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
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.