’, ‘biased’, etc, the list goes on. I’m only human and [rarely] I do display some emotion. If Geoff does as I suggested above i would have done, then I shall profusely apologize. If he does not, my word stands.
tallbloke (14:43:33) :
“endearment for an an elderly gentleman.”
Wisdom comes with age.
Then I qualify.
Leif Svalgaard (07:17:08) :
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. Measure J distance to Sun & SSB. Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.”
Tell us again how you move on 1 complete orbit? What is the criterion that the orbit is complete using the three tables you have provided?
From your table (2) we have:
Target body name: Solar System Barycenter (0)
Center body name: Jupiter (599)
Shown is distance in AU
1951-Jun-19 00:00 4.95509008582573
1951-Jun-20 00:00 4.95499927241922 * start
1951-Jun-21 00:00 4.95490872132356
1963-Apr-05 00:00 4.95512926483708
1963-Apr-06 00:00 4.95503231548752 * 4308 days
1963-Apr-07 00:00 4.95493622818420
1963-May-06 00:00 4.95238783851465
1963-May-07 00:00 4.95230888839073 # 4339 days
1963-May-08 00:00 4.95223031117184
—-
After 4308 days we have very nearly the same distance J-SSB, but 4339 days later the distance is different by 0.0027 AU or 404,000 km …
I made an error when calculating the Julian days and the figure should have been 4309 days not 4339. What I am trying to do is isolate the elliptical orbit semi-major axis changes to see if the Jup/Sun distance varies. By choosing the two dates with the same Jup/SSB distance I thought this would isolate any elliptical orbit variance. But 23 days away from the Jupiter standard orbit is probably too far away.
If we stick to the pure 4332 days it advances the date to April 30 1963, and if we do the same calculations we get Jup/Sun diff of .0025AU and Jup/SSB diff of .0021AU. So the answer to the question still eludes us based on these dates. That further advancement to April 30 pushes the Sun back towards the barycenter which is clouding the picture. If we assume 4332 days does eliminate the elliptical factor we still have the Sun moving 370,000 kilometers away from Jupiter from 1951 – 1963. This isn’t finished yet.
What we need is to measure the true Jup/Sun distance from its closest point at the barycenter and then again at its furthest point from the barycenter to test this properly. To do this we must remove the elliptical semi-major axis changes.
There are some smart people in here that should be able to do this. I might start by seeing if I can work out a daily elliptical semi-major axis change factor that can be applied to a date.
Leif Svalgaard (13:43:21) “I don’t think so […]”
I don’t think you would question this expert, but there is absolutely no chance I am going to name the expert in this forum. Rather, I am going to make an attempt to pursue this discrepancy independently and then if I need to I will approach the expert for clarification. Thank you for your comments.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
idlex (04:09:52)
“[…] Take the observed positions of the planets and try and fit a curve to them. […]”
This is what Horizons does – it’s based on a least-squares fit to observations.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
lgl (07:08:21)
http://www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_22.pdf
Hadn’t seen that one before.
Related:
I hope someone starts translating (from other languages like Russian) research from the past 40+ years and making it readily available in English.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Regarding all this “noise” in the thread about whether SunSSB distance (let’s call it ‘r’) is ‘influenced’ or ’caused’ by AM, let’s distinguish between ’caused by’ and ‘related to’.
For insight, here is a suggested exercise:
1) Make a timeplot of r^2.
2) Plot AM vs. r^2 (not in a time plot – but rather in a plain scatterplot).
[Note: r = SunSSB distance]
Related:
Most people overlook the very most important thing Jose (1965) had to say.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1965AJ…..70..193J&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=193&epage=193&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
[Hint: p.194 (pdf p.2)]
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
I welcome comments on the following substantial discrepancy (here – or elsewhere if this thread gets shut down soon).
Saturn’s orbital period:
Wikipedia: 29.657296a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn
Calculated from NASA orbital elements 1800AD-2050AD: 29.45069432a
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t1.txt
Calculated from NASA orbital elements 3000BC-3000AD: 29.47303787a
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t2.txt
Notes:
a = annum (i.e. year)
retrieval date = Mar. 30, 2009
Before simply commenting “Nasa vs. Wikipedia on orbital periods! – lol!”, please Google “29.657296”.
This may seem a trivial detail, but it has interesting implications — for example some say that ~2400a periods in SIM & in geophysical data may be related – and this is relevant in that discussion (whether many have taken the time to consider it or not).
(Anyone want to bet we see changes soon? Take notes now…)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
tallbloke (08:27:29) & (09:02:01) and lgl (10:49:33)
I’m glad there is someone here pointing these things out (i.e. viscosity, turbulence, spatiotemporally varying differential rotation, etc.)
Leif Svalgaard (08:40:58) – “sure, but none of this has any bearing on transfer of AM from orbit to spin, which does not happen.”
I’m still curious to know why Shirley (2006) did not address this [See Paul Vaughan (20:35:08).]
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Leif Svalgaard (12:09:25) – “The goal is diverting attention from the AM result, to throw doubt on it, to discredit people, to create enough confusion that other people don’t WHAT to think about it, etc. This is all standard fare and is surprisingly effective as every politician knows.”
There may be some with such an agenda, but I need to again assert that I don’t even see this as being about AM (although AM has clearly been a component of this discussion, with varying priority for different participants).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Regarding Leif Svalgaard (13:52:14) – Thanks for the laugh.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
lgl (02:00:25) – “[…] i.e Both the Sun and Jupiter is accelerating (positve&negative) around the barycenter. And an object moving in an arc and being accelerated can’t keep a constant rotation.”
Waiting with interest to see how/if this gets attacked.
Geoff Sharp (16:00:21) :
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
“Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. Measure J distance to Sun & SSB. Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.”
By choosing the two dates with the same Jup/SSB distance I thought this would isolate any elliptical orbit variance.
This is circular. First you say ‘we find’, then you admit that the point was chosen because of the same distance.
I pointed that out a day ago with no reply or acknowledgment of this. Now, let’s go check solarcycle24.com: still no retraction there…
And I asked a long time ago, why this ‘problem’ was important [as you said a ‘reason was forthcoming’]. What is it you said about me “be a man”, right? Here is your chance.
The whole issue with barycenter orbits or not is, of course, just a diversion. Direct numerical integration shows a perfect balance between what the Sun gains/loses and what the rest of the solar system [including the Moon] loses/gains, so [as you said in a weak moment] “let’s come off the AM idea, there is no spin-orbit coupling”. This is the important result that Carsten and Chris have provided us with [and that Shirley admitted to], allowing the tree to be pruned, and justifying the ~700 comments in this monster thread.
Someone asked if we were trying to refute Kepler’s orbit. No need to do that, Isaac Newton did that centuries ago. The other nonsense about some planets ‘orbiting’ the Sun and some planets ‘orbiting’ the BC must also be dispensed with. Newton’s insight was that everything orbits the BC. The conceptual problem comes in if we persist in thinking in terms of Keplerian orbits, like the shape of the Earth’s orbit [or Jupiter’s] being what it is except that the focus is just shifted from the Sun to the BC. THAT is the grand error. The ‘orbit’ about the BC is not a Keplerian ellipse with for instance a fixed period of 4332 days and a constant semi major axis of 5.20 AU [for Jupiter]. No, it is a convoluted, twisted path where the period varies from 4313 to 4347 days and the semi major axis varies between 5.184-5.213 AU, at least for the past 100 years.
Now, the BC is slow ‘moving’ relative to the Sun, so that a Sun-centered ‘ellipse’ is a good approximation as seen in http://www.leif.org/research/Jupiter-Orbits-P-a.png [much better than a BC-centered rubber orbit significantly changing its period and size all the time]. For the Earth it is the same thing: the Sun and the Barycenter have scarcely moved relative to each other during a year, so with good approximation we can say that the Sun and the Earth [or rather ‘their’ BC] move around the solar system BC together.
As I said, all of this is not necessary as the simple numerical integrations show us what is going on, without us having to turn and twists ‘orbits’ into place. And for the [hi-jacked] topic of this thread they show that there is no extra AM floating around, no funny accelerations, no spin-orbit coupling, no speeding up/slowing down of the Sun due to the AM in the solar system. If some wants to keep their correlations alive they simply will have to go elsewhere [than AM] for their cause [or as some have said: admit that they don’t know of any causes, for now], and there are plenty of places to go.
Now, if everybody could now pitch in and agree to the above, we can tell Anthony that his gracious hosting of this ‘debate’ has been beneficial and that we won’t do it again 🙂
Paul Vaughan (16:26:09) :
This is what Horizons does – it’s based on a least-squares fit to observations.
No, that is a misrepresentation. Ask your expert 🙂
At the heart is a very precise numerical integration that is constrained [boundary conditions] to fit observations. The result of the integration is a HUGE data file of computed positions which then is fitted to a sum of cosine terms which for each body can run in the hundreds of terms. Not much different from the epicycles of old.
I can see why you need to call “game” now Leif. (As soon as Geoff converts his Jupiter-Sun-SSB distances to instantaneous periods (via T^2=r^3) and notes the lower bound’s connection with vukcevic’s formula… well, maybe that discussion will grace another forum…)
Paul Vaughan (Mar. 27)
“Thank you to all for the various comments – very interesting discussion.”
Leif Svalgaard (Mar. 27)
“There is, indeed, some entertainment value, but also a great deal of tedium.”
You are right – and it is important.
Final thought:
The theme Leif labeled as “nonsense” (16:53:10) was, for me, the most salient feature of the the whole thread, as it draws attention towards the root of the misunderstandings.
Paul Vaughan (17:44:07) :
The theme Leif labeled as “nonsense” (16:53:10) was, for me, the most salient feature of the the whole thread, as it draws attention towards the root of the misunderstandings.
then I think you have not understood anything. These were not misunderstandings, but tactical maneuvers. The numerical integrations show that the orbits were not essential for the AM result, hence any discussions about orbits were, at best, just diversions.
And I don’t ‘need to call it game’. If we could, that would be constructive since we would have accomplished something.
Paul Vaughan (16:26:09)
“This is what Horizons does – it’s based on a least-squares fit to observations.”
Leif Svalgaard (17:05:07) :
“No, that is a misrepresentation. Ask your expert :-)”
That’s where I got the info – but the answer does not change what you carried on to say — in fact I felt you did a good job of clarifying – i.e. “[boundary conditions] to fit observations”:
Leif continued: “At the heart is a very precise numerical integration that is constrained [boundary conditions] to fit observations. The result of the integration is a HUGE data file of computed positions which then is fitted to a sum of cosine terms which for each body can run in the hundreds of terms. Not much different from the epicycles of old.”
Thanks for the clarification – & for everything else.
lgl:
Thanks for some hard facts but unfortunately you can’s do the Earth this way because it orbits the Sun-Earth/Moon barycenter and not the SSBC.
You also need to include the Moon in the calcs making it rather complicated I guess.
Even if you were right about what orbits what, it wouldn’t make very much difference to the figures. The orbital angular momentum of the the Earth-Moon system would not be very much larger than that of the Earth on its own, given that the Moon is following much the same path as the Earth and at much the same speed. If orbital angular momentum was being transferred into spin angular momentum, the Earth would still end up spinning aboout as fast as I calculated.
I think that, in some sort of ‘intuitive’ way, it sort of ‘feels’ right that, as the Sun gains and loses orbital angular momentum as it goes in that tight little orbit around the SSB, this is somhow transferred to and from the Sun’s spin angular momentum. And the numbers suggest that would mean the Sun going round just a bit faster, with a period of 25 days instead of 26 days. And that doesn’t seem too implausible.
But when the same calculation is done for the Earth, and the same mysterious transfer of angular momentum is postulated, the Earth’s rotation rate speeds up much more, falling from 24 hours to 1.3 seconds. And that just isn’t plausible at all. Days and night would pass in a flickering half-light. It contradicts our experience. So this transfer isn’t happening with the Earth. And if it isn’t happening with the Earth, it’s not happening with the Sun either.
I think there has to be a point where what you intuitively feel is happening has to give way to reasoning that says it isn’t happening. Intuitively, to me, this spin-orbit coupling idea ‘felt’ right. But now, with the assistance of Leif, I’ve looked at it more closely, and worked out the figures, it looks like an illusion. But I was never very wedded to the idea. So I don’t mind losing that girl too much. Yes, she was pretty, Angela Momenta, but…
But I still like the idea that there’s something about the orbital motion of the Sun and planets which just might be affecting what’s happening on the Sun. I just don’t think it’s ‘spin-orbit coupling’ any more. But I quite like my ball bearings rolling around on the surface of the Sun, pulled by the planets this way and that. I haven’t tried modelling them yet, but I can almost see them already, swirling around on the surface of the Sun like winds, and explaining, why, …almost everything, of course. Intuitively, it feels right. So there may be a new girl in town, now that Angela Momenta has gone.
Leif Svalgaard (14:00:19) :
lgl (13:29:31) :
It seems some in here are trying do refute Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, surprising.
already Isaac Newton did that…
Did he? I thought Kepler’s laws still held good. They’re not precisely accurate, for some of the reasons we have discussed here. But then, as I understand it, Newton’s laws aren’t precisely accurate from the point of view of the Theory of Relativity.
Leif Svalgaard (16:53:10) :
This is far from over, we have not established which point Jupiter orbits. If you wish to leave the discussion that’s your choice. My error of 23 days still doesn’t take away the fact that the Jup/Sun distance is varying each orbit, and if that is so we still have a driver for AM conservation.
If we look at the Earth/Sun distance change per orbit with JPL it varies by 0.0001AU each year, that is very good evidence to suggest the Earth orbits the Sun. We do not see that accuracy when comparing the Jup/Sun distances per orbit. I have gone back 4 orbits of Jup using 4331.572 as the period (now that is in doubt?) and the variance is .0042AU (630, 000 km) between highest and lowest. If Jup is orbiting the Sun would that variance be so large?
This is an intriguing line of research that is now pointing (from what I have seen so far) to a Jup orbit point somewhere in the middle between the Sun and SSB. I want to find the answer.
Obviously we have to determine the exact Jup orbit period before going any further.
If Anthony and others wish to continue this on here that’s great, if not I will continue it on solarcyle24.
idlex: Did he?
I see Leif has already answered this question.
Geoff Sharp (18:18:57) :
This is an intriguing line of research that is now pointing (from what I have seen so far) to a Jup orbit point somewhere in the middle between the Sun and SSB. I want to find the answer.
And on this note, that would increase Newton’s angular momentum in his grave, it is a good time for you to move over to solarcycle24.com that has a sandbox for just this.
Leif, you and SOHO lucked out. I just entered picks at http://mission-madness.nasa.gov/ and picked SOHO over Vikings I & II. Had Pioneer 10 won over the Vikings, I would have picked it on the grounds that it studied more bodies than SOHO does. If SOHO wins this round, I’ll vote for it next round too.
Ric Werme (18:37:38) :
Leif, you and SOHO lucked out. I just entered picks at http://mission-madness.nasa.gov/ and picked SOHO over Vikings I & II.
Now the rest of you lads and lassies do the same 🙂
Guys, this is a moderator comment.
Leif has suggested that this thread has run its course.
Interested parties can continue at solarcycle24.com per the suggestions of both Geoff Sharp and Leif.
jeez aka charles the moderator.
Lief Svalgaard said: “Now, if everybody could now pitch in and agree to the above, we can tell Anthony that his gracious hosting of this ‘debate’ has been beneficial and that we won’t do it again :-)”
Why shut a debate down? This is the scientific method in action. [Many thanks to our host and creator for allowing this]. There are TOO MANY questions raised by too many specialists…in this thread….to shut it down.
Again it goes back to my original criticism, Lief. If you took a more inductive approach (as is being done here in this blog)…then you will increase your odds [and they are always damn good :~) ] of being correct.
Too many questions raised at this point in time. Continue the discussion. Geoff is a smart man and until he is disproved….neither can it be proven that he is wrong.
We don’t know everything here.
Like I said….Anthony should be charging tuition to a guy like me…but even if I paid for the course, I would definitely audit YOUR course….to risk getting a d minus. :~)
Respect…..
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Reply: Not shutting down, just moving per note above. Feel free to wander. Leif, if you stop responding in this thread, you’ll probably get more cooperation in the move. ~ charles the moderator
Paul Vaughan (17:44:07)
“[…] root of the misunderstandings.”
Leif Svalgaard (17:55:58)
“[…] then I think you have not understood anything.”
“Misunderstanding” is a polite word (that encompasses errors & politics) – and I understand your sense of responsibility to be explicit — the Svalgaard style of leadership seems unlikely to be challenged for its coyness.
It got late here and I had to hit the hay. I’d just like to thank Anthony, Leif, and all the participants here for the venue, the willingness to re-cover old ground as well as new ground, the generally well mannered (cough) debate, and the insights. A truly valuable experience which we all get to take away with us.
For me, being forced by Leif to go away and do the maths was really valuable. I learned how well damped the response of an orbiting body (mercury) would be to a decadal cyclic change in a close heavy gravitational body. A late comment to my Mercury orbit thread on another forum contained this gem:
“The orbital motions and rotations of Mercury are so well defined that they have been able to use slight variations to discover that Mercury has a liquid core.”
This has given me fresh insights into the way the sun’s varying rotation speed between equator and poles in it’s liquid outer regions changes. I will be asking Leif about available data on North-South differences in these changes at the next opportunity.
-tallbloke-
If you torture the data enough, it will confess.
Even to crimes it did not commit.
idlex,
Even if you were right about what orbits what, it wouldn’t make very much difference to the figures
May I kindly ask you to give the hard facts again.
The equivalent to
But in 1960, from my simulation model, the orbital angular momentum of the Earth varied from about 2.638E+40 to 2.684E+40, with the minimum in June and the maximum in November,
but around the Sun this time.
Using the BC I think you will include a lot of the potential-to-kinetic energy conversion and that will of course be wrong, counting it twice. I see I do somewhat the same in my hypothesis so I have to rephrase that too.
I have to add this.
—
tallbloke (01:52:34)
Another smoking gun
http://1.2.3.10/bmi/www.bnhclub.org/JimP/jp/scaled.JPG
—
I couldn’t believe no one shot this down (sorry for being coy) – it was an easy target — but maybe no one thought to correct the website-address by chopping “1.2.3.10/bmi/” – i.e. to
http://www.bnhclub.org/JimP/jp/scaled.JPG
…So maybe no one even looked to see that the rise by a factor of 3/2 “just happens” to coincide with T^2=r^3.
An important clue in the y-axis labeling is “per period”.
Good fun.
Thanks charles (moderator).
savethesharks,
Too many questions raised at this point in time. Continue the discussion.
Absolutely, we have barely touched the core. This discussion has mainly focused on the two red herrings conservation of AM from revolution and Geoff’s method for proving that Jupiter is orbiting the SSBC, with some good analysis by Paul including interesting links and some wise words from anna v in between.
It has set as a prerequisite that the total AM needs to be varying to give room for a spin-orbit coupling. This is of course nonsense. The prerequisite is that the rotational energy of the solar system must be constant. It is proven by observation that a spin-orbit coupling exists, by measuring that the Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth, so there is nothing preventing the assumtion that some of the AM of revolution is converted to AM of rotation and ‘transferred’ back and forth between different objects.
And one might prove Goeff’s methods wrong but that does not change the fact that “In all cases the both bodies orbit around the common center of mass, the barycenter, with neither one having their center of mass exactly at one focus of an ellipse. However, both orbits are ellipses with one focus at the barycenter” (from wiki)
So keep it going.
“The physicists of the past and present are too secretive. All the papers I have read, from Euclid to Newton to Einstein to Feynman, have been like puzzles. They are criminally incomplete, and I can’t say that I fully enjoy filling all the omissions in myself. I am gratified in the instances I can do so, but I shouldn’t have to. Barebones math is not a physical solution to a problem. A solution includes the explanation of how the math works at all points. This sort of solution is correctable. Solutions like those of Newton and Einstein are not. That is one reason that both Newton and Einstein have had such longevity: no one could get behind the equations to pull them apart. After breaking through both walls—those of both Einstein and Newton—I can tell you that this incompleteness appears to be purposeful. They, like most other scientists, have hidden the groundwork because they had no confidence in it. They kept it out of the light of day because it could not survive the light of day, and they knew it.”
– Miles Mathis –
Perihelion Precession of Mercury
http://www.geocities.com/mileswmathis/merc.html
Paul Vaughan (00:33:59) :
I have to add this.
–
tallbloke (01:52:34)
Another smoking gun
http://1.2.3.10/bmi/www.bnhclub.org/JimP/jp/scaled.JPG
–
I couldn’t believe no one shot this down (sorry for being coy) – it was an easy target — but maybe no one thought to correct the website-address by chopping “1.2.3.10/bmi/” – i.e. to
http://www.bnhclub.org/JimP/jp/scaled.JPG
…So maybe no one even looked to see that the rise by a factor of 3/2 “just happens” to coincide with T^2=r^3.
An important clue in the y-axis labeling is “per period”.
Hi Paul,
You saying the gun was firing blanks? 😉
the graph is from this thread if you are interested.
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/71027-jupiter-influencing-sunspots.html
My Mercury thread is here:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/86461-how-well-mercurys-orbit-defined.html
And I need your help (and anyone else’s) to discuss the correlation I found between north south sunspot distribution and north south barycentric motion here:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/86565-help-needed-understand-curious-correlation.html
I use a different handle on that forum, don’t blow my cover. 😉
If you’re not interested in joining to post, email me rog at tallbloke dot net.
Thanks
Paul,
I couldn’t believe no one shot this down
Why the peak at 5.35 ?
Interested parties can continue at solarcycle24.com per the suggestions of both Geoff Sharp and Leif. – jeez
That’s a pretty vague sort of hand wave. Anyone got a link to exactly where this new thread is?
I think that, as a conversation, this thread has probably run its course. It’s actually been several conversations, I guess. My thanks also go to all concerned.
I have been bothered by the confusion on all of our houses that the mention of angular momentum is displaying.
I think it is due to the fact that people have not really thought about what conservation of angular momentum means. It is that it does not change unless a force is applied to the body.
Let us take the simplest case of a random angular momentum.
Take a point x and have a particle with constant momentum coast by. A plane is defined, and a vertical axis through x allows us to define an angular momentum too, which will be m*v*sin(theta)*r, where theta is the angle subtended by the closest approach, a, over the radius, r, by construction.
Conservation of momentum tells us that m*v is not changing ( no forces in our problem)
Conservation of angular momentum about this arbitrary point x says then that
sin(theta)*r must be a constant. Lo and behold, it is: sin(theta)=a/r so sin(theta)*r=a , a constant of the problem, since the closest approach is well defined geometrically.
In the case of a circular trajectory, sin(theta) is 1, r is constant and equal to a, and v is constant unless some external to the system force is applied. Once we get out of this simple case, for an ellipse or a parabola, conservation of angular momentum about a central force means that there is an interplay between r and v, distance and velocity, so as to keep the AM constant.
This simple picture cannot hold for the many body gravitational problem, because there more than one force applies which negates a simple accounting and a numerical method , as we have seen, is necessary. All planets are subject to many forces that change their speed and direction, thus conservation of angular momentum as a concept becomes similar to conservation of momentum of many bouncing billiard balls . It is the sum that keeps count.
lgl (01:06:13) :
The prerequisite is that the rotational energy of the solar system must be constant. It is proven by observation that a spin-orbit coupling exists, by measuring that the Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth
One should perhaps not feed the trolls, as per jeez 🙂
But the main reason no progress is made is that the facts are not stated explicitly. The laws of Nature are just condensed statements of gazillions of facts.
Take the above example about the Moon. (M1) Observations show a 4 cm/yr increase of the distance. I’ll call that fact M1. The reason for this is friction due to tides (M2). Friction causes heat (M3). That heat is radiated away from the Earth-Moon system (M4), therefore the system loses the rotational energy that was converted into heat (M5) which is therefore not conserved (deduction M6). The heat loss is one-way (M7). The friction slows down the Earth (M8) which changes the spin angular momentum of the Earth (M9). Because angular momentum is conserved (M10), the Moon must gain angular momentum about the same axis (M11), not about any other axis (M12), therefore its distance must increase (explaining M1).
Now, before progress can be made, the above facts or deductions (M1-M12) must be agreed upon. So, anybody disagreeing with any of them?
idlex (02:53:25) :
That’s a pretty vague sort of hand wave. Anyone got a link to exactly where this new thread is?
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=488
Leif Svalgaard (06:51:09) :
Now, before progress can be made, the above facts or deductions (M1-M12) must be agreed upon. So, anybody disagreeing with any of them?
P.S. you are supposed to disagree with precisely one of them.
Leif Svalgaard:
The friction slows down the Earth (M8) which changes the spin angular momentum of the Earth (M9). Because angular momentum is conserved (M10), the Moon must gain angular momentum about the same axis (M11), not about any other axis (M12), therefore its distance must increase (explaining M1).
M11 bothers me. That looks like ‘spin-orbit coupling’, which I thought you had disposed of. Why should there be any gain in the Moon’s angular momentum (around the centre of the Earth or Earth-Moon centre of mass) just because the Earth loses a bit of spin angular momentum? Or if it’s true or Earth and Moon, it should be true of Sun and planets as well.
M5 bothers me a bit too.
That heat is radiated away from the Earth-Moon system (M4), therefore the system loses the rotational energy that was converted into heat (M5)
Why should something spin faster when it’s hot, slower when it’s cold? Never mind the tiny frictional forces of tides, what about the radiant energy of the Sun as it falls on planets? They heat up a bit when they get nearer the Sun, and cool down when they move away. Do they spin faster and slower as a consequence?
idlex (08:07:57) :
Do you remember the careful parenthesis of : “except for the tiny effect of the tides”
The tides ARE a spin orbit effect. Just the energy available through gravitation is not enough to explain what the barycenter lovers want to explain.
You helped prove that kinematically this is true too. The energetic argument was true anyway, does not need complicated calculations.
M11 bothers me too. The lost radiation energy is taken from the rotation loss.
If it’s compensated for you have increased the energy of the universe.
idlex (08:07:57) :
M11 bothers me. That looks like ’spin-orbit coupling’, which I thought you had disposed of. Why should there be any gain in the Moon’s angular momentum (around the centre of the Earth or Earth-Moon centre of mass) just because the Earth loses a bit of spin angular momentum? Or if it’s true or Earth and Moon, it should be true of Sun and planets as well.
Because of M8, the Earth is slowed down hence loses AM around its axis. Because of M10, the Moon must gain (M11). And it will be true of the Sun and the planets too, of course: The planets cause tides on the Sun, that slows down the Sun, therefore the planets move away from the Sun, just the same as for the Earth and the Moon. Because the tides on the Sun are so minute, the slowdown is VERY small [beyond the last decimal point of your calculation], so there is a coupling [the friction]. If there was no friction, the tides would not slow down the Earth.
M5 bothers me a bit too.
Why should something spin faster when it’s hot, slower when it’s cold? Never mind the tiny frictional forces of tides, what about the radiant energy of the Sun as it falls on planets?
It is not the heat that does it. It is the friction. When you step on your car brake, the friction between the brakepads and the wheel slows down rotation of the wheel. Friction makes the brakes hot [try to feel it, or just rub your hands together vigorously] and that heat is lost to space, and cannot be recovered, so the Sun has lost rotational energy that cannot be regained. This is why the tides cause a one-way change in rotation.
lgl (08:55:15) :
M11 bothers me too. The lost radiation energy is taken from the rotation loss. If it’s compensated for you have increased the energy of the universe.
You are confusing energy and angular momentum [as in most of your posts on this – and the realization of this confusion may the Aha-moment you need], and the energy is not compensated for. If you agree with M1, M3, M4, M5, M7, and M8, then consider that the AM is the product of distance, mass, and speed. The distance goes up 4 cm/yr [M1, agree?], the mass does not change [agree?], and the speed goes down a little bit [but less than the distance goes up, in fact with the square root of the distance AM = r * m * v, and v = 2pi*r/T, where T ~ r^(3/2) Kepler’s third law, agree?], so the AM goes up due to the Moon receding which is M11 [now agree?].
lgl (08:55:15) :
M11 bothers me too. The lost radiation energy is taken from the rotation loss. If it’s compensated for you have increased the energy of the universe.
Instead of thinking in terms of angular momentum [which seems to cause endless confusion], one can also approach the problem from purely interaction between gravity and friction:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit4/tides.html
The net result is the same: friction robs the Earth of rotation and makes the Moon recede. This is a one-way street [no cycles can result from it] and THAT is the important insight.
As per the moderator request, I will just post this short thank you to Anthony for hosting this very interesting debate, where I learned something I doubted before: There is no spin orbit coupling between the Sun and the planets. The reasons have been stated in this thread, and our computer simulations confirm that orbital AM is completely balanced between the Sun and the planets.
I have just completed a run where the sum of AM is computed for the Sun and planets between 1940 and 2076, on 24373 different dates. The orbital AM sum is constant at 3.12621258E+43 (SI units) on all these dates.
Thanks to Leif for the patience, and to everyone else for their contributions. Now it is time to really figure out why SC24 looks to be so weak.
Thanks Leif,
but this is not my problem (admitting my last comment was not very smart) My problem is that you and others have repeatedly confirmed the spin-orbit coupling. I haven’t seen the proof that the Sun can’t gain some energy from the planets through gravitation, giving it some ‘extra’ potential energy, miniscule in the big picture, which is later lost again so that the average is 0.
lgl (10:48:35) :
My problem is that you and others have repeatedly confirmed the spin-orbit coupling. I haven’t seen the proof that the Sun can’t gain some energy from the planets through gravitation, giving it some ‘extra’ potential energy, miniscule in the big picture, which is later lost again so that the average is 0.
The issue is one of energy or magnitude [of the coupling]. There has NEVER been an issue that the coupling does not exist. The ONLY issue is how big it is, and it is VERY VERY small compared to the movements and turmoil that take place on the messy Sun. If one wants to claim that those minuscule effects cause the cycle, one has to overcome the energy problem [and the onus is one the claimants]. And in addition, as I have stressed so often [but to no avail] that the coupling goes always in one direction [slowing down the Sun] and therefore is not cyclic while solar activity is.
Being sort of planet-arist I tried to follow your discussion, frequently got lost, but still appreciate all contributions. Thanks.
BTW, just managed, indirectly, to get from Dr.S an estimate of SC24 timing (it is 2014 but don’t tell anyone).
Anthony how about it for a new thread?
Should be SC24 Max
Leif,
All that is perfectly understood. My point is how can you know there is not something in addition, some kind of energy transfer back and forth?
Then you are of course rightfully asking me what, and ask me to explain the mechanism, something I of course can not do. One thing to remember however is that if you are searching for something and find nothing, that does not mean that what you are searching does not exist. It is very often because you used the wrong method in you search.
Leif,
Yes, I understand the friction bit. I confused myself over the heat, which is just something that gets lost. So M5 doesn’t bother me any more. But back to M11.
Leif Svalgaard:
The friction slows down the Earth (M8) which changes the spin angular momentum of the Earth (M9). Because angular momentum is conserved (M10), the Moon must gain angular momentum about the same axis (M11), not about any other axis (M12), therefore its distance must increase (explaining M1).
What you’re doing here is to add the spin angular momentum of the Earth to the orbital angular momentum of the Moon around the centre of the Earth. As I see it, you’re adding one sort of angular momentum to another different sort. When we worked out the orbital angular momentum of the solar system, we didn’t add in their spin angular momentum as well.
But I can maybe see why. Perhaps you’re finding the angular momentum of mass in general about a particular axis. And at the centre of the Earth, there’s the whole mass of the Earth turning round it, and the Moon further away (and also the sun and the other planets, because they’ll contribute as well?)
But when we worked out the orbital angular momentum of the Sun and planets around the SSB, we didn’t add in the spin angular momentum of the planets, because the sun and planets weren’t spinning at the barycentre, and so planetary spin momentum contributed nothing to orbital spin momentum?
I think my difficulty here is that I don’t think about things using angular momentum, or barycentres, or even ellipses. My simulation model doesn’t use them, although it can be called upon to calculate them. So when I think about things, at the moment it’s all just masses in motion. And furthermore there’s nothing spinning in my simulation. So I can’t use my simulation to look at solar or planetary spin (although I’m thinking of building spinning dodecahedra instead of point masses). Same with tides. My model doesn’t simulate tides either (but I think my idea of ball bearings rolling over the surface of planetary spheres is probably a “tidal” model of a sort).
It’s rather as if with my simulation model I’ve built myself a fast motorway through mountainous country, and it works very well at doing that. But as soon as I get off that motorway, all I’ve got is the physics that I happen to know anyway, and that is like so many dirt tracks, and it becomes hard going then.
P.S. I can instantly understand how the tidal bulge of the Earth’s oceans can tug the Moon forwards slightly, so go slightly faster, and so reced from the Earth.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit4/notes.html#braking
But I’m now puzzled why the tidal bulge leads the Moon by 10 degrees. They say it’s due to friction, but intuitively it feels like the bulge ought to trail by 10 degrees.
idlex (15:05:56)
“But I’m now puzzled why the tidal bulge leads the Moon by 10 degrees. They say it’s due to friction, but intuitively it feels like the bulge ought to trail by 10 degrees.”
Earth rotation angular velocity > Moon orbit angular velocity
(why Moon & tides fall behind a little every day)
I see it now. The Earth is spinning under the oceans, and the friction between the two is advancing the oceans, as well as retarding the Earth.
I would like to thank Anthony and the other moderators for putting up with our theoretical discussions. Its obvious by the amount of discussion that there is a lot of interest in this topic and it will not diminish while there are big questions still unanswered.
For me the biggest result was the confirmation that a change in Sun/planet distance (outside of normal aphelion/perihelion changes) will result in a change of solar rotation rate. This is seen to occur every orbit with Jup/Sun but I have not deduced why…yet. There is new data and continued discussion at:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=488&page=1
Geoff Sharp (17:11:02) :
For me the biggest result was the confirmation that a change in Sun/planet distance (outside of normal aphelion/perihelion changes) will result in a change of solar rotation rate.
Huh? where did you get that one from? The chain of causality goes the other way. Planetary tides can slow down the Sun, resulting in receding planets [always one way; tides do never speed up the Sun always slow down].
lgl (12:22:34) :
My point is how can you know there is not something in addition, some kind of energy transfer back and forth?
Because we think that we know how the Universe works at the energies and distances we are talking about. And we usually do not invent new causes unless we have to and even then only with the greatest reluctance. We don’t usually postulate additional forces or laws all the time in order to explain something we think we have observed. Very rarely we have to, but that only happens a few times each century and is not likely to be the case here. But feel free to assume that we have something here ‘that will change the face of solar physics’ as long as you also add that it is based on unknown laws [or the ultimate in CYA strategy: ‘unknowable laws’]
“Planetary tides can slow down the Sun, resulting in receding planets [always one way; tides do never speed up the Sun always slow down].”
Explain that one please….especially the part in the brackets….
Thanks.
savethesharks (20:28:08) :
“Planetary tides can slow down the Sun, resulting in receding planets [always one way; tides do never speed up the Sun always slow down].”
Explain that one please….especially the part in the brackets….
I have already [many times], but here it is again: Planets raise a tidal bulge on the Sun [under the planet and on the opposite side of the Sun as well]. The Sun rotates through this bulge which causes friction with the bulk of the Sun. Friction results in heat which is lost to the system by radiation and friction also slows down the Sun [much as stepping on your car brake causes the brakepads to slow down the wheels by friction making them hot in the process, and not causing the wheels to spin faster]. So the tides brake the Sun all the time and irreversibly because of the lost heat]. I think I’ll begin to count the number of times I’ve explained this. Let the count start at ten. [!@#$% is a search string for me to find to ease the counting process in the future]
Leif Svalgaard (19:55:19)
“Planetary tides can slow down the Sun, resulting in receding planets [always one way; tides do never speed up the Sun always slow down].”
savethesharks (20:28:08)
“Explain that one please….especially the part in the brackets…. Thanks.”
In brief: works like brakes on a car.
(See Leif Svalgaard (08:59:52) — & idlex (16:27:45), which is an analogy where the amplitudes are ‘significant’ — see “VERY VERY small compared to the movements and turmoil that take place on the messy Sun” at Leif Svalgaard (11:20:31) for comparison.)
Well in the future just don’t answer if you don’t want to. ;~).
If it has been stated and it makes logical sense then the onus is on the uninformed (me LOL).
Hey but thanks for your efforts…they are much appreciated.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
savethesharks (21:14:21) :
Well in the future just don’t answer if you don’t want to. ;~).
If it has been stated and it makes logical sense then the onus is on the uninformed (me LOL).
I ALWAYS answer [lest I miss a question in the flurry]. But allow me to point out that I have already. In a courtroom cross examination lawyers have an acknowledge phrase: “asked and answered” to prevent endlessly repetitive questions.
Responding to Loose ends:
– – – – – – –
lgl (02:43:51) :
“Paul, […] Why the peak at 5.35 ?”
I have a suspicion, but I would want more information from the person who created the graphical summary before commenting.
– – – – – – –
tallbloke (02:01:09)
“You saying the gun was firing blanks? ;-)”
Lots of smoke!
[You tell the truth (‘smoking gun’).]
– – – – – – –
I appreciate the elegant simplicity with which anna v (05:56:25) was able to break the AM issue down.
– – – – – – –
Thank you charles, others – & ‘Watts Up?’ more generally.
Paul Vaughan (21:06:31) :
(See Leif Svalgaard (08:59:52) — & idlex (16:27:45), which is an analogy where the amplitudes are ’significant’
What do you mean by this? I don’t see the analogy…
Well get some rest Lief….
G’nite
Chris
savethesharks (21:52:15) :
Well get some rest Leif….
What were you doing up so late?
And since I am into science fiction modeling I will share as my last post here how. even if one can find correlations between planetary locations and sun activity, they could be fortuitous just as correlations between wave trains from two different oceans are fortuitous.
Why can one find correlations between train waves of two different oceans? Because the underlying dynamics are the same. The dynamical solutions are similar and the chaotic nature is forced to express itself in similar functions, even though the boundary conditions, Atlantic, Pacific, are different.
How could the sun cycles be a result of a similar dynamical chaotic mechanism that the planetary/sun system displays?
[science fiction
By having a similar internal structure to a planetary system. I can imagine this as off center rings/shells, due to differential rotation differences of the upper layers, according to density, so we can have effective gravity points circling a heavy core. Now add random strong magnetic fields in the mix that will deform the eliptic paths by changing densities in localized places, and one can have a planetarium right inside the sun. The solutions would be similar to the outside planet/sun system and therefore the chaotic wavetrains will have a good chance to coincide in minima and maxima take or add decades or something
/science fiction]
/Tongue in cheek.
anna v (22:11:42) :
therefore the chaotic wavetrains will have a good chance to coincide in minima and maxima
Given two infinitely long series of random numbers one can find arbitrarily long identical subsequences.
Responding to Leif Svalgaard (21:38:11)
You’ve illustrated both the moon’s tide effect on earth rotation and the planets’ tide effect on sun rotation, highlighting that the latter is small (but acknowledging that it exists). In both cases you’ve emphasized the “one way street” braking effect, even though the details of each case are different.
Comment: The analogy with car brakes is an effective one.
Leif,
Just one … close-to-final question. Why isn’t the interesting bit to verify that the rotational energy remains constant instead of the AM? Like you have said, AM is not the same as energy so constant AM does not mean that an energy transfer can not take place.
You should create a document on your web site, LeifQ&A, containing these answers you have to repeat again and again, then you can just put in the link when you get these questions.
Leif Svalgaard (07:17:08) :
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
you can not use distance to the sun for rotational year.
all the planets make this 1% off not just Jupiter.
99% of mass is in the sun. the sun is also moving, dragging us along,
this skews the distance. drag side vs other side.
lgl (22:34:14) :
Why isn’t the interesting bit to verify that the rotational energy remains constant instead of the AM?
Because it does not. Friction generates heat which is lost to the system.
Well I am really going to be this time. LOL
Good nite eveyone. Thanks for the education. Anthony please don’t get all hung up on charging tuition…and Leif thanks for letting me audit (the only way through for me LOL).
Chris
Correction…”going to bed”
Leif,
Why do you do things like this? It’s not answering my question. The heat loss is a miniscule steady (long scale) decrease and is easily filtered. What we would be looking for was a cyclic change on the decadal scale.
lgl (23:55:27) :
Why do you do things like this? It’s not answering my question. The heat loss is a miniscule steady (long scale) decrease and is easily filtered. What we would be looking for was a cyclic change on the decadal scale.
But there isn’t any. That is the point. the only coupling is via tides and that goes one way only.
lgl (23:55:27) :
Why do you do things like this?
You cannot gather roses where no roses grow…
Geoff,
outside of normal aphelion/perihelion changes
wow, I have been thinking along the same lines the last couple of days.
This is seen to occur every orbit with Jup/Sun but I have not deduced why…yet
Because the Sun is not in free fall around the barycenter perhaps, because the BC is not the center of gravity seen from the Sun. BC is the center of gravity only if seen from outside of the solar system.
What am I doing wrong this time Leif?
I think maybe we’re coming at this from the wrong angle.
Epistemological analysis:
There are no elliptical orbits, there are no gravitational forces, except in mathematical models which imperfectly describe the universe.
No-one has captured a graviton, no-one has yet detected a gravity wave, all is deduction.
Newton was brilliant, and gave us a powerful way to model and predict, but imperfectly.
la Verrier tried to refine and consolidate, but couldn’t match the discrepancies.
Einstein fudged the Mercury Perihelion issue, and though his idea of curved space-time is fabulous, no-one has come up with a physical theory of how mass curves space-time. It’s still action at a distance just as newton’s falling apple was.
Metaphysical analysis:
All we really have is proportion and cyclicity, harmonics and resonance. Even these are uncertain, but an understanding of how a glass ‘sings’ at a high frequency while a wettened finger is drawn round it’s rim is likely to inform us of why the sun has dominant frequencies around five minutes, and the planets are distributed on the nodes or subnodes of a five minute light speed wave, and will help us get to the bottom of what’s really happening.
Pragmatic analysis:
Rather than rejecting new ideas on the basis that they are not compatible with our present model, we must embrace and extend our knowledge by finding new ways to accommodate the correlations we discover, rather than denying they exist.
Leif is right to say we shouldn’t invent new forces we don’t have to. The debate then, is about the need for one when we have exhausted the possibilities within the current paradigm.
At least Leif has acknowledged on this thread that the dynamo theory of the sun can’t yet explain it’s behaviour, although it is his belief that it soon will.
Fair enough, keep digging, and so will we.
Many moons ago I attended a lecture by the Astronomer Royale, who told us that the grand unified theory of everything was within grasp, just around the corner. I laughed out loud then, and all these moons later, I’m still waiting, and still laughing.
Tallbloke
You are almost there, everything is in periodic motion and resonances, from the electrons’ to planetary orbits, from a light wave emitted from an atom to the most powerful magnetic waves emitted from the Sun.
tallbloke,
Leif is right to say we shouldn’t invent new forces we don’t have to.
I don’t think we have to. I know you will object to my definition of free fall but the prevailing one is pointless. The important thing is: Does the object move as determined by the gravitational forces it is influenced by? The Sun is not doing that. Because of conservation of AM or rotational energy or whatever, it is moving much more than gravity would imply. The Sun experiences it’s own gravity only (and that of the galaxy of course), with some very miniscule influence from the planets (like Leif has said a thousand times) so it should move close to nothing as result of gravity.
lgl (00:41:22) :
Geoff, outside of normal aphelion/perihelion changes
wow, I have been thinking along the same lines the last couple of days.
Angular momentum [A] can be calculated like this A = d * m * v
where d is the distance, m the mass, and v the speed. Kepler’s 3rd law says that the period P and the distance d are related like this P^2 ~ d^3, hence the speed is v = 2pi * d / P ~ 2pi / sqrt(d), hence the AM per unit of mass is A/m =1.17E10 * sqrt(d) in SI (mks) units, so the AM does depend on the distance d but solely through gravity. So it is complete nonsense to say ‘apart from aphelion/perihelion issues’. It is the same laws that determine the AM over all points of the path of the body. If you wish to maintain otherwise, there is a sandbox [litter box] somewhere else for that.
What am I doing wrong this time Leif?
There is only one BC in the solar system and everything is in free fall around it.
tallbloke (05:39:36) :
At least Leif has acknowledged on this thread that the dynamo theory of the sun can’t yet explain it’s behaviour, although it is his belief that it soon will.
This is a misrepresentation. I think that dynamo theory can account for the Sun’s behavior. We do not yet all the data needed for that, but that is different from saying that it can’t. It is like saying that since the laws of gravity cannot predict the movement of the asteroid I just observed last night, that therefore something must be wrong with those laws. They cannot predict because we need several nights worth of observations to pin down the asteroid; same with dynamo theory. Dynamo theory is what makes an electrical motor run and is well understood.
From:
Officials of NASA Heliosfearic Division today reluctantly announced the postponement of the launch of the Solar Dynamics Observer until such a time as the Sun becomes dynamic again. The head of the Division, Rich Phisher, pointed out that they had already launched one mission, STEREO, into this deepest solar minimum of the Space Age, and they were not going to repeat that mistake with SDO. His assistant for solar programs, Ugotta Like-her, noted that the current solar behavior can be interpreted in two ways, neither of them good for SDO. One school of thought likens this period of quiet solar behavior to the lowering of the level of the sea right before the arrival of a tsunami. The safest place for SDO is on the ground under the shield of the Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere. “We can launch when the worst is over,” she adds. The second school of thought proposes that the cessation of solar activity is the beginning of a new Maunder minimum, perhaps lasting over a hundred years. The project scientist for the STEREO mission, Mike Wiser, favors this explanation and bristles at the suggestion that any mistake was made in launching STEREO. “In fact,” he points out, “we have 150 years of control gas on board that can keep the cameras pointed at the Sun for more than a whole Maunder minimum.” When contacted about the postponement, the PI of the major instrument on SDO, Phul Sharer, conveyed his extreme disappointment at the postponement that leaves him nothing at all to share with the science community.
lgl (06:55:15) :
Does the object move as determined by the gravitational forces it is influenced by? The Sun is not doing that.
Please, this is for the litter box.
vukcevic (06:54:02) :
everything is in periodic motion and resonances, from the electrons’ to planetary orbits, from a light wave emitted from an atom to the most powerful magnetic waves emitted from the Sun.
Another one for the litter box.
vukcevic (06:54:02) :
everything is in periodic motion and resonances, from the electrons’ to planetary orbits, from a light wave emitted from an atom to the most powerful magnetic waves emitted from the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard (08:01:03) :
Another one for the litter box.
“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.”
vukcevic (08:50:10) :
Leif Svalgaard (08:01:03) :
“Another one for the litter box.”
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.
Some more litter box material for you:
https://www.yousendit.com/download/UmNKR0lhbEpYSHhjR0E9PQ
Loose end:
Responding to Q from tallbloke (02:01:09)
Regarding graphs at:
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=barycentre-sunspots.gif
And related discussion at:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/86565-help-needed-understand-curious-correlation.html
What you have shown is that absolute magnitude of sunspot area asymmetry is ~proportional to total sunspot area (r^2=0.6805 if you work with logarithms & monthly summaries (May1874-Feb2009).
Note: If you work with logs & monthly summaries – and completely ignore the barycentre – you will be able to get your 22 year time-integrated correlation up to 0.99291063013327.
(Just in case it isn’t obvious to some readers:
This number should not be interpreted haphazardly.)
Yes I’ll try to squeeze in but it’s already a bit crowded. Galileo, Kepler, Newton …
vukcevic (08:50:10) :
leif , said this because it implies perpetual motion.
I agree there is something to what you say.
Leif Svalgaard (09:16:15) :
Some more litter box material for you:
Leif Svalgaard (09:16:15) :
vukcevic (08:50:10) :
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him”
Leif Svalgaard (08:01:03) :
Another one for the litter box.
Some more litter box material for you:
Lot of pretty pix, I might even read it. Not long ago I red someone’s work claiming that sunspots are caused by meteorites’ impact.
I suppose some get trough (considering Moon’s surface), but they would evaporate long before impact, in which case, heavy metals’ vapour should be detectable in the light spectrum?
(p.s. today I am working on Australian time zone)
There is only one BC in the solar system and everything is in free fall around it.
Free fall around a point of no mass, hmm..
Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) (10:07:11) :
vukcevic (08:50:10) :
leif , said this because it implies perpetual motion.
I agree there is something to what you say.
Planets have been in perpetual motion around the Sun for at least 4 billion years and possibly will do as much again, while an electron within a hydrogen atom for about 14 billion.
Paul Vaughan (09:18:27) :
Loose end:
Responding to Q from tallbloke (02:01:09)
Regarding graphs at:
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=barycentre-sunspots.gif
And related discussion at:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/86565-help-needed-understand-curious-correlation.html
What you have shown is that absolute magnitude of sunspot area asymmetry is ~proportional to total sunspot area (r^2=0.6805 if you work with logarithms & monthly summaries (May1874-Feb2009).
Note: If you work with logs & monthly summaries – and completely ignore the barycentre – you will be able to get your 22 year time-integrated correlation up to 0.99291063013327.
Hi Paul, thanks very much for this interesting comment, and for taking the time to look at my graphs.
When I cast the graphs without converting the numbers to absolute values, I get some interesting ‘phase reversals’ where the data correlates in a mirror image for some time periods. These show up because I am looking at north-south variance rather than overall variance. If I post those up would you be willing to take a look with me?
tallbloke (11:09:56)
“[…] mirror image […]”
(Note: I’ve already graphed several different summaries of the NS-asymmetry.)
What you are seeing is that the magnitude of the north-south asymmetry is related to solar activity – and also that there is some alternation.
Perhaps Leif can comment on the alternation. (He knows the physics.)
Leif
His assistant for solar programs, Ugotta Like-her
Lol!
At least Leif has acknowledged on this thread that the dynamo theory of the sun can’t yet explain it’s behaviour, although it is his belief that it soon will.
This is a misrepresentation. I think that dynamo theory can account for the Sun’s behavior. We do not yet all the data needed for that, but that is different from saying that it can’t.
I didn’t say that it couldn’t. I said that that was fine, keep digging, and we would keep digging our data too. I guess I was arguing for the level playing field. Anyway, as was pointed out earlier, the dynamo theory wasn’t dreampt up in the flash of a burning meteorite last night, it’s been kicking around for many years. The exciting thing is the new tech being launched, (except on april 1) which we hope will bring the answers.
I knew you’d only reply to the part of my post which referred to you. 🙂
lgl (06:55:15) :
tallbloke,
Leif is right to say we shouldn’t invent new forces we don’t have to.
I don’t think we have to. I know you will object to my definition of free fall but the prevailing one is pointless. The important thing is: Does the object move as determined by the gravitational forces it is influenced by? The Sun is not doing that. Because of conservation of AM or rotational energy or whatever, it is moving much more than gravity would imply. The Sun experiences it’s own gravity only (and that of the galaxy of course), with some very miniscule influence from the planets (like Leif has said a thousand times) so it should move close to nothing as result of gravity.
I’m going to think carefully about this post, and apologies for crowding the space with famous dead scientists,
Keep talking tallbloke. When you speak….I listen.
Everyone else here too. Parse it out.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Paul Vaughan (11:48:37) :
What you are seeing is that the magnitude of the north-south asymmetry is related to solar activity – and also that there is some alternation.
Perhaps Leif can comment on the alternation. (He knows the physics.)
We have looked at the asymmetry too. Here is our [marginal] result:
http://www.leif.org/research/On%20solar%20cycle%20predictions%20and%20reconstructions.pdf
There is periodicity to N/S asymmetry , but records are not long enough to prove much. I found that there is change in asymmetry at the same time when major anomalies occur
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/MaunderN-S-excess.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
. In this case it appears this is controlled by orbital planetary resonances, which may generate impulses at specific times as defined by equation:
COS[2pi(t-1941)/118] + COS[2pi(t-1941)/96] = 0
resulting in anomalies and change in asymmetry within the solar cycles sequence It appears that at the same time was a noticeable drop in the global temperatures.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/mgt.gif
(Dr. S -I know you will say there is no such thing)!
Two factors are rounded off: 118 = approx 4*S or 10*J ; 96 = approx J+U or even 8*J=94.9, whatever combination used, out of 4 possible, only significant change is the part of the Maunder minimum graph, but still very clearly identifiable. 118-96 = 22 years, one Hale cycle.
Much appreciated Leif,
I’ll read it closely. I spotted the approx 70 year cycle too. Too short a data run to be sure, but roughly half the Neptune orbital period. Neptune would spend half it’s orbit below the solar equator, and half above. All the more swiftly orbiting planets would modulate it’s effect, Jupiter having a much bigger influence, may have skewed the ends by a few years either way.
Paul: Even the barycentre data on it’s own without the total sunspot number modulation bears a passing resemblance to the assymetry of sunspots when both are smoothed over the hale cycle and the absolute values taken.
All very preliminary I agree, but I’ll spend some more time on it anyway.
A statistician would say that because the smooting is so heavy, it has very little significance, but the object is not to try to predict what the assymetry will be next month, rather to evoke the long term trend. ‘Skill’, as a statistical measure of the value of the result, is therefore not so important in my view.
Vukevic,
very interesting, and thanks for your encouragement.
vukcevic (23:51:20)
Additional note regarding temperature chart:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/mgt.gif
It has been generally assumed that the temperatures drop for the period 1950 – 1960 was due to frequent atmospheric nuclear testing. Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, came into force in 1963, resulting in a pick-up in the temperature rise, to be counteracted by (in late 60’s ) the solar activity anomaly, shown here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Anomalies.gif
resulting in a low SC20, which unusually for previous 60 years rising trend, followed strongest ever recorded SC19.
tallbloke,
I’m going to think carefully about this post
Good, because I’m still struggeling with the notion that everything in the solar system is in free fall around the barycenter. To start with Jupiter. It makes sense to me to say that Jupiter is in free fall around the center of mass inside of it’s own orbit, i.e the Sun-Innerplanets-Jupiter BC because that BC will also be the center of gravity Jupiter is pulled towards, and it makes sense to say Jupiter is orbiting that BC because it’s one of the focal points of it’s orbit. But this is not the same as the SSBC and it’s a total different situation compared to the Sun. There is no object inside of the Sun’s ‘orbit’ so the motion of Jupiter and the motion of the Sun is driven by two totally different mechanisms, there is no mass at the SSBC pulling the Sun. So if you say they are both in free fall around the SSBC you use the same term describing two totally different scenarios, which makes ‘free fall’ meaningless.
It makes somewhat sense to say the Sun is in free fall around it’s own center, which is the center of gravity it experiences, but it makes no sense to me to say the Sun is in free fall around the SSBC.
I’ve read the newer comments here about asymmetry.
This is just a note to say:
a) I am studying the sunspot area data (including N-S asymmetry). [I had never looked at this data myself before yesterday.]
b) The paper Leif posted (21:16:48) (April 1) is on a different kind of asymmetry (as you probably realize by now if you’ve read the paper).
c) My attention has shifted to
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/01/nasa-headline-deep-solar-minimum
which is getting pretty interesting.
Hi lgl,
my brain always starts to fry when I try to visualize this stuff, but hopefully someone will put me right if I mess this up too badly.
The solar system barycenter is a notional point which is the centre of mass summed out of all the bodies that matter. Each planet is predominantly affected by the gravity of the sun, bit also to a small degree by the other planets too.
The sun is being pulled towards the other planets just as they are pulled towards it, but because they are spread around and moving at different speeds, and have different masses, the suns ‘orbit’ is not as regular in shape or velocity as that of the planets. But it is the same force that is acting on the sun as is acting on the planets.
When Leif says the sun is in freefall around the barycentre, it is a shorthand way of saying the sun’s path is at the point of balance between all the gravitational forces acting on it at each moment in time.
Jupiter isn’t just orbiting a point determined by the masses within it’s orbit, it is also affected by the gravitational pull of the planets outside it’s orbit too. So when for example Saturn is nearby, the jupter – sun distance increases a bit compared to what it would be when Saturn is further away.
I forgot to include a discussion of the centrifugal force. Landscheidt says:
“The Sun’s orbital motion is governed by difference forces in the same way as the planets’ course around the Sun. Gravitation and centrifugal force are balanced overall, but in single phases of the orbit one of the two forces may prevail.”
When Jupiter and Saturn are conjunct, the sun has to ‘lean back’ a bit further from the barycenter to counteract their combined weight, and certain planetary configurations lead to retrograde motions of the sun. Whether the alternation between gravity and centrifugal force being dominant leads to changes in the suns internal economy of it’s differentiated spin properties has been the subject of quite a bit of controversy in this thread and elsewhere. I’ve opted out for now, preferring to pursue other lines of investigation.
I hope a couple of the points in these two posts help to clarify your visualisation of how it all swills around.
Cheers
A few words about the line I’m looking at:
The sun moves up and down in relation to the barycentre as well. The degree of motion is smaller than in the orbital plane, but I think it may be important because it completely stops and reverses it’s direction on timescales closely linked with the periodicity of the solar cycle. As you’ve seen, there also seems to be a link between this up-down motion and the solar hemispheric distribution of sunspots. At the moment, that’s my ‘smoking gun’ for the existence of a connecting principle between solar motion controlled by the planets and solar activity.
-tallbloke-
tallbloke (13:59:08)
“As you’ve seen, there also seems to be a link between this up-down motion and the solar hemispheric distribution of sunspots. At the moment, that’s my ’smoking gun’ for the existence of a connecting principle between solar motion controlled by the planets and solar activity.”
This suggests that you have possibly misunderstood my posts (unless you are suggesting the gun is firing blanks again?)…
Perhaps N-S asymmetry will come up at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/01/nasa-headline-deep-solar-minimum
Hi Paul,
as I said some posts ago, the barycentric motion graph still bears a resemblance to sunspot distribution graph even without the whole-sun sunspot area data modulating it.
Compare the top right graph at
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=ssb-ssa.gif
to the top right graph at
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=barycentre-sunspots.gif
Cheers
tallbloke,
sun’s path is at the point of balance between all the gravitational forces acting on it at each moment in time.
Not so sure about that, and this: “So when for example Saturn is nearby, the jupter – sun distance increases a bit compared to what it would be when Saturn is further away.” is a good illustration. The change in the Sun’s motion is caused by the Ju-Sa interaction, not because Saturn is pulling the Sun.
But I respect your “other lines of investigation” so don’t bother replying to this.
Hi tallbloke,
Since absolute magnitude of sunspot area asymmetry, total sunspot area, sunspot number, and geomagnetic aa index are all related, please bear in mind that what you are claiming is equivalent to claiming that barycentric motion causes the sunspot cycle.
I’m interested in discussing N-S asymmetry data and its analysis at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/01/nasa-headline-deep-solar-minimum
(Note: I have thrown some statistical machinery at the data.)
Cheers,
Paul.
lgl (22:28:39) :
tallbloke,
sun’s path is at the point of balance between all the gravitational forces acting on it at each moment in time.
Not so sure about that, and this: “So when for example Saturn is nearby, the jupter – sun distance increases a bit compared to what it would be when Saturn is further away.” is a good illustration. The change in the Sun’s motion is caused by the Ju-Sa interaction, not because Saturn is pulling the Sun.
Well this is where my brain starts to fry too. Saturn pulls Jupiter further away from the sun at conjunction, at the same time Jupiter pulls Saturn closer, their combined effect should be pulling the sun closer to them, but the sun is ‘leaning back against their combined weight a bit like a hammer thrower, which you’d think would move the sun further from the barycentre and J+S towards it…
What I’m bearing in mind at the moment, is that the orbit’s aren’t elliptical, and gravity is a mathematical construct we impose on reality. I like Geoff’s approach of using the JPL data directly, since it’s the best we have, but even that has limitations. And then there’s the eccentrifical force to consider 🙂
Since absolute magnitude of sunspot area asymmetry, total sunspot area, sunspot number, and geomagnetic aa index are all related, please bear in mind that what you are claiming is equivalent to claiming that barycentric motion causes the sunspot cycle.
Hi Paul,
Since the correlation coefficient isn’t that high, it can only one of at least two factors, and depending on timings etc, it may be a modulating factor rather than a principle cause. Especially in view of the fact the sun does anomalous things as what is happening now. And anyway, I’m only claiming something about some data I’ve compared, as for what follows from it, let the chips fall where they may.
Since absolute magnitude of sunspot area asymmetry, total sunspot area, sunspot number, and geomagnetic aa index are all related, please bear in mind that what you are claiming is equivalent to claiming that barycentric motion causes the sunspot cycle.
Hi Paul,
Since the correlation coefficient isn’t that high, it can only one of at least two factors, and depending on timings etc, it may be a modulating factor rather than a principle cause. Especially in view of the fact the sun does anomalous things such as what is happening now. And anyway, I’m only claiming something about some data I’ve compared, as for what follows from it, let the chips fall where they may.
tallbloke,
“The change in the Sun’s motion is caused by the Ju-Sa interaction, not because Saturn is pulling the Sun.”
Actually I think this was nonsense from me. It’s just the AM conservation thing again. The Sun-Ju distance is almost the same as Ju-Sa distance so the gravity from Saturn is miniscule compared to the Sun’s.
When you get a moment have a look at hotrod’s post at (17:54:00) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/01/nasa-headline-deep-solar-minimum/
Showing a remarkable similarity of the steep-walled, nonlinear rogue wave phenomena to the 1998 global temperature spike, he then asks the question if this quantum idea could carry over to understanding solar cycles and waves.
Interesting thought….please read his post.
Not that I’d think you would get anything more interesting than tides, but depending on the structure of how your solver accesses the equations, you could model such frictionless “bearings” quite easily: Just add a repulsive force with a steep gradient dependend on distance to solar radius for these, modelling buoyancy. In order to avoid clustering, a second such force, dependend on the distance between the probes could simulate inter-“atomic” repulsion. Don’t use too many probes …