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 (21:06:31) :
(See Leif Svalgaard (08:59:52) — & idlex (16:27:45), which is an analogy where the amplitudes are ’significant’
What do you mean by this? I don’t see the analogy…
Well get some rest Lief….
G’nite
Chris
savethesharks (21:52:15) :
Well get some rest Leif….
What were you doing up so late?
And since I am into science fiction modeling I will share as my last post here how. even if one can find correlations between planetary locations and sun activity, they could be fortuitous just as correlations between wave trains from two different oceans are fortuitous.
Why can one find correlations between train waves of two different oceans? Because the underlying dynamics are the same. The dynamical solutions are similar and the chaotic nature is forced to express itself in similar functions, even though the boundary conditions, Atlantic, Pacific, are different.
How could the sun cycles be a result of a similar dynamical chaotic mechanism that the planetary/sun system displays?
[science fiction
By having a similar internal structure to a planetary system. I can imagine this as off center rings/shells, due to differential rotation differences of the upper layers, according to density, so we can have effective gravity points circling a heavy core. Now add random strong magnetic fields in the mix that will deform the eliptic paths by changing densities in localized places, and one can have a planetarium right inside the sun. The solutions would be similar to the outside planet/sun system and therefore the chaotic wavetrains will have a good chance to coincide in minima and maxima take or add decades or something
/science fiction]
/Tongue in cheek.
anna v (22:11:42) :
therefore the chaotic wavetrains will have a good chance to coincide in minima and maxima
Given two infinitely long series of random numbers one can find arbitrarily long identical subsequences.
Responding to Leif Svalgaard (21:38:11)
You’ve illustrated both the moon’s tide effect on earth rotation and the planets’ tide effect on sun rotation, highlighting that the latter is small (but acknowledging that it exists). In both cases you’ve emphasized the “one way street” braking effect, even though the details of each case are different.
Comment: The analogy with car brakes is an effective one.
Leif,
Just one … close-to-final question. Why isn’t the interesting bit to verify that the rotational energy remains constant instead of the AM? Like you have said, AM is not the same as energy so constant AM does not mean that an energy transfer can not take place.
You should create a document on your web site, LeifQ&A, containing these answers you have to repeat again and again, then you can just put in the link when you get these questions.
Leif Svalgaard (07:17:08) :
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
you can not use distance to the sun for rotational year.
all the planets make this 1% off not just Jupiter.
99% of mass is in the sun. the sun is also moving, dragging us along,
this skews the distance. drag side vs other side.
lgl (22:34:14) :
Why isn’t the interesting bit to verify that the rotational energy remains constant instead of the AM?
Because it does not. Friction generates heat which is lost to the system.
Well I am really going to be this time. LOL
Good nite eveyone. Thanks for the education. Anthony please don’t get all hung up on charging tuition…and Leif thanks for letting me audit (the only way through for me LOL).
Chris
Correction…”going to bed”
Leif,
Why do you do things like this? It’s not answering my question. The heat loss is a miniscule steady (long scale) decrease and is easily filtered. What we would be looking for was a cyclic change on the decadal scale.
lgl (23:55:27) :
Why do you do things like this? It’s not answering my question. The heat loss is a miniscule steady (long scale) decrease and is easily filtered. What we would be looking for was a cyclic change on the decadal scale.
But there isn’t any. That is the point. the only coupling is via tides and that goes one way only.
lgl (23:55:27) :
Why do you do things like this?
You cannot gather roses where no roses grow…
Geoff,
outside of normal aphelion/perihelion changes
wow, I have been thinking along the same lines the last couple of days.
This is seen to occur every orbit with Jup/Sun but I have not deduced why…yet
Because the Sun is not in free fall around the barycenter perhaps, because the BC is not the center of gravity seen from the Sun. BC is the center of gravity only if seen from outside of the solar system.
What am I doing wrong this time Leif?
I think maybe we’re coming at this from the wrong angle.
Epistemological analysis:
There are no elliptical orbits, there are no gravitational forces, except in mathematical models which imperfectly describe the universe.
No-one has captured a graviton, no-one has yet detected a gravity wave, all is deduction.
Newton was brilliant, and gave us a powerful way to model and predict, but imperfectly.
la Verrier tried to refine and consolidate, but couldn’t match the discrepancies.
Einstein fudged the Mercury Perihelion issue, and though his idea of curved space-time is fabulous, no-one has come up with a physical theory of how mass curves space-time. It’s still action at a distance just as newton’s falling apple was.
Metaphysical analysis:
All we really have is proportion and cyclicity, harmonics and resonance. Even these are uncertain, but an understanding of how a glass ‘sings’ at a high frequency while a wettened finger is drawn round it’s rim is likely to inform us of why the sun has dominant frequencies around five minutes, and the planets are distributed on the nodes or subnodes of a five minute light speed wave, and will help us get to the bottom of what’s really happening.
Pragmatic analysis:
Rather than rejecting new ideas on the basis that they are not compatible with our present model, we must embrace and extend our knowledge by finding new ways to accommodate the correlations we discover, rather than denying they exist.
Leif is right to say we shouldn’t invent new forces we don’t have to. The debate then, is about the need for one when we have exhausted the possibilities within the current paradigm.
At least Leif has acknowledged on this thread that the dynamo theory of the sun can’t yet explain it’s behaviour, although it is his belief that it soon will.
Fair enough, keep digging, and so will we.
Many moons ago I attended a lecture by the Astronomer Royale, who told us that the grand unified theory of everything was within grasp, just around the corner. I laughed out loud then, and all these moons later, I’m still waiting, and still laughing.
Tallbloke
You are almost there, everything is in periodic motion and resonances, from the electrons’ to planetary orbits, from a light wave emitted from an atom to the most powerful magnetic waves emitted from the Sun.
tallbloke,
Leif is right to say we shouldn’t invent new forces we don’t have to.
I don’t think we have to. I know you will object to my definition of free fall but the prevailing one is pointless. The important thing is: Does the object move as determined by the gravitational forces it is influenced by? The Sun is not doing that. Because of conservation of AM or rotational energy or whatever, it is moving much more than gravity would imply. The Sun experiences it’s own gravity only (and that of the galaxy of course), with some very miniscule influence from the planets (like Leif has said a thousand times) so it should move close to nothing as result of gravity.
lgl (00:41:22) :
Geoff, outside of normal aphelion/perihelion changes
wow, I have been thinking along the same lines the last couple of days.
Angular momentum [A] can be calculated like this A = d * m * v
where d is the distance, m the mass, and v the speed. Kepler’s 3rd law says that the period P and the distance d are related like this P^2 ~ d^3, hence the speed is v = 2pi * d / P ~ 2pi / sqrt(d), hence the AM per unit of mass is A/m =1.17E10 * sqrt(d) in SI (mks) units, so the AM does depend on the distance d but solely through gravity. So it is complete nonsense to say ‘apart from aphelion/perihelion issues’. It is the same laws that determine the AM over all points of the path of the body. If you wish to maintain otherwise, there is a sandbox [litter box] somewhere else for that.
What am I doing wrong this time Leif?
There is only one BC in the solar system and everything is in free fall around it.
tallbloke (05:39:36) :
At least Leif has acknowledged on this thread that the dynamo theory of the sun can’t yet explain it’s behaviour, although it is his belief that it soon will.
This is a misrepresentation. I think that dynamo theory can account for the Sun’s behavior. We do not yet all the data needed for that, but that is different from saying that it can’t. It is like saying that since the laws of gravity cannot predict the movement of the asteroid I just observed last night, that therefore something must be wrong with those laws. They cannot predict because we need several nights worth of observations to pin down the asteroid; same with dynamo theory. Dynamo theory is what makes an electrical motor run and is well understood.
From:
Officials of NASA Heliosfearic Division today reluctantly announced the postponement of the launch of the Solar Dynamics Observer until such a time as the Sun becomes dynamic again. The head of the Division, Rich Phisher, pointed out that they had already launched one mission, STEREO, into this deepest solar minimum of the Space Age, and they were not going to repeat that mistake with SDO. His assistant for solar programs, Ugotta Like-her, noted that the current solar behavior can be interpreted in two ways, neither of them good for SDO. One school of thought likens this period of quiet solar behavior to the lowering of the level of the sea right before the arrival of a tsunami. The safest place for SDO is on the ground under the shield of the Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere. “We can launch when the worst is over,” she adds. The second school of thought proposes that the cessation of solar activity is the beginning of a new Maunder minimum, perhaps lasting over a hundred years. The project scientist for the STEREO mission, Mike Wiser, favors this explanation and bristles at the suggestion that any mistake was made in launching STEREO. “In fact,” he points out, “we have 150 years of control gas on board that can keep the cameras pointed at the Sun for more than a whole Maunder minimum.” When contacted about the postponement, the PI of the major instrument on SDO, Phul Sharer, conveyed his extreme disappointment at the postponement that leaves him nothing at all to share with the science community.
lgl (06:55:15) :
Does the object move as determined by the gravitational forces it is influenced by? The Sun is not doing that.
Please, this is for the litter box.
vukcevic (06:54:02) :
everything is in periodic motion and resonances, from the electrons’ to planetary orbits, from a light wave emitted from an atom to the most powerful magnetic waves emitted from the Sun.
Another one for the litter box.
vukcevic (06:54:02) :
everything is in periodic motion and resonances, from the electrons’ to planetary orbits, from a light wave emitted from an atom to the most powerful magnetic waves emitted from the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard (08:01:03) :
Another one for the litter box.
“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.”
vukcevic (08:50:10) :
Leif Svalgaard (08:01:03) :
“Another one for the litter box.”
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.
Some more litter box material for you:
https://www.yousendit.com/download/UmNKR0lhbEpYSHhjR0E9PQ
Loose end:
Responding to Q from tallbloke (02:01:09)
Regarding graphs at:
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=barycentre-sunspots.gif
And related discussion at:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/86565-help-needed-understand-curious-correlation.html
What you have shown is that absolute magnitude of sunspot area asymmetry is ~proportional to total sunspot area (r^2=0.6805 if you work with logarithms & monthly summaries (May1874-Feb2009).
Note: If you work with logs & monthly summaries – and completely ignore the barycentre – you will be able to get your 22 year time-integrated correlation up to 0.99291063013327.
(Just in case it isn’t obvious to some readers:
This number should not be interpreted haphazardly.)