From the National Science Foundation:
Answer lies in jets of plasma
One of the most enduring mysteries in solar physics is why the Sun’s outer atmosphere, or corona, is millions of degrees hotter than its surface.
Now scientists believe they have discovered a major source of hot gas that replenishes the corona: jets of plasma shooting up from just above the Sun’s surface.
The finding addresses a fundamental question in astrophysics: how energy is moved from the Sun’s interior to create its hot outer atmosphere.
“It’s always been quite a puzzle to figure out why the Sun’s atmosphere is hotter than its surface,” says Scott McIntosh, a solar physicist at the High Altitude Observatory of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., who was involved in the study.
“By identifying that these jets insert heated plasma into the Sun’s outer atmosphere, we can gain a much greater understanding of that region and possibly improve our knowledge of the Sun’s subtle influence on the Earth’s upper atmosphere.”
The research, results of which are published this week in the journal Science, was conducted by scientists from Lockheed Martin’s Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory (LMSAL), NCAR, and the University of Oslo. It was supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), NCAR’s sponsor.
“These observations are a significant step in understanding observed temperatures in the solar corona,” says Rich Behnke of NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funded the research.
“They provide new insight about the energy output of the Sun and other stars. The results are also a great example of the power of collaboration among university, private industry and government scientists and organizations.”
The research team focused on jets of plasma known as spicules, which are fountains of plasma propelled upward from near the surface of the Sun into the outer atmosphere.
For decades scientists believed spicules could send heat into the corona. However, following observational research in the 1980s, it was found that spicule plasma did not reach coronal temperatures, and so the theory largely fell out of vogue.
“Heating of spicules to millions of degrees has never been directly observed, so their role in coronal heating had been dismissed as unlikely,” says Bart De Pontieu, the lead researcher and a solar physicist at LMSAL.
In 2007, De Pontieu, McIntosh, and their colleagues identified a new class of spicules that moved much faster and were shorter-lived than the traditional spicules.
These “Type II” spicules shoot upward at high speeds, often in excess of 100 kilometers per second, before disappearing.
The rapid disappearance of these jets suggested that the plasma they carried might get very hot, but direct observational evidence of this process was missing.
The researchers used new observations from the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly on NASA’s recently launched Solar Dynamics Observatory and NASA’s Focal Plane Package for the Solar Optical Telescope (SOT) on the Japanese Hinode satellite to test their hypothesis.
“The high spatial and temporal resolution of the newer instruments was crucial in revealing this previously hidden coronal mass supply,” says McIntosh.
“Our observations reveal, for the first time, the one-to-one connection between plasma that is heated to millions of degrees and the spicules that insert this plasma into the corona.”
The findings provide an observational challenge to the existing theories of coronal heating.
During the past few decades, scientists proposed a wide variety of theoretical models, but the lack of detailed observation significantly hampered progress.
“One of our biggest challenges is to understand what drives and heats the material in the spicules,” says De Pontieu.
A key step, according to De Pontieu, will be to better understand the interface region between the Sun’s visible surface, or photosphere, and its corona.
Another NASA mission, the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS), is scheduled for launch in 2012 to provide high-fidelity data on the complex processes and enormous contrasts of density, temperature and magnetic field between the photosphere and corona. Researchers hope this will reveal more about the spicule heating and launch mechanism.
The LMSAL is part of the Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, which designs and develops, tests, manufactures and operates a full spectrum of advanced-technology systems for national security and military, civil government and commercial customers.
-NSF-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 1:26 am
The myth of a steady centuries long knowledge building process inevitably arriving at an objective consensus view is put out by the consensus in order to squash competing ideas which threaten its stability and hegemony.
Total nonsense. Scientists are always rocking to boat, trying to prove each other wrong [the big prize is to prove Einstein wrong – nobody has yet, though]. There is no stability, hence no threat to same.
They would merge somewhere further down the line, with the useless concepts from both paradigms falling by the wayside.
To build what? A new consensus? I’m sure that will be overturned too.
As Scott says, the insistence of the mainstream on the reality of 20 mile diameter balls of Neutronium spinning at twice the speed of a dentists drill is ludicrous.
Ah, that was another error he made in his talk: that pulsars were either made in the Big Bang or by accretion later on. Showing that he is not cognizant about the mainstream paradigm. A pulsar [neutron star] is a collapsed supernova. Because of conservation of angular momentum, if the radius of the star decreases by a factor of 100,000 the rotation speed will go up by the same factor, hence the fast spin. He [and you] simply do not know what he [and you] was talking about.
The argument about magnetic reconnection and current disruption is idiotic.
Agree it is idiotic, but not in the way you think.
They are just two ways of describing the same phenomena.
No, reconnection is not current disruption. Reconnection builds up magnetic energy for a long time [days or hours] with no disruption of the magnetic topology. But things are messy and sooner or later instabilities perturbs the structure and the magnetic field changes back to its original configuration. The rapidly changing magnetic field induces strong electric currents.
etheric field
ain’t no such thing.
Miller’s result was confirmed by Yuri Galaev in 2003 using modern equipment which can’t have suffered the experimental error Millers experiment was wrongly accused of.
just means there are other errors.
Tallbloke, thank you for the link
Consider three fields each at 90 degrees to the other. That is the fabric of reality. Then consider what we know and observe. Example, a point in that space defined by three co-ordinates, length, breadth and depth or x, y,z, axis. Another group of three. Another three co-ordinates is time, speed and direction. Thus we go on and build a picture. Constants abound that link and transfer “data” between the co-ordinates.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2011 at 1:48 am
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 1:26 am
They would merge somewhere further down the line, with the useless concepts from both paradigms falling by the wayside.
To build what? A new consensus? I’m sure that will be overturned too.
Yes. Eventually. What I’m getting at is that there are currently two conflicting views, both of which have elements of merit. Why is the scientific community not working on incorporating the best of both into an advanced paradigm? Because ‘the scientific community’ is another myth. What we have is a discrete set of disciplines which jealously guard their turf and deny access to other specialisms.
that was another error he made in his talk: that pulsars were either made in the Big Bang or by accretion later on. Showing that he is not cognizant about the mainstream paradigm. A pulsar [neutron star] is a collapsed supernova.Because of conservation of angular momentum, if the radius of the star decreases by a factor of 100,000 the rotation speed will go up by the same factor, hence the fast spin.
For a star like our sun, the resulting spin would be 2.7rpm.
BURST OSCILLATIONS IN THE ACCRETION-POWERED HETE J1900.1-2455 are at up to 378hz = 22680rpm, a four orders magnitude difference. And we are expected to believe magnetism channels infalling matter at such rates that the change in the spin rate occurs in tiny timeframes of a few seconds. I’m sorry, but it’s fanciful nonsense compared to Scott’s electrical explanation. Where’s Occams Razor when you need it?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/698/2/L174/pdf/apjl_698_2_174.pdf
etheric field
ain’t no such thing.
Miller’s result was confirmed by Yuri Galaev in 2003 using modern equipment which can’t have suffered the experimental error Millers experiment was wrongly accused of.
just means there are other errors.
But of course Leif, you can carry on putting off the inevitable with an a priori belief in the errors of others. Funny how these conjectured ‘errors’ led Galaev to the same magnitude and direction of effect as Miller with completely different apparatus though, don’t you think?
By the way, the days of your idealisation that ‘The Sun is in perfect freefall and feels no forces’ are numbered:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/wolff-and-patrone-a-new-way-that-planets-can-affect-the-sun/
Solar Phys (2010) 266: 227–246
DOI 10.1007/s11207-010-9628-y
A New Way that Planets Can Affect the Sun
Charles L. Wolff · Paul N. Patrone
Received: 5 May 2010 / Accepted: 16 August 2010 / Published online: 18 September 2010
Polar field is heading towards zero and the reversal, SC24 max may not be far off
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-latest.gif
Lief,
Okay – I will begin with a list adapted from the summary here: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/summary.htm
If anyone has anything better to suggest, please let me know.
========================
1. Magnetic fields do not “get tangled up”, “break”, “merge”, or “reconnect”. They require moving charges (electric currents) in order to exist.
2. The homopolar motor – generator shape seems to be ubiquitous. Stars, pulsars, and galaxies are organized in this morphology.
3. The z-pinch effect that occurs in Birkeland currents (electrical currents that flow through plasmas) is responsible for the accretion of stars, planets, and galaxies.
4. The solar system started out as a collinear array of “Herbig – Haro” type objects formed by a z-pinch.
5. The presumption that if an object exhibits red shift, it must be far away, is false.
6. The Big Bang Theory is false.
7. The role of electrical activity in the universe is significantly greater than for gravity.
8. One or more of the following are imaginary:
Black holes
neutron stars
dark matter/energy
Gravitational lensing
9. Stars are, at least to some extent, externally powered.
10. Quasars are not necessarily very distant objects.
==========================
By all means question the above if you have a mind. I want to be fair.
You claim correctness is to do with knowledge. FWIW, IMO, no one knows anything except that which they have personally experienced and verified for themselves. It doesn’t matter if 99.9% of all working scientists declare something to be so; what matters is whether all 99.9% have individually experienced that which they avow.
For example, anyone can experience the Einstein Cross (from telescope images), and so can personally correctly state it exists. Fewer (but maybe most cosmologists ?), have experienced working out, in a mathematically rigorous way, the theory behind gravitational lensing, and can correctly state they understand it. But has anyone experienced gravitational lensing itself? As one might, for example, experience virtual images in a physics lab? And even if they had, could they claim that a particular, far-distant phenomenon was certainly caused by it?
I do not doubt, and respect, your scientific expertise. But how much of what YOU (forget how many others there are) avow do you actually KNOW and can therefore say is CORRECT? Without that certainty, can one claim that someone with perhaps an equal degree of expertise but a differing, minority opinion, is a crank? I suppose it depends on how the term is defined, but if there’s a necessary imputation of stupidity, then in that case it’s hard not to conclude that intellectual superiority is assumed.
I too am an educator, Lief (I have a postgraduate teaching certificate, and a masters in education). I do not speak to my students (who include people with degrees more advanced than my own) as you sometimes speak to people here. It’s not just about addressing them civilly (as you admittedly sometimes do), but trying also to be measured in one’s use of language so that, hopefully, they will detect an unbiased approach to the subject matter. Honestly, I think you need to work on that… but I can’t be sure I’m correct about it. 😉
vukcevic says:
January 9, 2011 at 4:04 am
Polar field is heading towards zero and the reversal, SC24 max may not be far off
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-latest.gif
And a very lax max it will be. Nicely in line with my prediction 2 years ago for a max of 35-50 SSN. Half of Leif’s prediction of ~70 SSN.
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 3:43 am
A New Way that Planets Can Affect the Sun
Charles L. Wolff • Paul N. Patrone
Thanks tb.
Looks to me as the ‘percolation dynamo’ had its day, and some are just trying to catch up with reality.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
Leif,
“It is a travesty that a ‘skeptical’ blog is burdened with the nonsense from the usual suspects and geniuses polluting the site.”
Hopefully you will come to view the “burden”, not as a travesty, but as a small price to pay for the openness that allows legitimate questioning of assumptions, data and lines of argument. The burden might be less, if we refer “usual suspects and geniuses” to the previous discussions if they are indeed “usual” in the sense of being repetitive.
Now speaking to the usual suspects, it would help if you were at least familiar with the orthodoxy, consensus or theory that you are disagreeing with, and were not disagreeing with it just because you didn’t understand it. If you have made a good faith effort to understand it, you should as least be able to be specific about where you find the theory makes certain leaps that don’t necessarily follow or where the theory is inconsistent with the data, and where the theory that you think is wrong, is consistent with the data, your theory should have an alternate explanation. That may be a daunting task because established theories may be consistent with large amounts of data.
The new proposal is that the barycentric effect (I guess it’s ok to use that word here now it’s in the peer reviewed literature), modulates the solar cycle amplitudes, but something else drives it. I have views on that I won’t raise here, but I’m sure a solar dynamo is involved, as well as electromagnetic modulation of it by the inner planets and Jupiter.
Like I’ve been saying, it’s time to work on this stuff together, instead of the ‘consensus’ calling other people ‘cranks’ and shutting them out.
Tallbloke,
Since the barycentre is a mathematical construct (there is nothing there), I suspect that if there is an effect seemingly correlated with position relative to the barycentre, it must be a consequence of the difference between newtonian gravity and general relativity, specifically as they pertain to extended bodies. Papers on the subject are not likely to be persuasive until they achieve this level of reductionism, however suggestive their explanatory claims are. The effect must be shown to be real and quantitatively significant enough to be relevant. That said, general relativity doesn’t allow this possibility to be dismissed with simple reference to the newtonian concept of “freefall”.
Martin said
Quote
Since the barycentre is a mathematical construct
Unquote
Shiver me timbers, I dont like the cut of that jib one little bit
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 3:43 am
Yes. Eventually. What I’m getting at is that there are currently two conflicting views, both of which have elements of merit. Why is the scientific community not working on incorporating the best of both into an advanced paradigm? Because ‘the scientific community’ is another myth. What we have is a discrete set of disciplines which jealously guard their turf and deny access to other specialisms.
The reason is that the E.U. view is qualitative and hand-waving and therefore cannot be worked in with anything. No equations, no numerical predictions. E.U. is not a theory in the accepted meaning of the word.
And we are expected to believe magnetism channels infalling matter at such rates that the change in the spin rate occurs in tiny timeframes of a few seconds. I’m sorry, but it’s fanciful nonsense compared to Scott’s electrical explanation. Where’s Occams Razor when you need it?
The bursts are probably caused by local heating of a patch that move around. Remember the magnetic field is trillions of times stronger than the Sun’s field. But it would be good to compare with the electrical explanation, except that there isn’t any. No description, no calculation, no mechanism. I could have missed it, so you might direct me to his detailed, quantitative calculations.
Funny how these conjectured ‘errors’ led Galaev to the same magnitude and direction of effect as Miller with completely different apparatus though, don’t you think?
No, that’s called confirmation bias. When Tom Duvall started [at WSO] to measure solar rotation he stopped when he finally arrived at the same rate as what found at Mount Wilson. Later we continued and discovered that the measurements were contaminated by scattered light and when that was taken into account, the result was significantly different.
By the way, the days of your idealisation that ‘The Sun is in perfect freefall and feels no forces’ are numbered
One must look carefully [and I shall]. Note that the proposed mechanism bears no similarity to any of the ones expounded by the ‘team’
vukcevic says:
January 9, 2011 at 4:04 am
Polar field is heading towards zero and the reversal, SC24 max may not be far off
The polar fields have decreased as they should. Extrapolation based on the few last points is fraught with uncertainty. But we’ll soon see.
Michael Larkin says:
January 9, 2011 at 4:09 am
Points 1-4 & 7 belong to one group and could be specific to EU. The rest have nothing to do with EU.
Now the list works in reverse as well. If one or more of the 10 points should turn out to be false, that would falsify EU. But the EU-type points are still too vague. No numbers, or criteria for deciding.
For example you mention that neutron stars are ‘imaginary’, yet the EU try to explain the rotation rate of said imaginary objects.
You claim correctness is to do with knowledge. FWIW, IMO, no one knows anything except that which they have personally experienced and verified for themselves.
If a blind man is told that there is a spot on the sun today he should reject that knowledge?
matters is whether all 99.9% have individually experienced that which they avow.
During their education they personally go through the steps and derivations that lead us to consider something established.
Fewer (but maybe most cosmologists ?), have experienced working out, in a mathematically rigorous way, the theory behind gravitational lensing, and can correctly state they understand it.
That they haven’t does not matter. They could if they wanted to [and students of astrophysics do – it is called ‘homework’]
But has anyone experienced gravitational lensing itself? As one might, for example, experience virtual images in a physics lab? And even if they had, could they claim that a particular, far-distant phenomenon was certainly caused by it?
The universe is our lab. When Newton surmised that gravity worked in far-distant places how to verify that? By doing the calculation and show that the numbers come out right. Initially they didn’t because Newton did not have the correct distance to the Moon, so he did not publish his theory. Later, when a better distance measurement became available, the numbers came out right. Still, one case, the Moon, is not enough to establish that gravitation is universal. But as more and more cases [e.g. Moons around Jupiter] are observed and they all come out right, our confidence in the theory increases.
I do not doubt, and respect, your scientific expertise. But how much of what YOU (forget how many others there are) avow do you actually KNOW and can therefore say is CORRECT?
Everything I say on this blog I KNOW in the sense that I have personally convinced myself to my satisfaction that it is correct.
Without that certainty, can one claim that someone with perhaps an equal degree of expertise but a differing, minority opinion, is a crank?
That is not enough to qualify that person as a crank. There are lots of other theories that are different and some may be correct. The crank aspect comes in when the person denies multiple theories or all of current paradigm. Still, this is not enough. If the crank-in-spe can substitute his own theory with the necessary quantitative precision the the crankiness disappears. If Einstein had just claimed that Newton was wrong because the [unexplained] perihelion advance of Mercury was due to curved space, he would be considered a crank [and was actually by many – he didn’t get his Nobel prize for general relativity]. What made him a non-crank was that his theory predicted by precise calculation that the advance should be 43″ as was indeed observed.
I suppose it depends on how the term is defined, but if there’s a necessary imputation of stupidity
Many people [45% it is said of the US adult population] believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. Are they all stupid? What do you believe?
they will detect an unbiased approach to the subject matter.
One can always improve one’s approach. The bias is another matter. There will [and should be] bias in favor of what is well-supported and understood. Not all theories are on an equal footing [creationism vs. evolution comes to mind], so should not have equal weight.
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 4:15 am
Nicely in line with my prediction 2 years ago for a max of 35-50 SSN. Half of Leif’s prediction of ~70 SSN.
Already the SSN is only half of what it ‘should’ be compared to other solar indicators, e.g. F10.7 e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/F107-SSN-divergence.png
We might see Livingston and Penn effect in action. Perhaps the number will go to zero as they extrapolate. In that case the SSN is not the relevant parameter anymore, so its value may be useless.
Martin Lewitt says:
January 9, 2011 at 6:13 am
Now speaking to the usual suspects, it would help if you were at least familiar with the orthodoxy, consensus or theory that you are disagreeing with, and were not disagreeing with it just because you didn’t understand it. If you have made a good faith effort to understand it, you should as least be able to be specific about where you find the theory makes certain leaps that don’t necessarily follow or where the theory is inconsistent with the data, and where the theory that you think is wrong, is consistent with the data, your theory should have an alternate explanation. That may be a daunting task because established theories may be consistent with large amounts of data.
Well said
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 6:21 am
The new proposal is that the barycentric effect (I guess it’s ok to use that word here now it’s in the peer reviewed literature),
It has been in the peer reviewed literature a long time [e.g. Jose]
Like I’ve been saying, it’s time to work on this stuff together, instead of the ‘consensus’ calling other people ‘cranks’ and shutting them out.
One can only work on it if it is definite, that is, there is a theory, it is quantitative, there is a proposed mechanism, and all the other things that go into science.
Martin Lewitt says:
January 9, 2011 at 8:16 am
That said, general relativity doesn’t allow this possibility to be dismissed with simple reference to the newtonian concept of “freefall”.
The free fall is also a general relativity concept.
Martin Lewitt says:
January 9, 2011 at 8:16 am
Tallbloke,
Since the barycentre is a mathematical construct (there is nothing there), I suspect that if there is an effect seemingly correlated with position relative to the barycentre, it must be a consequence of the difference between newtonian gravity and general relativity… The effect must be shown to be real and quantitatively significant enough to be relevant. That said, general relativity doesn’t allow this possibility to be dismissed with simple reference to the newtonian concept of “freefall”.
I haven’t fully read and digested the paper from Wolff and Patrone yet, but it seems promising. If you’re genuinely interested in a relativistic treatment of the subject I can provide a URL where you can, (if you are willing to spend some time and effort) read some detailed maths and theory on the subject.
vukcevic says:
January 9, 2011 at 4:04 am
Polar field is heading towards zero and the reversal, SC24 max may not be far off
From http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf :
“[7] The polar field reversal is caused by unipolar magnetic flux from lower latitudes moving to the poles, canceling out opposite polarity flux already there, and eventually establishing new polar fields of reversed polarity [Harvey, 1996]. Because of the large aperture of the WSO instrument, the net flux over the aperture will be observed to be zero (the ‘‘apparent’’ reversal) about a year and a half before the last of the old flux has disappeared as opposite polarity flux moving up from lower latitudes begins to fill the equatorward portions of the aperture.”
So the apparent reversal happens 1.5 years before the real reversal. The decline the last months is caused by a very large amount of new flux coming from a few active regions in the Northern Hemisphere ‘invading’ the lower part of the aperture and are not yet part of the polar cap. So don’t over interpret the data.
Tallbloke,
I can’t promise the time and effort right away, but I would still appreciate a pointer material considering the GR implications. I’ve posted about some myself previously about extended bodies, not specific to the Sun. Any role for GR torque on the Solar extended body would be most heavily influenced by Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter, whereas barycentre calculations give more weight to the outer planets.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2011 at 9:19 am (Edit)
Martin Lewitt says:
January 9, 2011 at 8:16 am
That said, general relativity doesn’t allow this possibility to be dismissed with simple reference to the newtonian concept of “freefall”.
The free fall is also a general relativity concept.
The free fall isn’t the question at issue.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2011 at 10:31 am
Because of the large aperture of the WSO instrument, the net flux over the aperture will be observed to be zero (the ‘‘apparent’’ reversal) about a year and a half before the last of the old flux has disappeared
Does that zero point also presage observed solar max by 18 months Leif?
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 11:33 am
The free fall isn’t the question at issue.
Is that why you say:
“By the way, the days of your idealisation that ‘The Sun is in perfect freefall and feels no forces’ are numbered”
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2011 at 9:14 am
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 3:43 am
Funny how these conjectured ‘errors’ led Galaev to the same magnitude and direction of effect as Miller with completely different apparatus though, don’t you think?
No, that’s called confirmation bias.
Lol. Give it up Leif.
By the way, the days of your idealisation that ‘The Sun is in perfect freefall and feels no forces’ are numbered:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/wolff-and-patrone-a-new-way-that-planets-can-affect-the-sun/
One must look carefully [and I shall]. Note that the proposed mechanism bears no similarity to any of the ones expounded by the ‘team’
Incorrect. It matches closely, (as far as I can tell on first reading) with my contention posed to you on several occasions that the effect of changes in the radius of the Sun’s orbit WRT the barycentre cause differential effects in terms of angular momentum across the Sun’s diameter and that these do not cancel. Closer reading required before I can firm that up.
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 11:38 am
Does that zero point also presage observed solar max by 18 months Leif?
Solar max is somewhat poorly determined [often there are two peaks]. The general idea that most folks subscribe to is that the polar field reversal occurs at solar max. This is somewhat arbitrary because the polar fields have nothing directly to do with solar max. The polar fields are the result of the magnetic flux from only a handful of active regions [there has been/is one in the Northern Hemisphere that will make up about a fifth of the new polar fields] that occur in the rising part of the cycle [where they are at higher latitudes, the current one is at higher latitude than usual] and more or less at random ‘fight’ its way to the poles. So, only in a rough statistical sense can you say that reversal occurs at max, and the reversals often take place at different times in the two hemispheres, differing by a year or more.
BTW the ‘polar field’ is decreasing significantly only in the North [due to those big regions that have been bleeding flux there for some time]. As I told Vuk, don’t over-interpret data that has a large random component.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2011 at 11:40 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 11:33 am
The free fall isn’t the question at issue.
Is that why you say:
“By the way, the days of your idealisation that ‘The Sun is in perfect freefall and feels no forces’ are numbered”
Yes. Its the ‘perfection’ of the freefall, and the consequent ‘feels no forces’ which are at issue. As I’ve been telling you for two years.
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 11:51 am
the effect of changes in the radius of the Sun’s orbit WRT the barycentre cause differential effects in terms of angular momentum across the Sun’s diameter and that these do not cancel.
No, you expounded on the Sun robbing the planets of their angular momentum. In any case, it is just handwaving. No estimate of effect, no mechanism [‘effects’ don’t count], no detail.
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 11:54 am
The free fall isn’t the question at issue.
Its the ‘perfection’ of the freefall,
Now it isn’t, now it is. Have you read their paper?
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2011 at 11:52 am
As I told Vuk, don’t over-interpret data that has a large random component.
Understood, thanks.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2011 at 12:00 pm
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 11:54 am
The free fall isn’t the question at issue.
Its the ‘perfection’ of the freefall,
Now it isn’t, now it is. Have you read their paper?
Lol. I already knew what I meant about the imprecision of your notion of ‘perfect freefall’ long before the publication of this paper Leif.