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
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.