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 (17:33:10) :
I just read the Shirley (2006) paper to which Leif referred. […] The treatment is too simplistic and surely will not be the final influence on our thinking.
I agree that it will not sway the die-hards. I’ll disagree that it is too simplistic. Because the problem is a simple one. What is not simple is to cope with fundamental science illiteracy or selective blindness. [And one can find that even among scientists once they become obsessed with a wacky idea – Arthur Eddington and Linus Pauling come to mid]
idlex (18:06:12) :
This is exactly what I did. What exactly did you do to get “the figures off JPL”? I’ll return to the matter tomorrow, if I have time, and pursue you step by step the rest of the way.
Geoff has a knack for obfuscating with grandiose claims [like ‘galactic motion taken into account’] to make things look more ‘scientific’ and at the same time select what he thinks fits and ignore the rest combined with ‘game over’, ‘end of story’, and similar bombastic utterings.One can usually cut through all of that with quiet, methodical, and patient replies. Let us take the ‘Jovian orbits the Barycenter, it’s all in JPL’ strawman, as an example. I have already pointed out the selection effect he had, but that is, of course, not enough as it will just be ignored. so, one has to be a bit more methodical:
JPL allows you to compute ‘orbits’ of any body around any other body. What is an orbit? There is the concept of an ‘osculating orbit’ at a given moment of time which is the gravitational Kepler ellipse that is precisely tangent to (“kissing” – osculate means to ‘kiss’) the actual path taken. So at any point in time one can for any body define an osculating orbit around any other body or any point whatsoever somewhere in space, e.g. for Jupiter around the Moon. If that other body or point is not the ‘real’ body around which Jupiter moves, the osculating orbit will vary wildly with time and look very strange with ‘trefoils’ and other things, strange cusps and general nonsensical excursions, but pretty and impressively looking. If, on the other hand, we have selected the ‘real’ orbit, the orbital elements will be very stable as they are related to the [conserved] energy [potential and kinetic] in the system. Geoff has picked that up, “This will leave you with 2 identical semi-major axis lengths when measuring from the planet to the SSB” namely that such constancy is a sign that the ‘real’ orbit has been found. The JPL interface allows to to calculate the osculating elements for any pair of bodies, in particular the Sun and the Barycenter, BC. This graph shows a plot of the semi-major axis ‘a’ in AU [blue scale and curves] and of the orbital period ‘P’ in days [red scale and curves]: http://www.leif.org/research/Jupiter-Orbits-P-a.png
The curves with little circles on them are for a sun-centered orbit, while the curves without symbols are for the BC-centered orbit. It is clear that the sun-centered curves are very stable [you can just see little wiggles every ~20 years due to perturbations by Saturn] while the BC curves vary rather much, basically just reflecting the fact that the BC moves around. It is, of course, no coincidence that the BC curves resembles the Angular Momentum curves that we have seen several times. Had I chosen the Moon as the central body, JPL would have produced a very convoluted curve not so subtly telling me that perhaps another central body would have been better.
Finally, all of this was a typical strawman as it has nothing to do with the AM curves we have independently calculated verifying the perfect balance between the AM of the Sun around the BC and the AM of all the other stuff in the solar system.
Leif Svalgaard (17:31:11) :
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. Measure J distance to Sun & SSB. Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.
—————————————————————
this is where your selection effect comes into play. You look for a time where the distance is the same and then wishfully assert that that is a complete orbit 4339 days. It is not, because the SSB has moved in the mean time. The orbital period is 4332 days. Since you define a full orbit as the time from a given distance to the same distance no wonder that the distance doesn’t vary. This is wrong. But it all doesn’t matter because it is irrelevant. The AM is what it is without making any assumption or test of what orbits what, and there is complete balance between what the Sun has and the planets have, so no going back and forth between them and changes to rotation periods or anything. Take it from the reformed sinner [Shirley] from JPL http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf and learn from him if you don’t want to learn from us. There is no spin-orbit coupling and it doesn’t matter what orbits what. Let not the progress we have all achieved here slide back into obscurantism again. Real progress has been made, one branch has been lopped off, and you can blaze a new trail down another branch [tides, General Relativity, gravitomagnetism (you’ll have lots of fellow travelers on that one].
You give up way too easy. I dont know the reason why its 4339 days instead of 4332 but its not important. Perhaps the orbit period is wrong or its a case of the orbit changing due to planetary influences, but at best its worth 100,000 kilometers. That still leaves 600,000 kilometers and this example is nowhere near what the Sun is capable of moving. My logic is 100%
You will have to concede, if my data checks out there is no doubt that the Jovians orbit the SSB.
Here is a list of the data tables used from JPL (idlex might like these also)
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jpl1.txt
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jpl2.txt
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jpl3.txt
And here is a graphic I made with pretty pictures and selected data, it might conceptualize it better for some.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jovian_big.jpg
The JPL interface allows to to calculate the osculating elements for any pair of bodies, in particular the Sun and the Barycenter, BC.
Just clarifying [as this is important] ‘to calculate the osculating elements of Jupiter with respect to any central bodies, in particular the Sun and …’
idlex (18:06:12) :
Ephemeris Type should be OBSERVER. I have also given Leif my original data files in my last post.
Leif Svalgaard (17:31:11) :
Since you define a full orbit as the time from a given distance to the same distance no wonder that the distance doesn’t vary.
This is the crux of the argument, if Jupiter orbited the Sun we would see the Jupiter-Sun figures near the same at this point, just like we do with the Earth (which I have checked with the same logic). BUT WE DO NOT.
The Jupiter- SSB figures are the same and 7 days will not make any difference. Calculate it for 4332 days and you will get the same answer. Unless there is a mistake in the JPL data or how I have selected it then surely Jupiter must orbit the SSB.
Paul Vaughan (17:33:10)
“I just read the Shirley (2006) paper to which Leif referred. […] The treatment is too simplistic and surely will not be the final influence on our thinking.”
Leif Svalgaard (19:11:16)
“I agree that it will not sway the die-hards. I’ll disagree that it is too simplistic. Because the problem is a simple one.”
I acknowledge Shirley’s contribution (and I should have done this before). He pointed out a simple (but very substantial) error. This is very important.
Clarification:
I would have greatly appreciated a few paragraphs on how rotation & differential rotation fit into the picture.
Shirley: “In order to isolate the motions of revolution, we will initially suppose that our subject body is not rotating.” [p.280 (p.1 of article)]
…But he never proceeded past his “initially” – he left us hanging.
http://www.leif.org/research/Jupiter-Orbits-P-a.png
I see the 30’s 60-70’s and now all are common type orbits.
very interesting!
Tx geoff sharp! and Leif too
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jovian_big.jpg
BUT HOW, can it be that, we orbit the center of the SS when the sun is the attraction? How easy it is for me to forget all is moving in the milkyway.
A dumb question then is.. do the planets weight more than the sun, there for “drag” the sun along?
Paul Vaughan (20:35:08) :
Hi Paul,
I have been looking for that paper for some time, esp interested in his answer to De Jager. Is it available online?
Last week I plotted the Jup/Sun/SSB numbers for a short period, not sure if its what your suggesting but its interesting. The scale doesnt give much away, but the small differences are big when you consider the distances involved. Also interesting when comparing dates and distances up and down the curve is how the acceleration and deceleration occurs on each side. I can email you the spreadsheet if you want to have a play….who knows we might find the 11 yr cycle somewhere in here.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/j_s_ssb.jpg
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/j_s_ssb.jpg
Paul Vaughan (13:04:36) :
In response to anna v (12:23:18)
So to clarify:
You regard “except planet A” as a n=N-1<N case?
Yes
Geoff Sharp (21:06:41)
“Hi Paul, I have been looking for that paper for some time, esp interested in his answer to De Jager. Is it available online?”
Yes Geoff:
Leif Svalgaard (17:31:11)
“Take it from the reformed sinner [Shirley] from JPL http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf […]”
I’m looking at what you and Lief are posting. I have a number of concerns already, but I don’t want to comment in detail just yet.
p.s .
true in the sense that the (n-1) have a barycenter of their own, and so does the 1.
Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) (20:55:12) :
A dumb question then is.. do the planets weight more than the sun, there for “drag” the sun along?
By memory the Sun has 99% of the solar system mass, but the 4 outer planets contribute 99% of the angular momentum that force the Sun to take its most unusual path around the barycenter.
Leif Svalgaard (13:52:29) :
repeat for clarity.
When the solar system was first born, solar activity and the solar wind were MUCH stronger than today and did in fact change the orbits [making them larger] and slow the Sun’s rotation [from less than a day to 25 days] by magnetic braking of the Sun, thus transferring angular momentum to the planets – one of the reason the planets have several hundred times more AM than the Sun has now. Right now, none of these mechanisms are effective and the orbits and solar rotation do not change, and such change there is, is one-way: slowing down the Sun [always].
I am intrigued by the above.
NOTE to all, the following is science fiction at present.
I am exploring “angels” :).
In string theory, the theory that theoretically has a consistent quantum gravity, there are many more forces than the four we have observed and measured in our reality. Dark matter, postulated to conserve conservation laws in the cosmos, in string theory has a full application. In a minimum model there are 11 dimensions to our 4, some of them time like dimensions and some space like and there are so many possibilities of model making with these bricks that I am sure that a smart graduate student could come up with anything. Some of the extra forces are like electromagnetic forces. We do not see them because they do not interact with our known reality particles except through gravity. For this reason standard string theories curl the new dimensions into tiny hyprespheres around every point, but there have been theories of “cosmic strings” stretching from one end to the other of the universe, and as I said a smart graduate student …
So here comes the science fiction triggered by your above description.
[ science fiction : Suppose a hefty part of the masses we calculate for the solar system are dark matter. ( 9/10 of the universe are postulated to be dark matter). Then a dark matter to dark- matter- magnetic interaction like the one you describe above at the beginning of the solar system, might still be going on, introducing correlations, if there are correlations.
/science fiction]
I say “if there are correlations” because I am affected by looking a bit into dynamical chaos . I give again the example of wave trains in the pacific and the atlantic. One will surely be able to correlate them particularly for the same strength wind, but no causation can be claimed in any way.
A way out of the ‘orbit’ problem is very likely that the concept of an orbit becomes mushy when the very movement of, say, Jupiter changes the point around which Jupiter is supposed to orbit. This makes the ‘orbit’ elastic with a period and a semimajor axis that vary significantly with time. As everybody’s calculations of the AM does not need the concept of an orbit, perhaps it is not fruitful to try to push the ‘orbit’ concept too far, if we have to continuously vary the size and period of the ‘orbit’ to make it fit.
I think that the solid result that came of all this is that the AM coupling does not work on rotation as all the AM is already accounted for. The orbit discussion has no bearing on this result and thus qualifies by definition as a strawman and we should treat it as such.
Geoff Sharp (21:30:51) :
By memory the Sun has 99% of the solar system mass, but the 4 outer planets contribute 99% of the angular momentum that force the Sun to take its most unusual path around the barycenter.
the angular momentum does not determine the barycenter. Just the masses and the distances, not the speed, and hence not the AM.
Leif Svalgaard (07:38:07) :
tallbloke (01:17:43) :
The 140m is not assumed, it is calculated from data. Ray clearly states…
and:
In his thread, Ray points out that the movement of the dense matter nearer the core of the sun by 140m
…Nowhere in the thread does the number 140, or 280, or 300 appear.
My bad, I was 10m out:
“Because the Sun is moving N and S by more than 100,000 km on a time scale of a decade, that means that the core is moving by about 0.13 km relative to the surface on that time scale.”
I’m not entirely sure whether this figure is the positive peak to negative peak amplitude or the maximum amplitude for the deviation form the dead centre.
Thanks for the detail on the cells. I’m still thinking these are different to the other study you told us about. I wish I could find the link again.
Preface:
This isn’t about AM. This is about addressing Geoff’s question. We’re making serious headway on that front now.
Leif Svalgaard (19:11:16)
http://www.leif.org/research/Jupiter-Orbits-P-a.png
Request clarification:
Is the plot for (a) Jupiter-system-centre or (b) Jupiter?
tallbloke (22:41:44) :
“Because the Sun is moving N and S by more than 100,000 km on a time scale of a decade, that means that the core is moving by about 0.13 km relative to the surface on that time scale.”
How does he get from 100,000 km to 130 m?
Paul Vaughan (22:51:57) :
Request clarification:
Is the plot for (a) Jupiter-system-centre or (b) Jupiter?
Don’t know what you mean. red/blue are for period/size.
circles on curves are for ‘orbit’ centered on Sun; curves with no circles are for ‘orbit’ centered on barycenter.
Paul Vaughan (22:51:57)
“Request clarification:
Is the plot for (a) Jupiter-system-centre or (b) Jupiter?”
Leif Svalgaard (23:07:46)
“Don’t know what you mean.”
The Jupiter system (i.e. Jupiter & its moons) has its own BC = (a). Jupiter by itself = (b).
Leif Svalgaard (22:13:44) :
A way out of the ‘orbit’ problem
The problem might be yours…you still havent told us in simple terms if Jupiter orbits the Sun or SSB. You have told us what the Earth orbits and backed it up with JPL data, but cant do so with Jupiter?
Alos I haven’t heard any problems with my data
lgl (01:03:56) :
Leif,
Methinks the hundreds of postings here have been in vain
Me too, your are as solar-centric as you’ve always been, feeling free to move the BC around.
Perhaps we could send the ghost of Galileo to jump up and down on the sun and yell
“AND YET IT MOVES!”
anna v (21:53:44)
“I say “if there are correlations” because I am affected by looking a bit into dynamical chaos . I give again the example of wave trains in the pacific and the atlantic. One will surely be able to correlate them particularly for the same strength wind, but no causation can be claimed in any way.”
Good example of confounding anna v.
People who don’t know each other may go to work at the same time every day – so if that happens consistently for a pair of people we can say there is a relationship between when one of them goes to work and when the other one does. We can say that much. And perhaps we cannot stop people from changing our words in ways that might make it look like we are claiming complete strangers are causing each other’s behaviour.
“We have found strong relationships (r>.9; n>100; p<.01) involving the jovian planet positions and …” gets twisted into “They claim planets cause …”
Botanists were drawing leaf morphology long before it was known how biochemical processes generated leaves. I doubt they encountered relentless, vehement charges that “Leaves do not exist!”
Interesting ideas you shared (re strings etc.)
Leif Svalgaard (22:54:20) :
tallbloke (22:41:44) :
“Because the Sun is moving N and S by more than 100,000 km on a time scale of a decade, that means that the core is moving by about 0.13 km relative to the surface on that time scale.”
How does he get from 100,000 km to 130 m?
You need to read the context around the proposition.
Tomes:
“We wish to calculate the effective acceleration, velocity and displacement of the solar core relative to the surface of the Sun. It is not necessary to do the calculation from the planets because NASA have done that for the total acceleration and we can work as a proportion of that. As the integration of acceleration to get velocity and displacement of the Sun has also been done by NASA we simply use the Z component (the N-S component in the Sun’s rotation axis frame) as given by NASA and multiply that by our (5/3 – 1) * 2*10^-6 proportion for the core relative to the surface. That is, about 1.3*10^-6 which is possibly out by a reasonably large factor (hopefully less than 10).”
Another smoking gun
http://1.2.3.10/bmi/www.bnhclub.org/JimP/jp/scaled.JPG