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
“These laws describe the motion of any two bodies in orbit around each other. The masses of the two bodies can be nearly equal, e.g. Charon—Pluto (~1:10), in a small proportion, e.g. Moon—Earth (~1:100), or in a great proportion, e.g. Mercury—Sun (~1:10,000,000).
In all cases the both bodies orbit around the common center of mass, the barycenter, with neither one having their center of mass exactly at one focus of an ellipse. However, both orbits are ellipses with one focus at the barycenter. When the ratio of masses is large, i.e. with planets orbiting the Sun, the barycenter is deep within the larger object close to its center of mass”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion
And if you reduce the size of the Sun to the size of Jupiter it will look like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit5.gif
i.e Both the Sun and Jupiter is accelerating (positve&negative) around the barycenter. And an object moving in an arc and being accelerated can’t keep a constant rotation.
tallbloke,
I think it is already there yelling.
Leif Svalgaard (22:29:30) :
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.
So all those correlations on Carl’s AM graph matching Carsten’s diagrams that control the path of the Sun must be just a fluke, high AM pushes the Sun’s path out to 2.2 radii, low AM puts the Sun on the barycenter, this is science and the ways its going planetary influence will have more scientific evidence than the Babcock-Leighton theory could ever hope for. The barycenter is just the central point, nothing flash really, but the Jovians do seem attracted to it.
Your arguing on semantics, running out of options as the evidence builds…its good to be tested, but it would also be good to be appraised by a non biased approach.
Geoff Sharp:
Ephemeris Type should be OBSERVER.
Geoff Sharp:
I dont know the reason why its 4339 days instead of 4332 but its not important.
Leif Svalgaard (16:50:22) :
Except that the period is 4332 days, not 4339 days…
I’m now beginning to think that Geoff Sharp is trying to work out the orbit of Jupiter from its observed positions. And, after fitting an ellipse to it, he has worked out its period as 4339 days. Something like that.
Observer Table: Use this table type to generate a table of observer quantities (such as R.A./Dec.) for any object with respect to a geocentric or topocentric observer.
And he accuses me of re-inventing the wheel! I’m certainly not trying to do what he’s doing. I don’t know how to do it, for starters. I use the JPL figures simply to tell me the positions and speeds of the Sun and planets within the ecliptic coordinate system to kick off my Newtonian simulation model.
I now think that Geoff Sharp has his own alternative solar system, in which Jupiter has an orbital period of 4339 rather than 4332 days, and presumably everything else in it also have their own equally unorthodox periods. Quite possibly Geoff Sharp’s Earth goes round the Sun in 367 days. But it’s “not important”.
I don’t see anything wrong with Geoff doing this (if that’s what he’s doing). It’s rather admirable, in fact. I might try it myself one day. Take the observed positions of the planets and try and fit a curve to them. It’s what Kepler did.
But if I was doing it, I would be deeply worried if I came up with an orbital period of 4339 days for Jupiter, given that it’s pretty well (no, VERY well) established that it’s 4332 days. I certainly wouldn’t think that it was “not important”. And rather than thinking that JPL had got its numbers wrong, I would strongly suspect that I’d got mine wrong.
Its rather pathetic how Dr. Svalgaard is now supporting Shirley’s paper (who is sitting on the fence right now). This paper directly criticizes DeJager’s paper on planetary influence which Svalgaard very recently held up as a re buff for planetary influence mechanisms (very similar to holding up Usoskins grand minima paper before it reversed on him) . Also noted is his continual reference to Carsten’s recent amateur (no disrespect, amateur here myself) outcome that solar AM = planets AM. There are a few straws still floating on the surface……
Paul Vaughan (00:14:51) :
“We have found strong relationships (r>.9; n>100; p<.01) involving the jovian planet positions and …” gets twisted into “They claim planets cause …”
Well, I personally see two options: either correlations are fortuitous, or there is unknown physics behind them, as the explanations given have been shown to be inadequate energetically, and wrong kinetically (above).
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!”
I think you are confusing the issue. Describing something is not the same as predicting the future, unless you have very many experiments. Leaves growing offer innumerable experiments, and the same can be said for the day night correlations that people used predictively when their theory was that there was a sun chariot driven by the god Helios.
In the planetary/climate history we have one line of a few hundreds of years observation and no possibility to experiment. It is a leap of faith to use these observations in a predictive manner. Leaps of faith are allowed. They should not be confused with science.
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.
Tell us again how you move on 1 complete orbit? What is the criterion that the orbit is complete using the three tables you have4 provided?
Leif,
I realize now that this can [would] be misunderstood and taken out of context. What was meant was if you could change the orbit that would change the rotation. but the point that is missing is that you cannot change the orbit in the contemporary solar system except by friction which goes only one way. And perhaps drag by the solar wind’s magnetic field [which is minuscule]. 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, noe 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].
What is there to misunderstand, after you have described the spin-orbit coupling in three different ways.
Whenever a revolving body, for whatever reason, changes rotation speed, the distance to the barycenter it is revolving around will change.
And it must go the other way also; whenever the distance to the barycenter is changed, the rotation will change. (at the same point of the orbit of course, not the aphelion/perihelion difference)
The solar rotation do not change, and such change there is, is one-way: slowing down the Sun [always]?? Is this also rubbish then:
http://www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_22.pdf
(yes, the convection zone, not the interior)
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.”
Tell us again how you move on 1 complete orbit? What is the criterion that the orbit is complete using the three tables you have provided?
From your table (2) we have:
Target body name: Solar System Barycenter (0)
Center body name: Jupiter (599)
Shown is distance in AU
1951-Jun-19 00:00 4.95509008582573
1951-Jun-20 00:00 4.95499927241922 * start
1951-Jun-21 00:00 4.95490872132356
1963-Apr-05 00:00 4.95512926483708
1963-Apr-06 00:00 4.95503231548752 * 4308 days
1963-Apr-07 00:00 4.95493622818420
1963-May-06 00:00 4.95238783851465
1963-May-07 00:00 4.95230888839073 # 4339 days
1963-May-08 00:00 4.95223031117184
—-
After 4308 days we have very nearly the same distance J-SSB, but 4339 days later the distance is different by 0.0027 AU or 404,000 km …
Geoff Sharp (02:56:03) :
to
Leif Svalgaard (22:29:30) :
the angular momentum does not determine the barycenter. Just the masses and the distances, not the speed, and hence not the AM.
So all those correlations on Carl’s AM graph matching Carsten’s diagrams that control the path of the Sun must be just a fluke, […]
Geoff, the dagrams of my two simple 2d simulators are
Sim1: http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/1985_2040_d.html
Sim2: http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/SolarSim2_sunonly.gif
These diagrams have been computed using “just the masses and the distances, not the speed, and hence not the AM”.
You don’t need or use the AM to compute the barycenter. Computing the barycenter is a simple engineering style operation using given object masses and positions only. There are no velocities involved. It is just like finding the balancing point of a balance scale.
The masses you can look up in any solar system table. The positions can be obtained either from orbits (as in Sim1 & Sim2, using orbital elements) or as a result of numerical time integration, as in my 3d simulator
http://arnholm.org/astro/software/ssg/
All of the above produce [very nearly] the same solar trajectories and hence the barycenter is the same for all. None of these techniques use AM in any way to do this.
The correlations don’t control the path of the Sun, gravity does. The AM graph of an object is a function of the objects position and velocity. So if there is a correlation with AM, it is AM that follows from the positions and velocities, not the other way.
Geoff Sharp (04:30:32) :
Its rather pathetic how Dr. Svalgaard is now supporting Shirley’s paper (who is sitting on the fence right now). This paper directly criticizes DeJager’s paper on planetary influence which Svalgaard very recently held up as a re buff for planetary influence mechanisms (very similar to holding up Usoskins grand minima paper before it reversed on him) . Also noted is his continual reference to Carsten’s recent amateur (no disrespect, amateur here myself) outcome that solar AM = planets AM. There are a few straws still floating on the surface……
So what is your opinion of this outome? Is it right or is it wrong?
lgl (07:08:21) :
Whenever a revolving body, for whatever reason, changes rotation speed, the distance to the barycenter it is revolving around will change.
And it must go the other way also; whenever the distance to the barycenter is changed, the rotation will change. (at the same point of the orbit of course, not the aphelion/perihelion difference)
No, it does not go the other way. In the first case the AM of the revolving body is changed, in the second it is not, it is the speed in the orbit that is changed to keep the AM constant.
The solar rotation do not change, and such change there is, is one-way: slowing down the Sun [always]?? Is this also rubbish then:
http://www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_22.pdf
(yes, the convection zone, not the interior)
You are confusing rotation and AM. And taking tings out of context. For a body that does not rotate as a solid body one can nevertheless define an ‘average’ rotation and derive it from the AM. This does not mean that different parts can rotate differently while still the average is constant. The paper deals with the surface rotation [even refers to one of my papers]. So no contradiction, even though the ‘relic field’ is highly speculative and probably wrong [the agreement between calculated and observed neutrino fluxes argues against such a relic field].
Leif
For a body that does not rotate as a solid body one can nevertheless define an ‘average’ rotation and derive it from the AM. This does not mean that different parts can rotate differently while still the average is constant.
It does in a viscous fluid body where varying eddy’s can change the amount of friction between layers which rotate at different speeds.
And doesn’t the rate of rotation of the suns surface vary between the equator and poles? How constant is that variance?
662 responses.
Why, this thread is beating the Hansen threads length record !
Are we starting to go in circles too? Soon we will have to calculate our angular momenta 😉
tallbloke (08:27:29) :
It does in a viscous fluid body where varying eddy’s can change the amount of friction between layers which rotate at different speeds.
And doesn’t the rate of rotation of the suns surface vary between the equator and poles? How constant is that variance?
sure, but none of this has any bearing on transfer of AM from orbit to spin, which does not happen.
The difference between poles and equator varies with solar activity that creates winds in the solar atmosphere.
Leif Svalgaard (08:40:58) :
tallbloke (08:27:29) :
And doesn’t the rate of rotation of the suns surface vary between the equator and poles? How constant is that variance?
sure, but none of this has any bearing on transfer of AM from orbit to spin, which does not happen.
The difference between poles and equator varies with solar activity that creates winds in the solar atmosphere.
Interesting. How do you know it isn’t the varying rotation speeds which cause the winds rather than vise versa? What are the relative masses of the solar atmosphere and the fluid layers which are changing in rotation speed?
What’s going on here? No-one wants to be the one with post #666?
Heh! Ok well, now that’s out of the way, teabreaks over, back on your heads!
Leif,
This is hopeless. First you say:
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.
(or was that another Leif Svalgaard)
and when I repeat almost the same thing it is not true.
And you say solar rotation do not change,
I link to a paper showing exactly that, that a large portion of the Sun has a varying rotation, and you reply it’s out of context. Of course there is an average of this variation. Have you ever seen one without an average?
How is spin-orbit coupling working then? Conservation of AM, fine. Tidal friction slows down the rotation of the Earth, but how does that lead to increased distance to the Moon (and to the E-M BC)?
tallbloke,
How do you know it isn’t the varying rotation speeds which cause the winds rather than vise versa?
Exactly, you can’t.
Leif,
Returning to the ‘spin-orbit coupling’ business, another way of looking at it all might be to imagine what the solar system would be like if it actually did happen. I’m not sure if the following calculations are right, but this is what I’ve found.
I estimate the Sun’s spin angular momentum, assuming a 26 day rotation period, to be about 1.0E+42 kg/m^2/s. The Sun, from my simulation model, has an orbital angular momentum that ranges from near zero when the SSB is near the centre of the Sun, to about 3.7E+40 when it’s furthest away. So the Sun’s spin angular momentum is 27 times larger than its orbital angular momentum, so if the Sun actually did gain spin angular momentum when it lost orbital angular momentum, its angular velocity would have to increase by 28/27 or about 1.04, and its rotation period would fall from 26 days to about 25 days.
But if this happened with the Sun, it would also happen with the Earth. And here the picture is rather different. I estimate the Earth’s spin angular momentum to be about 7.07E+33. But in 1960, from my simulation model, the orbital angular momentum of the Earth varied from about 2.638E+40 to 2.684E+40, with the minimum in June and the maximum in November, a change of 4.754E+38. And this is change is far larger than the current spin angular momentum of the Earth. And if all the orbital angular momentum lost between June 1960 and November 1960 was turned into a gain in spin angular momentum, the Earth’s rotation period would fall from 24 hours to 1.3 seconds!
Life would be very different on the Earth. Days would get longer from January to July, gradually returning to a 24 hour day. And get shorter and shorter in the subsequent months, until days were flashing by with nights lasting 0.65 days and daylight 0.65 days, producing a flickering twilit world.
However, because life isn’t like this on Earth, ‘spin-orbit coupling’ can’t be happening.
tallbloke (09:02:01) :
Interesting. How do you know it isn’t the varying rotation speeds which cause the winds rather than vise versa? What are the relative masses of the solar atmosphere and the fluid layers which are changing in rotation speed?
I know all these things because they are in my field of specialty. The solar atmosphere is extremely thin. You are looking at 1 in a 1000 or less depending on how you delimit the regions.
idlex (11:13:34) :
However, because life isn’t like this on Earth, ’spin-orbit coupling’ can’t be happening.
Your calculations are correct, but the ‘standard argument’ from the enthusiasts is that the Sun is a gas and the Earth is not. [doesn’t make any difference, but that is what they will say].
lgl (10:49:33) :
This is hopeless.
Indeed it is.
Leif Svalgaard (07:17:08) :
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. …
After 4308 days we have very nearly the same distance J-SSB, but after 4339 days the distance is different by 0.0027 AU or 404,000 km …
Anthony,
These people need rest, block access to this thread !
Geoff Sharp (06:39:06) :
to
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (03:24:08) :
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.
You have already seen how the story ends. But here is my analysis as per your request.
This PDF contains to plots
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/Distance_Jupiter_Sun_SSBC_1940_2037.pdf
On page 1 is shown the Jupiter-Sun distance (in AU) for every second day since January 1940 to June 2038, about 17620 different distances evaluated. As you can see from the curve, the upper and lower extreme distances are more or less constant, typical for a stable orbit.
Then turn to page 2. This is for the same period, but shows instead the Jupiter-SSBC distance. This time, the upper and lower extreme distances are not constant, observe for example the lower values in 1987 vs 1998.
Raw data for you to check
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/Distance_Jupiter_Sun_SSBC_1940_2037.zip
So there you have it. I have computed the values without really knowing why it was so important to you, maybe you can now.
“flashing by with nights lasting 0.65 days and daylight 0.65 days, producing a flickering twilit world.”
That should be flashing by with nights lasting 0.65 seconds and daylight 0.65 seconds, producing a flickering twilit world.