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 (13:08:44) :
Leif asserted that observations show the Earth follows almost exactly an elliptical orbit around the Sun, not the SSBC. […] […] […] focal point […] is at or near the Suns centre of mass.”
Thank you Carsten. If anyone can point me to where Leif said that, I will be grateful – this is important.
Not quite what I showed [and not really important]. An earlier discussion on this blog was about if the Earth-Sun distance in any way was influenced by the barycenter and the result was that it was not. This has nothing to do with orbits or ellipses. Carsten’s [and other’s] argument at the time was that if the Earth is orbiting the barycenter then if the barycenter was on the opposite side of the center of the Sun than the Earth, the distance between the Sun and the Earth should be less [by several solar radii] than when the barycenter would be on the same side as the Earth. The highly accurate JPL ephemeris showed that it makes no difference to the distance where the barycenter was. For people that would not accept that astronomers know how to calculate orbits [that was one of the objection – that it was all approximate or based on assumptions or whatnot] we offered an observational test: the total solar irradiance TSI depends on the distance [squared] and our measurements of TSI are now so precise that they confirm the ephemeris [ http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png and
http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA11.png illustrate the barycenter prediction and compares with observations]
As I’ve said above Leif, this hasn’t been given the thorough treatment that will put it to rest for all parties involved in the discussion – and I’m not just speaking of sociological momentum. I expect some will want to probe what happens when the planets and the sun are not treated as simple points…
The JPL ephemeris calculations do not treat the bodies as points but takes into account the physical characteristics of the bodies as far as they are known to have influence on the ‘orbits’, but that is not really the point, which is that after THAT has been taken care off, then there is the distribution of matter in the Galaxy, and after that, the movement of the Galaxy and interaction with other galaxies, etc. This will never end, because it is not fact-problem, but a belief-problem. The best we can hope for is that the discussion be taken to sites devoted to such things [young Earth, creationism, iron suns, electric universes, planetary influences, correcting Einstein, etc]
idlex (13:43:28) :
give it as 3.13285E+043 and constant over 20 years from 1940 onwards, with some variation after the 5th decimal place.
That it is constant is not the issue [nobody asserts that it is not]. The issue is whether the variation of the AM of any of the bodies is a mirror image of the variation of the AM of the other bodies combined, calculated without taking rotation into account. Remember their crucial argument is that the Sun must rotate slower of faster to compensate for its change of orbital AM. If the AM of the planets precisely mirrors that of the Sun and precisely compensates for it, there is no AM ‘left over’ to change the rotation of the Sun.
I have also looked at the agreement between yours and Carsten’s numbers and I think we can all agree that there are no mistakes.
Leif Svalgaard (14:02:59) :
Paul Vaughan (13:08:44) :
The JPL ephemeris calculations do not treat the bodies as points but takes into account the physical characteristics of the bodies as far as they are known to have influence on the ‘orbits’, but that is not really the point, which is that after THAT has been taken care off, then there is the distribution of matter in the Galaxy, and after that, the movement of the Galaxy and interaction with other galaxies, etc. This will never end, because it is not fact-problem, but a belief-problem. The best we can hope for is that the discussion be taken to sites devoted to such things [young Earth, creationism, iron suns, electric universes, planetary influences, correcting Einstein, etc]
I kid you not:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/posters/P4_01_Lynch_Poster.pdf
lgl (12:41:05) :
What kind of logic is this? The Sun’s AM varies from 0 to 4.0E40 almost. If it’s not transferred from the planets, where else can it come from than from the Sun’s own rotation?
Methinks the hundreds of postings here have been in vain. All the calculations show that when the Sun’s AM goes up by X, the planets AM goes down by X. So there is where it comes from. Because of this the total stays constant: constant + X[Sun] – X[planets] = constant.
Its time to get off the spin orbit coupling…on the small amount of work done and without checking it myself it looks as if angular momentum has been conserved. There are other ways that angular momentum can be conserved, and that conservation can theoretically adjust rotation speed.
This is where I am getting to re the Jupiter orbit point.
Thank you idlex for being honest with your answer to Jupiter’s point of orbit question. Its a pity there hasn’t been anyone else that has come forward, perhaps frightened to put their neck on the line?…. Still waiting on an answer from Svalgaard.
BTW I prefer to be called by real name in this blog.
For future reference I include links to modern ephemeris calculations [beware, heavy stuff]
http://astrometric.sai.msu.ru/1mas_22Kopejkin.ppt
http://www.imcce.fr/fr/presentation/equipes/ASD/inpop/inpop06_preprint.pdf
In response to Leif Svalgaard (14:19:49)
I had a quick glance at the article to which you linked – nothing in there leaped out at me as being easy (for devious minds) to connect with the most interesting patterns I have encountered in geophysical data. I’ll take a more careful look at the article sometime to keep well-informed of the details of the various claims (including the more “provocative” ones) – but this is not a priority for today.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Leif Svalgaard (14:02:59)
“Not quite what I showed [and not really important].”
Bailey’s error was made public – I shared the relevant link upthread. Others in this forum also seem well-informed about that (now old) news.
I’ll repeat my request:
If anyone can provide the link to the earlier discussion Leif & Carsten mention, I will appreciate it — this is important – thank you.
Paul Vaughan (15:58:42) :
I’ll repeat my request:
If anyone can provide the link to the earlier discussion Leif & Carsten mention, I will appreciate it — this is important – thank you.
Well, you can try this thread
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/20/suns-protective-bubble-is-shrinking/
See Leifs reply to me for example
Leif Svalgaard (18:00:29) :
[…] Using the laws of gravity, JPL [ http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides ] calculates theoretically the distance between any two solar system bodies, and the calculated distance between the Sun and the Earth is just what it should be from the Earth following a simple ellipse around the Sun [apart from very, very small planetary perturbations].
“Leif Svalgaard (14:02:59)
[…] This will never end, because it is not fact-problem, but a belief-problem. The best we can hope for is that […]”
I will acknowledge that the information needed to kill this discussion permanently is not available.
As for this particular thread, I’ll keep dropping in to see if Geoff gets a ‘satisfying’ answer from you (or anyone else qualified to provide a ‘satisfying’ answer with authority) — That standoff, to me, is by far the most interesting development that has come out of this thread, as it is a prime example of how trans-disciplinary communication barriers impair progress.
Leif Svalgaard (14:13:00) :
I have also looked at the agreement between yours and Carsten’s numbers and I think we can all agree that there are no mistakes.
That is good news, in the sense that we have a conclusion confirmed through independent analysis. I had really not expected to reach this point.
Geoff Sharp (15:41:59) – “Its time to get off the spin orbit coupling […]”
Geoff is right – the re-hammering of something which has been so well-addressed (repeatedly here) is not productive.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
In response to Carsten Arnholm, Norway (16:25:45)
Thank you for the prompt response Carsten. If anyone else can produce (additional) relevant links – thank you sincerely.
Regards,
Paul.
I’ve put my solar system orbital simulation model online. It isn’t really ready to go, but it’ll just about do for now. There’s If you zoom in on the sun, and increase the time step dt, you can see the motion of the barycentre.
I’ve put it in with my siphon simulation models. An “orbital siphon” is what I called a 200,000+ km chain of masses extending radially from the Earth’s equator into space, and in geostationary orbit. The siphon is a close cousin of a space elevator. But with a siphon, if the chain of masses is extended far enough out into space (about 180,000 km, from memory) the net centrifugal forces on the chain exceed the gravitational forces, and this means that, unless restrained, the chain of masses rises. If masses are released from the top, and fed in at the bottom, the length of the chain stays the same. The result is a continuous stream of masses rising up on the chain, and being released into space at velocities which can exceed escape velocity from the solar system. Unlike space elevators, no power is needed. Or rather, power will be drawn from the kinetic energy of the spinning Earth (to which the siphon is tightly coupled), slowly reducing its rotation rate.
I modelled various siphons in exactly the same way as I model the solar system, as a set of bodies in motion in a gravitational field, with the slight difference that the bodies are connected by elastic cables. One of the reasons that I wrote my solar system simulation model was to see where vehicles released from siphons into space would go in free orbital motion.
Anyway, that’s one of the improbable ideas that interests me.
Leif Svalgaard:
I have also looked at the agreement between yours and Carsten’s numbers and I think we can all agree that there are no mistakes.
Well, not any large ones. But I think my figures are very noisy, and I’d like to improve them. Carsten has much better figures.
Geoff Sharp:
Thank you idlex for being honest with your answer to Jupiter’s point of orbit question.
No problem. I’ve actually been quite sympathetic to this ‘spin-orbit coupling’ notion – the idea that as the Sun loses angular momentum as it gets closer to the barycentre it gains compensatory spin momentum, and this could bring it out in a rash of sunspots. But I really think that Leif has pretty thoroughly demolished that idea, by showing (with the assistance of me and Carsten) that as the Sun loses angular momentum the planets gain angular momentum, and the total angular momentum of the solar system remains constant. E. M. Smith was asking upthread where the Sun’s angular momentum went, and the answer is, as Anna V so elegantly put it, was that it goes “dancing with the planets”.
That said, I’m very simpleminded about all these things. I like to reduce things down to their simplest terms. And my simulation model of the solar system is very, very simple. All it consists of are a number of bodies accelerating and decelerating under the influence of gravitation. There are no orbits in my model. There are no barycentres. There are no ellipses. There is no energy either. Nor is there any momentum. I don’t calculate these things. Or at least I didn’t calculate angular momentum until Leif asked me to calculate it. And when he’s done asking me, I’ll probably strip out the calculations from my model, because they’re not really part of it.
I probably won’t be entirely convinced about this matter until I can think of a way of getting my simple model to explore it. And how would I do that? Well, I was thinking of building a model of the sun, as a spinning set of masses held together by ties, in place of my current point mass Sun – and seeing whether anything happened to it once I’d bolted this new Sun into place in the middle of my simulation model, and started the whole thing up again. But doing something like this is easier said than done. I very soon realised that the 200 or so point masses in my proposed new Sun would collapse into the centre. And what sort of internal structure was I going to give this new Sun? Could it be treated as a hollow polyhedron? Could it be treated as a ‘solid’ body at all? The idea of creating a new Sun that consisted of a whole set of point masses tied together somehow or other began to look more and more difficult, as more and more questions got asked about it.
But I have another proposal. What if I think of the Sun as being a perfectly spherical body, a ‘flat’ surface on which I can place a perfectly spherical ball bearing, with zero rolling resistance? What would happen to such a ball bearing? Would it just sit there immobile on the Sun’s surface? Or would it go rolling around the Sun in some funny way? Since, on the surface of the Sun, the lateral or tangential force of the Sun’s gravitational attraction would be zero, the only tangential forces acting upon the ball bearing would be from the orbiting planets. That’s how it intuitively looks to me, doing this particular thought experiment. But what do I know? Not much! But perhaps my simulation model could tell me what happens to that ball bearing, if I could just think how to model it. But that’s probably easier said than done.
Anyway, that’s the sort of approach I’d take to it all: simplify it right down to the simplest, atomic components.
idlex: What would happen to such a ball bearing? Would it just sit there immobile on the Sun’s surface? Or would it go rolling around the Sun in some funny way?
Well, if we think of the planetary system as just consisting of Jupiter, a ball bearing on the surface of the Sun that happened to be exactly between it and the centre of the Sun would stay exactly where it was. The same would be true of a ball bearing on the exact opposite side of the Sun. It would stay right there. But the ones in between would go rolling round the planet towards Jupiter, some faster than others. The result would be that there’d always be more ball bearings on the side of the Sun nearest Jupiter, and furthest way, and not many in between.
And these small forces due to the circling planets are probably what are called “tidal forces”, because the exact same thing happens on the Earth. And I think that, on the Sun, from what Leif says, all those little ball bearings piled up on the surface of the Sun raise a hill that is about 1 mm high. Does it really matter if one bit of the Sun is 1 mm higher than another?
idlex (19:40:40) :
Geoff Sharp:
Thank you idlex for being honest with your answer to Jupiter’s point of orbit question.
The correct answer is that there are no ‘orbits’ at all. Everything in the solar system follows a set of world lines [one for each particle], which can be very complicated but for the Sun and planets look like a twisting helical path. Now, it is convenient not to have to deal with these [hard to intuit] world lines [that are time-like curves in space-time] and instead to chose a reference system that travels with the solar system, either a Sun-centered, or Earth-centered, or Barycenter centered one. In such a coordinate system the bodies will describe some approximation to the ‘orbits’ we are used to, circles, ellipses, or near parabolas [for comets].
In General Relativity there is a phenomenon called ‘frame dragging’ where rotating bodies modify the curvature of space around them – the Lense-Thirring effect, or gravitomagnetism [because the effect is analogous to magnetic fields]. This effect is extremely small [one in trillions] and can barely be measured. There is a spacecraft [Gravity Probe B] whose data is being analyzed for evidence of this effect. Preliminary results confirm the existence of frame dragging. [By some coincidence the investigators sit just a few offices away from mine at Stanford].
So there is your coupling between orbits and rotation. The effect is unfortunately extremely small under the conditions found in the solar system [the tides are mountains in comparison]. It is, however, just like the AM-idea, the starting point of equally pseudo-scientific explanations of everything. Google it to find inspiration.
Leif Svalgaard (20:30:35) :
The correct answer is that there are no ‘orbits’ at all
You rightly use JPL to substantiate the position of Earth orbiting the Sun and not the SSB. But when asked which point The Jovians orbit you fall into some sort of scientific quasi-land. Be a man and give us an answer.
Do the Jovians orbit the Sun or the SSB.
(and dont say neither, or you maybe subject to some ridicule)
idlex (19:40:40) :
Lets drop spin orbit coupling, while the branch is pruned its not totally cut off, and who knows, someone like you may discover a connection by going down an unused road.
Angular momentum has many facets , and Spin coupling certainly wasnt raised my me, velocity is only one aspect. Lets see where this Jovian orbit might lead us.
anna v (07:54:03) :
The double counting does not come in the numerical integrations. It comes when people handwave and say “Jupiter this” and “Saturn that”, without doing any calculations, having in mind images of orbits.
No hand waving here…we have solid JPL data.
Geoff Sharp (20:48:48) :
(and dont say neither, or you maybe subject to some ridicule)
Bring it on…
Planetary influence can no longer be considered “pseudo-science” The majority of the background data is via JPL, with historic records from Solanki & Usoskin and the rest of the 14C crew. We may possibly now have a “physic’s” based connection that needs to be tested.
Geoff Sharp (15:41:59) :
For me, the solution to your question “This is where I am getting to re the Jupiter orbit point.” is similar to the way I see that the sun revolves around the barycenter.
I make an effective mass of all the planets + sun except Jupiter. I now have an effective two body mode. Instantaneously, the solution is two ellipses with one focus on the barycenter, so instantaneously Jupiter orbits the barycenter in an ellipse. Orbit gets complicated once internal to the effective mass motions are in with the next dt, but I believe the answer is still the same. It orbits the barycenter.
anna v (21:30:22) :
It orbits the barycenter.
Go to the top of the class.
idlex (19:40:40) – “[…] But I really think that Leif has pretty thoroughly demolished that idea […]”
I can’t buy into this language. What happened is that the obvious was shown. In the model I built (which had a very specific purpose), you might say “there’s no sun” – because my “sun” is just a mirror of the planets (loosely speaking) – that’s the whole point of introducing a barycentre – to make the math dead simple.
Now I’m also becoming curious about “the other kind of model” (which is useful for other purposes) after reading idlex’s sales pitches – very intriguing posts you made idlex [(17:56:31), (19:40:40), & (20:12:03)]. Leif’s comments [(20:30:35) = world lines & frame dragging] were also very helpful.
I don’t buy these arguments that small amplitudes are irrelevant – more on that another time.
anna v (05:02:09) :
Of what Einsteinian relativistic effect are we talking about?
So, me thinks there is semantic confusion in this whole concept.
I am a particle physicist and I think that to tell somebody at the level of Leif’s knowledge that they are out of their depth about relativity is at least funny. Relativity is the sine qua non for astrophysics.
Hi Anna, the possible effect described by Ray Tomes in the thread linked in the post you commented on. http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/72665-explaining-planetary-alignments-relationship-sunspot-cycle.html
Ray himself thinks that semantic confusion is partly to blame for the misunderstanding which arises too.
Leif and I are just having our usual wind-up where he heaps abuse and insult on people putting forward theories about effects he won’t entertain, and then I castigate him for failing to back up his from-the-hip falsifications of these ideas. I have huge respect for Leif and his work. It’s just that we are coming from two different directions on this stuff: He is sure that there can’t be a physical causal mechanism for planetary effects on the sun of a sufficient magnitude to affect it’s activity, and dismisses correlations as spurious not matter how good they are. I think about the correlations and realise that since we are always discovering new things about the universe, there could be some causal mechanism which will account for the correlations we haven’t thought of yet.
For his own rhetorical reasons Leif characterises this as ‘wanting to change the laws of physics’, but I regard it as a commonsense pursuit in the face of our obvious ignorance of how the universe works. Sure, we have models which work well enough in some respects, but as far as I can see, there are enough anomalies and mysteries we can’t explain e.g. galactic megawalls in space, that we dismiss the possibility of a different explanation at a loss to our chances of making new discoveries.
Leif is right to keep the bar for acceptance high, but wrong to build a wall to new ideas. The balance is kept in our bickering. 😉