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
anna v (21:30:22)
“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.”
I think it is worth it for us to all pause again to realize that more than one barycentre can be defined. It may be instructive to consider the relative motion of different barycentres to gain intuition.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (03:24:08)
“If the same words have different meanings to different people it gets complicated.”
Yes, but we don’t have to let it get complicated – we just need to be careful — and judging by the expressed awareness, we are on the right track.
“Let me try to narrow down what ‘orbit’ may mean here. One, possibly too strict, definition […]”
Orbits come in an infinite variety of shapes in chaos theory – the main point is “goes around”. From context I can generally tell when people are using the word in a different sense. We can ask for clarification when necessary. We won’t be able to stop definitions from varying – they vary even within fields (for example the definition of “standard deviation” can be discussed philosophically for hours).
“So “which point” do “The Jovians orbit”? […] Do they have to ‘orbit’ the same ‘point’? […] But I don’t understand why it is needed.”
In first-year university courses “simplified” (some would say “wrong”) concepts are introduced. The reason is that it facilitates the introduction of more “advanced” concepts. If a 4-year-old asked what point the earth orbits, one might answer “the sun” or “a point very close to the centre of the sun that moves ever so slightly over time”.
What has mainly interested me (to date) is the harmonics of the collective motion of the system – not the exact positions of the bodies. However, it is entirely obvious to me that there are other jobs.
We can match tools with jobs. For example, Horizons output would cause me substantial computational headaches and add little value. It would be like building a dump-truck to move one box. But I do need to compare my model with other models to get a sense of bounds on estimates (relative to some “convention”).
I also need to work with measures of time-integrated centre in my work – & for different timescales — otherwise I might misinterpret findings (it’s a long story).
The ‘dynamic orbit point’ (or whatever one wants to label it) is just a time-integrated summary of geometrical position (over cycles) – i.e. a spatial average in a reference frame that moves with time — and the use of such quantities is well-justified in a variety of computations. In fact, in some work, the standard is to work with deviations – and to get deviations, you need to first define a centre.
We’re all looking at different problems – and furthermore some of us have to communicate with non-specialists since we are involved in interdisciplinary work. It is important to be able to pitch ideas at the appropriate level of abstraction for a given audience — generalizations, when applied with wisdom, can ease communication — and details are appropriate (& necessary) among specialists in the same field.
So to sum up: (1) different jobs & (2) different audiences are (in a nutshell) why a hierarchy (& variety) of modeling complexity (& summary) arises.
I’m finding it very interesting to learn of the variety of perspectives. It gives not only new ideas, but also a sense of the potential of a team with sufficient variety.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Clarification for idlex:
I find some of the ideas in your recent posts intriguing, particularly the balls-rolling-on-a-solid-sun idea.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Many have said “Look for another mechanism” – heard loud & clear.
Some house-cleaning though:
Leif, what is the consensus view on this paper now?
Juckett, D. 2000. Solar activity cycle, north/south asymmetries and differential rotation associated with solar spin-orbit variations. Solar Physics 191, 201–226.
Also, have there been any other developments on that front (that was 9 years ago) regarding which the consensus would caution us?
If this has been addressed elsewhere, a link from anyone will suffice.
Leif,
similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up
So, if you shrink the orbit the Sun will speed up, you wait 11,8 years and expand the orbit again and the Sun will slow down. But if you do this shrink/expand every 5.9 years and do it smoothly so that you get an orbit looking similar to the present elliptical orbit you will not see this speed up/down of the Sun?
vukcevic (08:32:06) :
I may not have understood what goes on, and you may not wish not to understand what I am implying, and I understand that. […] by now we should be reading SSN about 120 or above (a conservative estimate), so the theory on which it is based , to say it politely, is inconsistent with reality we observe.
One can only understand that which makes sense. You are not paying attention. The curve shows what the solution of the induction equation gives. This is well-known physics. She does not just eyeball and add up the cycles. This is science [even if wrong]. Now, it turns out that the prediction is wrong from SC24 on. This is not a fault of B-L or of Maxwell’s equations, but of her using the poloidal field instead of the polar fields. Choudhuri [her teacher, BTW] uses the polar fields [as I do] and gets a much better result http://www.leif.org/research/Jiang-Choudhuri-2007.pdf or at least consistent with solar activity now being low. It is, in fact, fortunate that SC24 will decide which of the two fields to use [and also as a side issue, the depth of the dynamo].
lgl (08:00:49) :
The observed 30 ns/yr change in the LOD results in a 4 cm/yr increase of the lunar distance. This is what I’m referring to, not the monthly change, and it’s a spin-orbit coupling. A change of the Earth’s spin is changing the Moon’s orbit. If not, what is the mechanism? There is no spin-orbit coupling so how can the moon orbit change?
But there is, as we have said so many times. It is called friction, and is caused by the tides. As just said in a posting: “There will be tides on the Sun from Jupiter [0.46 mm] as we have discussed; they will also slow the Sun down, and more so when all the other planets work together. The more in conjunction [direct or opposite] the higher the tide [for a total max of 1.38 mm] and the more the Sun’s rotation is slowed down.”
There are two important points:
1) the tides are extremely small [1 mm] and will have no measurable effects. If you want to postulate one, then the second point kicks in:
2) friction is ‘one-way’, so the change of the rotation [of the Earth and the Sun] is always in the same direction: slower. And does not go in cycles, 11, 22, 173, or any other number of years.
As I have also pointed out there is General Relativity effect [Frame Dragging] that also couples spin and orbit. Again this is very very tiny [and is also one way].
I’m perfectly happy with tidal effects, they happen all other over the place, are well understood, and are too small to affect anything on the Sun. Not too small on the Earth, or on Jupiter’s moon Io that is ‘kneaded’ and kept hot [has volcanoes of molten sulfur] by tides, or on comets where tides caused by Jupiter broke apart comet Levy-Shoemaker into 19 pieces that slammed into Jupiter some years back, or on neutron stars orbiting close to each other [combined with the GR effects], etc. On the sun, they are too tiny.
lgl (09:12:05) :
So, if you shrink the orbit the Sun will speed up, you wait 11,8 years and expand the orbit again and the Sun will slow down. But if you do this shrink/expand every 5.9 years and do it smoothly so that you get an orbit looking similar to the present elliptical orbit you will not see this speed up/down of the Sun?
AsI just posted: No! because friction is ‘one-way’, always slows down. There is no anti-friction.
Paul Vaughan (08:56:35) :
Juckett, D. 2000. Solar activity cycle, north/south asymmetries and differential rotation associated with solar spin-orbit variations. Solar Physics 191, 201–226.
Paul,
You may be interested to look at this for N/S asymmetries:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/MaunderN-S-excess.gif
the equation referred to as “Maunder equation”, is the one I have exhaustively discussed with Dr. Svalgaard over the last few posts
Y= COS[2pi(t-1941)/118] + COS[2pi(t-1941)/96]
as demonstrated here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
Interesting, but not surprising that the equation pinpointing solar cycles anomalies, would also define N/S asymmetry; both controlled by (sub-) harmonic resonance!
Paul Vaughan (08:56:35) :
anna v (21:30:22)
“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.”
anna’s argument can also be stated: “I make an effective mass of all the planets + sun except Earth. I now have an effective two body mode. Instantaneously, the solution is two ellipses with one focus on the barycenter, so instantaneously Earth orbits the barycenter in a ellipse”…
“So “which point” do “The Jovians orbit”? […] Do they have to ‘orbit’ the same ‘point’? […] But I don’t understand why it is needed.”
This is, of course not needed. Carsten’s and idlex’s and Carl’s calculations remain the same regardless. The issue is one of introducing red herrings that can derail the discussion forever.
Some house-cleaning though:
Leif, what is the consensus view on this paper now?
Juckett, D. 2000. Solar activity cycle, north/south asymmetries and differential rotation associated with solar spin-orbit variations. Solar Physics 191, 201–226.
It was and has always been that since there is no spin-orbit coupling [above the inconsequential tides and even more remote Frame-Dragging] the paper is spurious, and represents a failure of the peer-review process [which fails a lot, so nothing special there].
If this has been addressed elsewhere, a link from anyone will suffice.
Most scientists do not address spurious, even if specious, papers as they are a waste of time.
Leif,
AsI just posted: No! because friction is ‘one-way’, always slows down. There is no anti-friction.
This is not answering my question. This is about Sun-Ju and not about friction.
You said the Sun would speed up, and that is not because of friction. Then if you expand the orbit it will slow down again, which is not about friction either.
In case of the Earth-Moon the point is that the change of orbit is a result of the Earth slowing down, not a result of the friction. We would observe the same regardless of the cause behind the slowdown.
Are you saying the Sun will not slow down again if you expand Jupiter’s orbit?
Geoff Sharp:
There is a simple test, measure a Jovian planet’s distance to the SSB and then move forward exactly 1 orbit in time, the distance will be the same (give of take a few days) then look at the planet’s distance to the Sun on both occurrences, it will be vastly different. End of story.
The orbital period of Jupiter is 11.85920 yrs or 4331.57 days. According to my simulation model on 1 Jan 1940 the distance of Jupiter from the Sun is 7.4044526E11 m, and the distance of Jupiter from the SSB is 7.3948122E11 m. 11.85 years later takes us to early November 1951, when my simulation says the distances are 7.4027794E11 m and 7.4020631E11 m.
So Jupiter isn’t exactly back at the same distance from the SSB in my simulation. Neither is it anywhere near exactly the same distance from the SSB the month beforehand or the month after.
My simulation is not highly accurate however. Jupiter way well be going round my little orrery a bit too quick, or a bit too slow. So let’s see where NASA’s Horizons says Jupiter is. I asked for the barycentric coordinates of Jupiter on 1 Jan 1940, and on 4 Nov 1951 and 10 Nov 1951 and 15 Nov 1951, and used these figures to calculate Jupiter’s distance from the barycentre. Here are my results:
01 jan 1940: 7.39481E8 km ( compared to my figure of 7.39481E11 m )
04 nov 1951: 7.40214E8 km
10 nov 1951: 7.40206E8 km ( compared to my figure of 7.40206E11 m )
15 nov 1951: 7.40201E8 km
So, give or take a few days, Jupiter’s distance from the SSB is NOT the same after one period of Jupiter’s orbit. Not according to my simulation model. Nor according to NASA’s figures. And my model agrees pretty much exactly with NASA.
Or have I made some mistake?
For good measure, here are the barycentric coordinates of Jupiter (in km) that I got from NASA earlier today:
Format is
JD CT
X Y Z
2429629.500000000 = A.D. 1940-Jan-01 00:00:00.0000 (CT)
7.194246621139235E+08 1.702271440375659E+08 -1.682340398584206E+07
2433954.500000000 = A.D. 1951-Nov-04 00:00:00.0000 (CT)
7.218417664006727E+08 1.630257426980975E+08 -1.685591899744311E+07
2433960.500000000 = A.D. 1951-Nov-10 00:00:00.0000 (CT)
7.202350920612265E+08 1.699487677005070E+08 -1.684836088603407E+07
2433965.500000000 = A.D. 1951-Nov-15 00:00:00.0000 (CT)
7.188475796024904E+08 1.757062812790314E+08 -1.684094361616382E+07
Geoff Sharp (06:39:06) :
to
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (03:24:08) :
No offense, but I am hearing a lot of waffle from you and Svalgaard. Just as the Earth orbits the Sun as Svalgaard demonstrates through JPL, the Jovians orbit the SSB, also via JPL. We dont need to hear about the minor stuff. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
No offense taken, but what you consider “waffle” is actually a serious attempt to communicate my understanding in some detail. I am replying to your questions, but it is unclear whether you have read my answer or whether there is something you don’t understand or disagree with. It isn’t designed to be “waffle”.
There is a simple test, measure a Jovian planet’s distance to the SSB and then move forward exactly 1 orbit in time, the distance will be the same (give of take a few days) then look at the planet’s distance to the Sun on both occurrences, it will be vastly different. End of story.
If you read my previous replies, you will have seen the answer is not necessarily the same for each of the gas giants. I could do the simple test, or you could do it. And why is it important? I could spend some time figuring out the numbers, and maybe I will, but it would help if I understood why.
If we shall test your assertion, it must be clearly defined first. My interpretation of what you are saying is the following: “Geoff asserts that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all orbit the SSB in elliptical orbits. The distance to the Sun will be “vastly different” for subsequent passes of the same orbit point”. Ok? How much is “vastly different”?
lgl (08:00:49) :
But you haven’t calculated the AM from the spin of the planets have you?
No we have not computed the AM from the spin of the planets, that is correct. But we know that the value is a constant one, or very nearly so. There is no significant short term variation in the planet rotation rates. Do you mean to suggest spin-spin coupling between the Sun and the planets?
Roger Clague (01:55:45) – ”
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/orbit2004.htm
So the Earth motion is its motion around the sun the motion of the sun around the solar system centre of mass.
This additional part of the Earth’s motion is usually ignored but it has important effects on Earth’s climate.”
They make some blunders (including one very serious blunder that is easily spotted), but they also present some stimulating ideas that are well-worth the mining effort. I looked at the following too:
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/nwp50th.pdf
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/paper18.pdf
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/coriolis2col.pdf
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/50nwp.ppt
The first paper in this list explains (with diagrams) the method anna v was describing (i.e. breaking a problem down into pieces).
Both the 1st & 2nd papers listed provide some helpful examples (with illustrations & calculations) — for example “is jupiter big enough to affect earth’s orbit seriously? what if jupiter was the size of the sun? – and then we shrunk it? what would happen to earth’s orbit?” These scenarios are explored.
Anecdote:
During the early stages of my efforts to assess Landscheidt’s work I approached physicists. When none could tell me how to approximate the sun’s orbit, I turned to the internet. Looking at 100s of sites I discovered no well-presented descriptions of the calculations – just a lot of “talk” about barycentres. It was the .ppt file listed above that made me realize how simple the calculations were – it was the wording of one sentence on one of the slides.
When I was researching wavelet analysis, I had an analogous experience. For anyone interested – the site that made wavelets super simple:
http://www.ecs.syr.edu/faculty/lewalle/tutor/tutor.html
Hopefully someday there will be a better selection of sites devoted to people who think mathematically in words so that everyone who is interested will be empowered to easily assess the various claims of solar-terrestrial connections for themselves, instead of being told what to think. Even just the very most basic foundations go a long way towards recognizing the numerous misleading statements in these threads.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
In response to vukcevic (09:59:24)
You bring a noteworthy pattern to the discussion. I haven’t analyzed the N/S sunspot-asymmetry time evolution, but if/when it ever becomes a priority you can be sure I’ll keep your notes in mind. To breach the walls of ‘the fraternity of science’ independently, you would have to get serious about introducing more formality into your communications (something that might take the fun out of this for you).
Here’s a paper I liked:
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/MursulaAndZieger2001.pdf
K. Mursula & B. Zieger. 2001. Long-term north-south asymmetry in solar wind speed inferred from geomagnetic activity: A new type of century-scale solar oscillation? Geophysical Research Letters 28(1), 95-98.
For some “fun”, here’s an exercise:
1. Cut/paste figure 3 – middle panel – into an image editor (like ‘Paint’).
2. Stack it upon itself several times (remember 0=360 – i.e. december becomes january).
3. Have some good ‘cyclo-mania’ fun and report back. (Note: You will see striking patterns you would have little hope of noticing without step#2 — empower yourself to “spin the cylinder” and overcome helical/dimensional-visualization challenges.)
I may have another ‘fun’ stick to throw in the wheel, depending upon what you report back.
lgl (10:31:56) :
You said the Sun would speed up, and that is not because of friction. Then if you expand the orbit it will slow down again, which is not about friction either.
Never said such things.
Paul Vaughan (11:27:51) :
Even just the very most basic foundations go a long way towards recognizing the numerous misleading statements in these threads.
I think you miss the point. The misleading statements are an important part of the world view of the various cults. They are designed to deflect serious consideration from dissenters. An example which is typical: in the discussion about if the Earth is 6000 years old, the geological time scale is dismissed by finding examples where one layer on top of another layer is found by radioactive dating to be 100 million years older than the layer underneath.
Leif,
What did you mean here then:
Leif Svalgaard (08:18:47) : similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up.
Leif Svalgaard (10:22:30) – “anna’s argument can also be stated: “I make an effective mass of all the planets + sun except Earth. I now have an effective two body mode. Instantaneously, the solution is two ellipses with one focus on the barycenter, so instantaneously Earth orbits the barycenter in a ellipse”…”
Good example to illustrate my point – (i.e. a casual reader of this thread might get confused about the different barycentres being discussed).
—
Carsten – “So “which point” do “The Jovians orbit”? […] Do they have to ‘orbit’ the same ‘point’? […] But I don’t understand why it is needed.”
Leif – “This is, of course not needed. […] The issue is one of introducing red herrings that can derail the discussion forever.”
There has been a misunderstanding/distortion here – but it is not of sufficient priority to warrant further attention.
—
Thank you for the assessment of the Juckett (2000) paper.
Carsten,
Do you mean to suggest spin-spin coupling between the Sun and the planets?
Guess it can be called that and that it must go both ways: gain revolution AM/loose rotation AM and loose rev AM/gain rot AM.
There is no significant short term variation in the planet rotation rates
Not in the interior, no, but:
“When confronted with determining the length of a day on one of the gas giant planets, planetary scientists have a difficult time. The interior of the planet is masked completely by the clouds in the upper atmosphere.”
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMB0RJV3AF_index_0.html
lgl (11:58:33) :
What did you mean here then:
Leif Svalgaard (08:18:47) : similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up.
Not by moving one body closer [that happens all the time] but to make the orbit smaller [if you could] or larger. The AM scales with the square root of the distance, and the total AM of the system has to remain constant. But we know of no way of shrinking the orbit [which will speed up the Sun], but we do know of a way to enlarging the orbit, namely by slowing the Sun by tidal friction.
Paul Vaughan (08:56:35) :
anna v (21:30:22)
“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.”
I think it is worth it for us to all pause again to realize that more than one barycentre can be defined. It may be instructive to consider the relative motion of different barycentres to gain intuition.
By construction, there is only one barycenter of the totality of masses in the solar system, no matter how one bunches them up before calculating it. It is to this unique barycenter of the solar system I am referring to.
If by “more than one” barycenters you mean that ” for any n of the N bodies of the solar system , where n<N , one can calculate a center of mass between them”, then the statement “more than one barycenters” is true.
This Jupiter orbit discussion is a bit strange. If there were only the Sun and Jupiter. Is there any doubt they would both orbit the barycenter?
Then add the rest of the planets and Saturn will give a strong perturbation, the rest much weaker perturbation.
Paul Vaughan (11:27:51)
“[…] […] […]Even just the very most basic foundations go a long way towards recognizing the numerous misleading statements in these threads. […] […] […]”
Leif Svalgaard (11:49:34)
“I think you miss the point. The misleading statements are an important part of the world view of the various cults. They are designed to deflect serious consideration from dissenters. […]”
I agree on your latter points.
There are different scales of expertise. Fortunately there will always be some advanced minds on the case. If a skilled corrupt-leader emerges (perhaps a wolf in sheep’s clothing, celebrated by the masses), then more ethical people might consider themselves to have an obligation to raise their game to neutralize that.
I don’t think we are of different minds on this issue – and I understand why you took the precaution of addressing this.
anna v:
Lets explore this. You say that in your model presently the sun is a point source, so it has no spin?.
This the case in my current simulation model. Point source. No spin.
Take a small satellite around the sun, orbiting at the distance of the known sun radius. That could be considered a dV ( dxdydz) volume element of the real sun. Give it a rotation about the sun to agree with the sun rotation about its axis. Put it at the equator for a start.
I have to agree with Leif that a satellite of that description would fall into the Sun. But for the purposes of your experiment we might speed up the rotation period of the Sun so that its equator is moving at 436km/s. Either that, or we could swell the Sun so that its radius is 0.12 AU. That is, if Leif can’t think of an objection to doing this.
Would it not be like your ball bearing, if the mass is small? Then see what happens in your simulation?
I’m not sure that it would be. It’s quite easy for me to simulate a satellite in heliocentric orbit. Leif suggested upthread that I construct one that went through the barycentre. Which I did. It had to be given speeds of the sort of order he was mentioning. And it went round quite happily in a circle, and straight through the barycentre.
It’s not so easy for me to simulate a ball bearing on the surface of a solid sun. What I’d have to do is to put a body there, and then work out all the accelerations due to the different bodies in the solar system, just like I would with a body in free motion. But then I’d have to make the radial acceleration towards the Sun’s centre equal zero, because my ball bearing is not allowed to move towards the Sun’s centre (because the sun in this case is regarded as solid).
However, if any of these ball bearings try to form tidal hills, I think they’ll have to do a great deal of work to just rise one mm above the surface of the Sun.
And that’s not the same as a body in a heliocentric orbit, even if we adjust the size or spin of the Sun so that they start at the same place on the Sun’s surface. Or at least I don’t think it is.
lgl (12:23:35) :
This Jupiter orbit discussion is a bit strange. If there were only the Sun and Jupiter. Is there any doubt they would both orbit the barycenter?
If there were only the Sun and Earth, would the Earth still orbit the Sun or the barycenter? If I add Jupiter why does the Earth no longer [per Geoff] orbit the [new] barycenter as well? The confusion comes in by using the word ‘orbit’ which depends on the reference frame. Both bodies simply follow geodesics and are in free fall in their combined gravity field.
What is more strange [but a standard technique] is the red herring introduced by the question. Why is that important as direct calculation shows that the orbital AM is constant and what one loses/gains the other gains/loses, so nothing left over for spin coupling [which is good as there is no couple to do this (apart from tidal friction and GR effects) in the first place].
The result of the exhaustive investigation here is that we must look elsewhere if we want to explain correlations that are claimed. This alone is a significant result as so much of the pseudo-science is based on the uncritical assumption [or timid non-understanding] of a spin-orbit coupling.
Leif Svalgaard (12:50:35) :
What is more strange [but a standard technique] is the red herring introduced by the question. Why is that important as direct calculation shows that the orbital AM is constant…
Several people has now asked why the question is important? What difference would it make to the argument?
lgl (12:23:35) – “This Jupiter orbit discussion is a bit strange.”
Indeed.
The way I am thinking about it:
If you were required to testify to a general audience under very formal settings, what would you say? – assuming you could use as many words as you needed to give a fairly thorough word-description (…and assuming you had to say something to which Leif Svalgaard would not object).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
In response to anna v (12:23:18)
So to clarify:
You regard “except planet A” as a n=N-1<N case?
idlex (12:27:28) :
Lets see if I understand this: The objective is to nail the spin orbit business by a different angle, by demonstrating that a ball bearing on a solid sun would get a tangential ( that is what transfers spin) motion consistent in size with the tides .
I think that a heliocentric satellite would change rotation rate so would lose synchronization , the magnitude should be commensurate with the tides expected if the sun were a ball of gas up to 0.1628 AU. If there were spin orbit coupling more than tidal effects, it would show. I am hand waving of course.