Another anemic solar cycle 23 sunspeck, could 19th century astronomers have seen it?
From Spaceweather.com
SUNSPOT 1016: A ring-shaped sunspot numbered 1016 has emerged near the sun’s equator. Its magnetic polarity identifies it as a member of old Solar Cycle 23. Until these old cycle sunspots go away, the next solar cycle will remain in abeyance.
Geoff Sharp (22:06:57) :
“If one wants to stick to the correlations being caused by angular momentum transfer, one must postulate that in spite of these shortcomings it somehow works anyway.”
That’s a big statement…..the message is getting through.
Well, it’s you making that statement. And there is nothing wrong with that, once it is admitted that that is a violation of physical laws as we know them [and that one therefore must assume there are unknown laws controlling this, thus appealing to such unknowns].
Leif Svalgaard (22:24:08) :
Stop squirming 🙂 These calculations that depend on assuming that the boundary conditions were the same are not very precise. The point is, we know how this works. To use theat knowledge to accurately predict things we need data, which we don’t have. Like predicting the weather: we know the physics, the mechanisms, ect, but need the data.
The boundary conditions might be favorable…if we go back the moon is closer and the bulge bigger…that’s the problem.
Dont forget Kepler’s 2nd Law.
——————————————————-
I’m not. It has nothing to do with transfer of Angular Momentum and friction, etc. Kepler’s 2nd law states [equivalently] that the orbital AM of a planet is constant, so when the planet is closer to the Sun, it has to move faster [AM=distance*speed]
That’s my point…transfer of angular momentum without friction.
Geoff Sharp (07:27:34) :
The boundary conditions might be favorable…if we go back the moon is closer and the bulge bigger…that’s the problem.
Why is that a problem? The exact size of the bulge depends on things [boundary conditions] we don’t know and can only estimate.
Kepler’s 2nd law:
That’s my point…transfer of angular momentum without friction.
You must be particularly think today. Kepler’s 2nd law specifies that the AM cannot change. Kepler didn’t know this, but Newton knew. You are back to Kepler as if Newton and physicist since him never existed.
Leif Svalgaard (08:34:05) :
You must be particularly think today. Kepler’s 2nd law specifies that the AM cannot change. Kepler didn’t know this, but Newton knew. You are back to Kepler as if Newton and physicist since him never existed.
If you want to ignore the transfer of orbit speed to a planet through AM conservation, do so. But remember the Sun’s velocity changes too as it takes its 2 distinctively different paths, this may not turn out to be chicken feed.
Geoff Sharp (23:56:29) :
But remember the Sun’s velocity changes too as it takes its 2 distinctively different paths, this may not turn out to be chicken feed.
It seems you have not learned anything at all.
Leif Svalgaard (00:49:06) :
It seems you have not learned anything at all.
I must be in the wrong universe 🙂
Geoff Sharp (10:58:57) :
I must be in the wrong universe 🙂
No, just ignorant about physics and statistics and basic data analysis and about how this Universe works and unwilling to learn.
Leif Svalgaard (11:41:45) :
No, just ignorant about physics and statistics and basic data analysis and about how this Universe works and unwilling to learn.
Considering I showed you that tidal friction can cause acceleration and deceleration of a planetary body, after you saying for months its only one way, I consider myself capable….I hope you are learning something.