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
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/