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
Geoff Sharp (16:00:21) :
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.”
By choosing the two dates with the same Jup/SSB distance I thought this would isolate any elliptical orbit variance.
This is circular. First you say ‘we find’, then you admit that the point was chosen because of the same distance.
I pointed that out a day ago with no reply or acknowledgment of this. Now, let’s go check solarcycle24.com: still no retraction there…
And I asked a long time ago, why this ‘problem’ was important [as you said a ‘reason was forthcoming’]. What is it you said about me “be a man”, right? Here is your chance.
The whole issue with barycenter orbits or not is, of course, just a diversion. Direct numerical integration shows a perfect balance between what the Sun gains/loses and what the rest of the solar system [including the Moon] loses/gains, so [as you said in a weak moment] “let’s come off the AM idea, there is no spin-orbit coupling”. This is the important result that Carsten and Chris have provided us with [and that Shirley admitted to], allowing the tree to be pruned, and justifying the ~700 comments in this monster thread.
Someone asked if we were trying to refute Kepler’s orbit. No need to do that, Isaac Newton did that centuries ago. The other nonsense about some planets ‘orbiting’ the Sun and some planets ‘orbiting’ the BC must also be dispensed with. Newton’s insight was that everything orbits the BC. The conceptual problem comes in if we persist in thinking in terms of Keplerian orbits, like the shape of the Earth’s orbit [or Jupiter’s] being what it is except that the focus is just shifted from the Sun to the BC. THAT is the grand error. The ‘orbit’ about the BC is not a Keplerian ellipse with for instance a fixed period of 4332 days and a constant semi major axis of 5.20 AU [for Jupiter]. No, it is a convoluted, twisted path where the period varies from 4313 to 4347 days and the semi major axis varies between 5.184-5.213 AU, at least for the past 100 years.
Now, the BC is slow ‘moving’ relative to the Sun, so that a Sun-centered ‘ellipse’ is a good approximation as seen in http://www.leif.org/research/Jupiter-Orbits-P-a.png [much better than a BC-centered rubber orbit significantly changing its period and size all the time]. For the Earth it is the same thing: the Sun and the Barycenter have scarcely moved relative to each other during a year, so with good approximation we can say that the Sun and the Earth [or rather ‘their’ BC] move around the solar system BC together.
As I said, all of this is not necessary as the simple numerical integrations show us what is going on, without us having to turn and twists ‘orbits’ into place. And for the [hi-jacked] topic of this thread they show that there is no extra AM floating around, no funny accelerations, no spin-orbit coupling, no speeding up/slowing down of the Sun due to the AM in the solar system. If some wants to keep their correlations alive they simply will have to go elsewhere [than AM] for their cause [or as some have said: admit that they don’t know of any causes, for now], and there are plenty of places to go.
Now, if everybody could now pitch in and agree to the above, we can tell Anthony that his gracious hosting of this ‘debate’ has been beneficial and that we won’t do it again 🙂
Paul Vaughan (16:26:09) :
This is what Horizons does – it’s based on a least-squares fit to observations.
No, that is a misrepresentation. Ask your expert 🙂
At the heart is a very precise numerical integration that is constrained [boundary conditions] to fit observations. The result of the integration is a HUGE data file of computed positions which then is fitted to a sum of cosine terms which for each body can run in the hundreds of terms. Not much different from the epicycles of old.
I can see why you need to call “game” now Leif. (As soon as Geoff converts his Jupiter-Sun-SSB distances to instantaneous periods (via T^2=r^3) and notes the lower bound’s connection with vukcevic’s formula… well, maybe that discussion will grace another forum…)
Paul Vaughan (Mar. 27)
“Thank you to all for the various comments – very interesting discussion.”
Leif Svalgaard (Mar. 27)
“There is, indeed, some entertainment value, but also a great deal of tedium.”
You are right – and it is important.
Final thought:
The theme Leif labeled as “nonsense” (16:53:10) was, for me, the most salient feature of the the whole thread, as it draws attention towards the root of the misunderstandings.
Paul Vaughan (17:44:07) :
The theme Leif labeled as “nonsense” (16:53:10) was, for me, the most salient feature of the the whole thread, as it draws attention towards the root of the misunderstandings.
then I think you have not understood anything. These were not misunderstandings, but tactical maneuvers. The numerical integrations show that the orbits were not essential for the AM result, hence any discussions about orbits were, at best, just diversions.
And I don’t ‘need to call it game’. If we could, that would be constructive since we would have accomplished something.
Paul Vaughan (16:26:09)
“This is what Horizons does – it’s based on a least-squares fit to observations.”
Leif Svalgaard (17:05:07) :
“No, that is a misrepresentation. Ask your expert :-)”
That’s where I got the info – but the answer does not change what you carried on to say — in fact I felt you did a good job of clarifying – i.e. “[boundary conditions] to fit observations”:
Leif continued: “At the heart is a very precise numerical integration that is constrained [boundary conditions] to fit observations. The result of the integration is a HUGE data file of computed positions which then is fitted to a sum of cosine terms which for each body can run in the hundreds of terms. Not much different from the epicycles of old.”
Thanks for the clarification – & for everything else.
lgl:
Thanks for some hard facts but unfortunately you can’s do the Earth this way because it orbits the Sun-Earth/Moon barycenter and not the SSBC.
You also need to include the Moon in the calcs making it rather complicated I guess.
Even if you were right about what orbits what, it wouldn’t make very much difference to the figures. The orbital angular momentum of the the Earth-Moon system would not be very much larger than that of the Earth on its own, given that the Moon is following much the same path as the Earth and at much the same speed. If orbital angular momentum was being transferred into spin angular momentum, the Earth would still end up spinning aboout as fast as I calculated.
I think that, in some sort of ‘intuitive’ way, it sort of ‘feels’ right that, as the Sun gains and loses orbital angular momentum as it goes in that tight little orbit around the SSB, this is somhow transferred to and from the Sun’s spin angular momentum. And the numbers suggest that would mean the Sun going round just a bit faster, with a period of 25 days instead of 26 days. And that doesn’t seem too implausible.
But when the same calculation is done for the Earth, and the same mysterious transfer of angular momentum is postulated, the Earth’s rotation rate speeds up much more, falling from 24 hours to 1.3 seconds. And that just isn’t plausible at all. Days and night would pass in a flickering half-light. It contradicts our experience. So this transfer isn’t happening with the Earth. And if it isn’t happening with the Earth, it’s not happening with the Sun either.
I think there has to be a point where what you intuitively feel is happening has to give way to reasoning that says it isn’t happening. Intuitively, to me, this spin-orbit coupling idea ‘felt’ right. But now, with the assistance of Leif, I’ve looked at it more closely, and worked out the figures, it looks like an illusion. But I was never very wedded to the idea. So I don’t mind losing that girl too much. Yes, she was pretty, Angela Momenta, but…
But I still like the idea that there’s something about the orbital motion of the Sun and planets which just might be affecting what’s happening on the Sun. I just don’t think it’s ‘spin-orbit coupling’ any more. But I quite like my ball bearings rolling around on the surface of the Sun, pulled by the planets this way and that. I haven’t tried modelling them yet, but I can almost see them already, swirling around on the surface of the Sun like winds, and explaining, why, …almost everything, of course. Intuitively, it feels right. So there may be a new girl in town, now that Angela Momenta has gone.
Leif Svalgaard (14:00:19) :
lgl (13:29:31) :
It seems some in here are trying do refute Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, surprising.
already Isaac Newton did that…
Did he? I thought Kepler’s laws still held good. They’re not precisely accurate, for some of the reasons we have discussed here. But then, as I understand it, Newton’s laws aren’t precisely accurate from the point of view of the Theory of Relativity.
Leif Svalgaard (16:53:10) :
This is far from over, we have not established which point Jupiter orbits. If you wish to leave the discussion that’s your choice. My error of 23 days still doesn’t take away the fact that the Jup/Sun distance is varying each orbit, and if that is so we still have a driver for AM conservation.
If we look at the Earth/Sun distance change per orbit with JPL it varies by 0.0001AU each year, that is very good evidence to suggest the Earth orbits the Sun. We do not see that accuracy when comparing the Jup/Sun distances per orbit. I have gone back 4 orbits of Jup using 4331.572 as the period (now that is in doubt?) and the variance is .0042AU (630, 000 km) between highest and lowest. If Jup is orbiting the Sun would that variance be so large?
This is an intriguing line of research that is now pointing (from what I have seen so far) to a Jup orbit point somewhere in the middle between the Sun and SSB. I want to find the answer.
Obviously we have to determine the exact Jup orbit period before going any further.
If Anthony and others wish to continue this on here that’s great, if not I will continue it on solarcyle24.
idlex: Did he?
I see Leif has already answered this question.
Geoff Sharp (18:18:57) :
This is an intriguing line of research that is now pointing (from what I have seen so far) to a Jup orbit point somewhere in the middle between the Sun and SSB. I want to find the answer.
And on this note, that would increase Newton’s angular momentum in his grave, it is a good time for you to move over to solarcycle24.com that has a sandbox for just this.
Leif, you and SOHO lucked out. I just entered picks at http://mission-madness.nasa.gov/ and picked SOHO over Vikings I & II. Had Pioneer 10 won over the Vikings, I would have picked it on the grounds that it studied more bodies than SOHO does. If SOHO wins this round, I’ll vote for it next round too.
Ric Werme (18:37:38) :
Leif, you and SOHO lucked out. I just entered picks at http://mission-madness.nasa.gov/ and picked SOHO over Vikings I & II.
Now the rest of you lads and lassies do the same 🙂
Guys, this is a moderator comment.
Leif has suggested that this thread has run its course.
Interested parties can continue at solarcycle24.com per the suggestions of both Geoff Sharp and Leif.
jeez aka charles the moderator.
Lief Svalgaard said: “Now, if everybody could now pitch in and agree to the above, we can tell Anthony that his gracious hosting of this ‘debate’ has been beneficial and that we won’t do it again :-)”
Why shut a debate down? This is the scientific method in action. [Many thanks to our host and creator for allowing this]. There are TOO MANY questions raised by too many specialists…in this thread….to shut it down.
Again it goes back to my original criticism, Lief. If you took a more inductive approach (as is being done here in this blog)…then you will increase your odds [and they are always damn good :~) ] of being correct.
Too many questions raised at this point in time. Continue the discussion. Geoff is a smart man and until he is disproved….neither can it be proven that he is wrong.
We don’t know everything here.
Like I said….Anthony should be charging tuition to a guy like me…but even if I paid for the course, I would definitely audit YOUR course….to risk getting a d minus. :~)
Respect…..
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Reply: Not shutting down, just moving per note above. Feel free to wander. Leif, if you stop responding in this thread, you’ll probably get more cooperation in the move. ~ charles the moderator
Paul Vaughan (17:44:07)
“[…] root of the misunderstandings.”
Leif Svalgaard (17:55:58)
“[…] then I think you have not understood anything.”
“Misunderstanding” is a polite word (that encompasses errors & politics) – and I understand your sense of responsibility to be explicit — the Svalgaard style of leadership seems unlikely to be challenged for its coyness.
It got late here and I had to hit the hay. I’d just like to thank Anthony, Leif, and all the participants here for the venue, the willingness to re-cover old ground as well as new ground, the generally well mannered (cough) debate, and the insights. A truly valuable experience which we all get to take away with us.
For me, being forced by Leif to go away and do the maths was really valuable. I learned how well damped the response of an orbiting body (mercury) would be to a decadal cyclic change in a close heavy gravitational body. A late comment to my Mercury orbit thread on another forum contained this gem:
“The orbital motions and rotations of Mercury are so well defined that they have been able to use slight variations to discover that Mercury has a liquid core.”
This has given me fresh insights into the way the sun’s varying rotation speed between equator and poles in it’s liquid outer regions changes. I will be asking Leif about available data on North-South differences in these changes at the next opportunity.
-tallbloke-
If you torture the data enough, it will confess.
Even to crimes it did not commit.
idlex,
Even if you were right about what orbits what, it wouldn’t make very much difference to the figures
May I kindly ask you to give the hard facts again.
The equivalent to
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,
but around the Sun this time.
Using the BC I think you will include a lot of the potential-to-kinetic energy conversion and that will of course be wrong, counting it twice. I see I do somewhat the same in my hypothesis so I have to rephrase that too.
I have to add this.
—
tallbloke (01:52:34)
Another smoking gun
http://1.2.3.10/bmi/www.bnhclub.org/JimP/jp/scaled.JPG
—
I couldn’t believe no one shot this down (sorry for being coy) – it was an easy target — but maybe no one thought to correct the website-address by chopping “1.2.3.10/bmi/” – i.e. to
http://www.bnhclub.org/JimP/jp/scaled.JPG
…So maybe no one even looked to see that the rise by a factor of 3/2 “just happens” to coincide with T^2=r^3.
An important clue in the y-axis labeling is “per period”.
Good fun.
Thanks charles (moderator).
savethesharks,
Too many questions raised at this point in time. Continue the discussion.
Absolutely, we have barely touched the core. This discussion has mainly focused on the two red herrings conservation of AM from revolution and Geoff’s method for proving that Jupiter is orbiting the SSBC, with some good analysis by Paul including interesting links and some wise words from anna v in between.
It has set as a prerequisite that the total AM needs to be varying to give room for a spin-orbit coupling. This is of course nonsense. The prerequisite is that the rotational energy of the solar system must be constant. It is proven by observation that a spin-orbit coupling exists, by measuring that the Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth, so there is nothing preventing the assumtion that some of the AM of revolution is converted to AM of rotation and ‘transferred’ back and forth between different objects.
And one might prove Goeff’s methods wrong but that does not change the fact that “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” (from wiki)
So keep it going.
“The physicists of the past and present are too secretive. All the papers I have read, from Euclid to Newton to Einstein to Feynman, have been like puzzles. They are criminally incomplete, and I can’t say that I fully enjoy filling all the omissions in myself. I am gratified in the instances I can do so, but I shouldn’t have to. Barebones math is not a physical solution to a problem. A solution includes the explanation of how the math works at all points. This sort of solution is correctable. Solutions like those of Newton and Einstein are not. That is one reason that both Newton and Einstein have had such longevity: no one could get behind the equations to pull them apart. After breaking through both walls—those of both Einstein and Newton—I can tell you that this incompleteness appears to be purposeful. They, like most other scientists, have hidden the groundwork because they had no confidence in it. They kept it out of the light of day because it could not survive the light of day, and they knew it.”
– Miles Mathis –
Perihelion Precession of Mercury
http://www.geocities.com/mileswmathis/merc.html
Paul Vaughan (00:33:59) :
I have to add this.
–
tallbloke (01:52:34)
Another smoking gun
http://1.2.3.10/bmi/www.bnhclub.org/JimP/jp/scaled.JPG
–
I couldn’t believe no one shot this down (sorry for being coy) – it was an easy target — but maybe no one thought to correct the website-address by chopping “1.2.3.10/bmi/” – i.e. to
http://www.bnhclub.org/JimP/jp/scaled.JPG
…So maybe no one even looked to see that the rise by a factor of 3/2 “just happens” to coincide with T^2=r^3.
An important clue in the y-axis labeling is “per period”.
Hi Paul,
You saying the gun was firing blanks? 😉
the graph is from this thread if you are interested.
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/71027-jupiter-influencing-sunspots.html
My Mercury thread is here:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/86461-how-well-mercurys-orbit-defined.html
And I need your help (and anyone else’s) to discuss the correlation I found between north south sunspot distribution and north south barycentric motion here:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/86565-help-needed-understand-curious-correlation.html
I use a different handle on that forum, don’t blow my cover. 😉
If you’re not interested in joining to post, email me rog at tallbloke dot net.
Thanks
Paul,
I couldn’t believe no one shot this down
Why the peak at 5.35 ?
Interested parties can continue at solarcycle24.com per the suggestions of both Geoff Sharp and Leif. – jeez
That’s a pretty vague sort of hand wave. Anyone got a link to exactly where this new thread is?
I think that, as a conversation, this thread has probably run its course. It’s actually been several conversations, I guess. My thanks also go to all concerned.
I have been bothered by the confusion on all of our houses that the mention of angular momentum is displaying.
I think it is due to the fact that people have not really thought about what conservation of angular momentum means. It is that it does not change unless a force is applied to the body.
Let us take the simplest case of a random angular momentum.
Take a point x and have a particle with constant momentum coast by. A plane is defined, and a vertical axis through x allows us to define an angular momentum too, which will be m*v*sin(theta)*r, where theta is the angle subtended by the closest approach, a, over the radius, r, by construction.
Conservation of momentum tells us that m*v is not changing ( no forces in our problem)
Conservation of angular momentum about this arbitrary point x says then that
sin(theta)*r must be a constant. Lo and behold, it is: sin(theta)=a/r so sin(theta)*r=a , a constant of the problem, since the closest approach is well defined geometrically.
In the case of a circular trajectory, sin(theta) is 1, r is constant and equal to a, and v is constant unless some external to the system force is applied. Once we get out of this simple case, for an ellipse or a parabola, conservation of angular momentum about a central force means that there is an interplay between r and v, distance and velocity, so as to keep the AM constant.
This simple picture cannot hold for the many body gravitational problem, because there more than one force applies which negates a simple accounting and a numerical method , as we have seen, is necessary. All planets are subject to many forces that change their speed and direction, thus conservation of angular momentum as a concept becomes similar to conservation of momentum of many bouncing billiard balls . It is the sum that keeps count.
lgl (01:06:13) :
The prerequisite is that the rotational energy of the solar system must be constant. It is proven by observation that a spin-orbit coupling exists, by measuring that the Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth
One should perhaps not feed the trolls, as per jeez 🙂
But the main reason no progress is made is that the facts are not stated explicitly. The laws of Nature are just condensed statements of gazillions of facts.
Take the above example about the Moon. (M1) Observations show a 4 cm/yr increase of the distance. I’ll call that fact M1. The reason for this is friction due to tides (M2). Friction causes heat (M3). That heat is radiated away from the Earth-Moon system (M4), therefore the system loses the rotational energy that was converted into heat (M5) which is therefore not conserved (deduction M6). The heat loss is one-way (M7). The friction slows down the Earth (M8) which changes the spin angular momentum of the Earth (M9). Because angular momentum is conserved (M10), the Moon must gain angular momentum about the same axis (M11), not about any other axis (M12), therefore its distance must increase (explaining M1).
Now, before progress can be made, the above facts or deductions (M1-M12) must be agreed upon. So, anybody disagreeing with any of them?
idlex (02:53:25) :
That’s a pretty vague sort of hand wave. Anyone got a link to exactly where this new thread is?
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=488