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
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.