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-
LiamW says:
January 9, 2011 at 2:33 pm
The SETI Institute has just posted a seminar by de Pontieu.
Just started to watch it – the movies are amazing.
Lots of other good stuff on the site. Bart is good.
Re: “Chris Reeve says:
January 9, 2011 at 12:52 pm
So, gas is the only state of matter which electricity is not directly involved in.
apart from that gaffe, perhaps I should point out that for the first 417 million years [minus 376,971 years in the beginning] there was only neutral gas in the universe. No ionized gas [aka plasma]. Gravity caused tiny density fluctuations to grow that eventually became galaxies and the first stars. Gravity compressed the stars until they were hot enough to ignite nuclear fusion. The newly hot stars re-ionized the gas, recreating a gaseous plasma which now makes up 4% of the total mass of the universe.”
Plasma cosmology has its own explanations for how charge is created in the universe. It is called critical ionization velocity. It is a recursive procedure for generating and reproducing charge in space. It explains an infinite universe, and doesn’t try to do any more.
In the EU, fusion occurs where the temperatures permit it.
The real wonder is that you can say that baryonic matter represents just 4% of the universe, and still express so much certainty about the origins of the universe. I think it speaks for itself, for anybody that is carefully following along.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2011 at 9:14 am
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 3:43 am
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’
Where have you been Leif? The mechanism is Angular Momentum, something I have been pushing since 2008. Wollf (love that name) and Patrone have produced a scientific paper that might give us the mechanism that explains the solid correlations between AM shown in Carl’s original graph and solar modulation & grand minima. Once this is all fleshed out the science world will see the power of Uranus & Neptune.
We have a “team” of experts looking into it right now. Nicola and Gerry along with their colleges are going through the detail. Nicola also has something similar in the pipeline. Get ready for the new order.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2011 at 1:11 pm
The paper is interesting in pointing out the possible role of the Potential Energy if one could only find a way of extracting that. It is replete with detail, quantitative results, appropriate caveats, etc. In short what a scientific paper should be. It can now be studied and rebutted [if needed] and suggest new research. Contrast that to any of your’s, Sharp’s, Landscheidt’s, Scott’s, etc and you [should] get a feeling for why it is not possible to incorporate any of those in the corpus of scientific knowledge or paradigm [if you prefer].
A glimmer of hope on your part, at least accepting the possibility of new research that might disprove your claims. But do not try to separate a possible mechanism for a external gravitation solar driver from the mountains of work done in this area. This work has shown such strong correlations, and has been waiting for comfirmation.
Leif,
“The free fall is also a general relativity concept.”
Yes, for a hypothetical test particle of zero dimension and no spin.
Extended bodies are a different matter, from Dixon’s paper on the dynamics of extended bodies:
“Now if the external field, i.e., that due to all bodies other than the one under consideration varies sufficiently gradually over a spacelike section of the body, we might expect that the contributions from the higher order moments would be negligible. This speculation is based upon the Newtonian result […] In general relativity, however, there is no natural way of separating the external and self-fields. As a result, the above speculation is difficult to formulate in more precise terms unless the self-field of the body is negligible. In this case the body is called a ‘test body’ ”
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.full.pdf
The discussion the geodetic and frame dragging for Gravity Probe B will give a sense of the complications, even discussing the transfer of angular momentum under GR.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime4.html
Geoff Sharp says:
January 9, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Where have you been Leif? The mechanism is Angular Momentum, something I have been pushing since 2008.
No, you were pushing transfer of angular from the planets to solar rotation. Very different from solar angular momentum moved around by convection. As the paper says:
“Except for the tidal distortion, the effect of planets on this mechanism is fully accounted for by the dC/dt term in the velocity that appears in Equation (1). A star in orbit about its barycenter is in a state of free fall (Shirley, 2006). At the center of the star, the attractive force from all the planets is exactly canceled by the orbital accelerations (centrifugal and angular). At other locations, the only externally-caused net-force sensed by the stellar fluid is the tidal force. It raises a tide ∼ 1 mm high at the solar surface, which is ∼ 10−11 to ∼ 10−9 times the vertical displacements of convective flows that will be involved in our mechanism. We ignore tidal effects in the rest of this paper.”
The paper has nothing to with your ‘mechanism’.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2011 at 3:15 pm
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 2:57 pm
It’s almost like they were going out of their way not to upset certain people’s sensibilities. 😉 The key sentences and equations are spread around the paper.
They correctly state what the laws of Nature allows. Nothing to do with sensibilities.
One would expect the key sentences to be front-and-foremost [like their statement about free fall], not scattered about. That you think they are spread out suggests some creative cherry picking.
Lol. Have you read the paper? Up near the top, all in one passage it says:
“One mechanism, whose basis is discussed in Sections 4 and 5.2, takes place in a solar-type star where an individual convection “cell” at the proper phase in its short life would release some of the PE. This would cause a local upwelling of mass and heat. If close enough to the surface, it would cause horizontal flows on the surface that have to terminate in downflows with vorticity. Spinning downflows are known to be where considerable solar activity collects and strengthens (Schatten, 2009). Thus there should be some positive correlation between the intensity of solar activity and a local burst of vertical flow energized by released PE. This will certainly not be the main reason why solar activity levels vary, but it should cause some variations because its effect on an occasional convection cell can be quite significant (Section 4).”
And regarding what they say about freefall, they emphasise they are referring to the centre of the sun, not the whole of the sun. Important difference.
Here is Wolf’s take on it: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-VII.pdf . He returns to this topic several times later, but eventually abandons the whole thing as the various formulae he comes up with eventually all fail. Paul Charbonneau wrote the definitive article on this early work: http://www.leif.org/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
Thanks a lot. Second link seems to be broke though.
Chris Reeve says:
January 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm
In the EU, fusion occurs where the temperatures permit it.
Like in the solar core.
The real wonder is that you can say that baryonic matter represents just 4% of the universe
It is indeed a wonder, that nature is like that, but that is what we observe, so we have to accept it.
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Lol. Have you read the paper? Up near the top, all in one passage it says:
“One mechanism, whose basis is discussed in Sections 4 and 5.2, takes place in a solar-type star where an individual convection “cell” at the proper phase in its short life would release some of the PE. This would cause a local upwelling of mass and heat. If close enough to the surface, it would cause horizontal flows on the surface that have to terminate in downflows with vorticity. Spinning downflows are known to be where considerable solar activity collects and strengthens (Schatten, 2009). Thus there should be some positive correlation between the intensity of solar activity and a local burst of vertical flow energized by released PE. This will certainly not be the main reason why solar activity levels vary, but it should cause some variations because its effect on an occasional convection cell can be quite significant (Section 4).”
Of course I have read the paper. Interestingly enough they go along with Schatten’s percolation. Note the weasel words: “would, should”.
And regarding what they say about freefall, they emphasise they are referring to the centre of the sun, not the whole of the sun. Important difference.
No, they say: At other locations, the only externally-caused net-force sensed by the stellar fluid is the tidal force.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Up near the top, all in one passage it says
Here you say it is all in one place, before you said it was spread all over the place. I think you getting too giddy to think straight.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 9, 2011 at 4:22 pm
A glimmer of hope on your part, at least accepting the possibility of new research that might disprove your claims.
That is always the case with anything. Amazing that you should point this out as if it news to you that you are trying to share.
But do not try to separate a possible mechanism for a external gravitation solar driver from the mountains of work done in this area.
Most of that ‘work’ is junk. I don’t know of any that holds up.
Martin Lewitt says:
January 9, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Yes, for a hypothetical test particle of zero dimension and no spin.
The GR effects are minute for the weak field of the Sun, and in any case the Wolff paper states clearly that it is pure classical treatment.
Myrrh says:
January 9, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Leif – so where is the sun in free fall to?
It is in free fall in the combined gravitational field of all the matter of the Universe, mostly in orbit about the center of our own galaxy, with tiny added contributions from the planets and nearby stars. Wave your hand, and you’ll make a contribution too.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
January 9, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Where have you been Leif? The mechanism is Angular Momentum, something I have been pushing since 2008.
————————————–
No, you were pushing transfer of angular from the planets to solar rotation. Very different from solar angular momentum moved around by convection. As the paper says:
The paper has nothing to with your ‘mechanism’.
Almost pathetic. Angular momentum has always been my driver, that is the core of my research stemming from Carl’s graph. Spin orbit coupling was one possible avenue for a mechanism put forward, along with the solar velocity changes (which now seems more likely) that have been discussed many times…you have selective memory.
What is important is that AM is now possibly seen as a viable driver of solar output, Carl’s graph has been vindicated. Grand minima as we are experiencing now, is as I have stated in my paper, AM is being perturbed (AMP) which is changing the regular pattern brought about by the acceleration/deceleration phases of solar velocity. The powerwave diagram is also in keeping with the Wollf et al research, the wave follows the extra momentum caused by the Uranus/Neptune conjunction. It’s time for you to become fully acquainted with the research.
“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
Re above: By the way, the days of your idealisation that ‘The Sun is in perfect freefall and feels no forces’ are numbered
Freefall – “Free fall is when an object falls solely under the influence of gravity.”
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zero-g1.htm
How then can it be said to be in perfect free fall and feeling no forces?
In which gravitational field is the sun in free fall?
I think, a) first the galactic centre, then b) the centre of the universe.
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2011 at 11:33 am
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.
~
Oh but I think it is, the motion of a body in such a free fall, with all the leeeeeetle bodies falling with it, might dispay a very curious pattern, which may suggest to some that the leeeeeeetle bodies have something to do with it. But the leeeeetle bodies are only followers of the bigger body at the center. It’s a good thing the bigger body is holding them tight. Cause if an even bigger ..never mind
Sometimes .. some of the locals should be forewarned to bring a suit of armour for the read.
If nothing else, I can find where I left off. lol
Geesh Leif, thought you were going to let out with the bath water.
tallbloke speaking:
January 9, 2011 at 4:42 pm
to
Leif Svalgaard:
January 9, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Tallbloke, I must side with Leif on this discussion. Have you actually calculated the factors you are speaking of? I just did and here is my take:
Any forces you are speaking of are incredibly tiny. Jupiter, the main player by a factor of ten over Saturn has an acceleration of 2.1e-07 m/s2 on the sun but as Leif says that acceleration particularly has zero effect on the sun, absolutely zero by itself, that is the ‘free-fall’ or following of the geodesic space-time curve that the gravity creates. All orbits of any bodies experience this and there is nothing ‘felt’. That acceleration IS it’s orbit about the sun both about the mass center. If you had no other planets but Jupiter almost all of this ‘differential’ you keep speaking of would vanish, no spiro-graph type track of the sun about the center of mass, just a tiny near circular orbit as expected.
But you and this paper you keep referencing to are not speaking of that acceleration but one much, much smaller by another factor of ten from Saturn and the outward planets. We are now speaking of accelerations one-trillionth of what we feel here on Earth and are only speaking of the amount they can change over time at the sun, not the accelerations themselves. And you are comparing this ‘force’ to the forces of convection on the sun and honestly think it matters one iota??? Come on, surely you have some doubts yourself.
But is there *some* effect as stated in the paper and even tidal effects no matter how tiny they are? Yes. That is physics. Does earth affect the galaxy? Yes. But it is all a very important matter of scale and staying smart enough to draw the line of what doesn’t matter in reality at all, not enough to really change anything measurable or felt.
wayne says:
January 9, 2011 at 7:11 pm
tallbloke speaking:
January 9, 2011 at 4:42 pm
to
Leif Svalgaard:
January 9, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Tallbloke, I must side with Leif on this discussion. Have you actually calculated the factors you are speaking of? I just did and here is my take:
Your take is wrong. The Sun has two distinct orbit patterns around the SSB. The two patterns are directly controlled by the outer planets (mainly Jupiter and Saturn). This is science fact that can be easily measured via the JPL data. Solar velocity increases by about 100% between the two phases as can be seen in this graph that also appears in my paper.
Forget about tides…they are like using TSI to explain the Sun/Earth climate link.
So, after all this, I have a question for those who have studied this topic much more than I – can laboratory plasma physics on Earth tell us about plasma in space? Is the behavior of plasma in space radically different than its behavior on Earth? Can double layers exist in cosmic plasmas as they can in terrestrial plasmas?
Geoff Sharp says:
January 9, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Your take is wrong. The Sun has two distinct orbit patterns around the SSB. The two patterns are directly controlled by the outer planets (mainly Jupiter and Saturn). This is science fact that can be easily measured via the JPL data. Solar velocity increases by about 100% between the two phases as can be seen in this graph that also appears in my paper.
Forget about tides…they are like using TSI to explain the Sun/Earth climate link.
Sorry Geoff but you won’t convince me so quite so easily. I don’t need JPL Horizon, I have similar software running here (though written about six years ago now). I can do all of the analysis you do but that is not the point. Your graph shows a solar velocity change of min. of 8.5 m/s to 16.5 m/s in ~ten years and a transfer of angular momentum over these 19.xx year beats. Of course, that beat is Saturn’s orbit in relation to Jupiter’s.
But the mere changing the sun’s velocity over many years sways me little. That IS the tiny acceleration I spoke of. Every single atom in the sun is experiencing the same (remember tide, but a very, very tiny fraction, the inverse of the sun’s radius divided by Jupiter’s orbit, squared) acceleration at the same time, always. There is no difference there to have some factor large enough to really matter and that was my comment on the scale of the matter.
But your graph of that much angular momentum I need to verify and you could save me spinning wheels (old software) if you would just say how you calculated it. I can adjust my program to readout the r x v vectors of the sun’s movement over the years if you insist on not just being forthwith with your method, if that is how you got the figures in that graph I would just agree with your method but I don’t immediately, without calculating, see how that figure is ~10^47, seems way to large. What radius vector are you using? The velocity vector can be closely estimated from the red curve. or,is the angular momentum of the sun’s rotation about it’s axis?
Please don’t take me wrong, not trying to shake your thoughts on the matter. I just see it differently so far and can’t see even this nineteen bobble is to alter the sun’s output to affect earth. Even if it does bring more fresh nuclear fodder to the core it takes thousands of years to make it’s way to the surface, the nineteen year imprint would be all but smoothed over.
I’m focusing in on more century plus variances. It’s drizzling and I can hear a beat from the water draining from the roof, tick,tick,tick…. pause… tick,tick,tick … pause…. There are many real physics processes that show such cyclic patterns but on the sun due to it’s size would be more like tick,tick,tick for three hundred years…. pause…. tick,tick,tick for three hundred years… pause. This pattern in energy would survive the trip from core to surface and would show here as a smooth rolling secular TSI variance. Too bad we haven’t had accurate satellite sensors for the last millennia!
Floyd’s questions:
“Can laboratory plasma physics on Earth tell us about plasma in space?”
Yes.
“Is the behavior of plasma in space radically different than its behavior on Earth?”
No.
“Can double layers exist in cosmic plasmas as they can in terrestrial plasmas?”
Yes.
wayne says:
January 9, 2011 at 9:30 pm
But the mere changing the sun’s velocity over many years sways me little. That IS the tiny acceleration I spoke of.
There is a 100% change over 10 years in solar velocity as a result of gravity alone, this is not insignificant. The authors are also leaving the door open for other factors such as rotation, that could also add to the mix.
But your graph of that much angular momentum I need to verify and you could save me spinning wheels (old software) if you would just say how you calculated it.
The equation is in my paper that can be found at the blog header (click on my name), there is also an explanation of how and where to obtain the vectors by one of my contributors (steve) which may assist. The original values and graph was compiled by the late Carl Smith who we are indebted to, which was later confirmed by G.A. Pease and then later by myself.
Even if it does bring more fresh nuclear fodder to the core it takes thousands of years to make it’s way to the surface, the nineteen year imprint would be all but smoothed over.
The authors also point out that a lot of potential energy (PE) being released at the tachocline, this is generally accepted to be about 2 years away from the surface.
Leif,
Thanks for your last reply. I think we have different notions about what knowledge is. I could attempt to explain mine in detail, but that would produce a long essay and in any case wouldn’t invalidate yours.
Suffice it to say I think knowledge necessarily involves individual verification. That which I can’t personally verify isn’t knowledge I can claim to possess, even if someone else claims they can. I might choose to accept their claim on trust, but I can’t then claim to know myself. At best, I can only call myself an agnostic with an inclination to accept this or that. In everyday life, I’m an agnostic with all sorts of inclinations depending on the subject; what I actually know could probably be written down on the back of a postage stamp with room to spare.
Sure, the universe is a kind of laboratory, but for certain postulated phenomena, we can’t just transport ourselves to a place where we can disambiguate different interpretations. To the naïve observer like me, there seems to be an edifice of standard theory built on entities that are conjectured rather than known to be this or that, or even to exist at all. I am perfectly willing to accept that everything fits together and is internally consistent, may even seem convincing for some. But conviction isn’t knowledge, and history is littered with the ghosts of the convinced.
Are we just witnessing continual ad-hoc additions to theory – modern-day epicycles? I don’t know, but this seems plausible, and I much prefer the simple beauty of EU, which may or may not be wholly correct.
I agree, it is difficult to come up with something on which to base the wager I had in mind. I suppose the essence of EU theory involves the recognition of electrical forces as being more important in the universe than has been entertained thus far. Any successful challenge of orthodoxy by EU will presumably need to cause acceptance of that – it could be in relation to our sun, or one or more other entities.
I still think there’s a fair chance that in the next ten years, there will be the beginnings of a paradigm shift involving the incorporation of some element of EU, and would enjoy a wager about that. But I can’t make a tight list of things, not least because my technical prowess isn’t of a high standard (which is a good reason why in a number of areas, I am necessarily an agnostic).
As I infer from what you said, it’s not only EU supporters who think that much of modern cosmology is dubious. I myself thought dark matter/energy to be an intrinsically very doubtful proposition before I’d ever heard of EU. Of course, cosmologists know that accepting the predominance of electrical forces over gravitation would be a game changer, and so I expect continued resistance; but even so, I feel the time is ripe for it. Worth a bet, anyway.
wayne says:
January 9, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Tallbloke, I must side with Leif on this discussion. Have you actually calculated the factors you are speaking of? I just did and here is my take: Any forces you are speaking of are incredibly tiny… not enough to really change anything measurable or felt.
Hi Wayne.
If you take a look at Geoff’s graph, you can see the ‘wobbles’ in the AM curve at ~1650 1830 and 2003. Give or take a solar cycle or so, these coincide with the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum and the present slowdown in solar activity. The wobble is caused near the synod conjunction of Uranus and Neptune, exactly where depending on the dispositions of Jupiter and Saturn at the time.
It could be that the wobbles in the AM curve do not directly explain the minima in solar activity, but unless you dismiss them as coincidence, they are indicators of the existence of a mechanism which connects planetary motion and solar activity levels. The mechanism isn’t necessarily gravitational. For example, although Leif will disagree, I don’t think we yet understand electromagnetism sufficiently well to dismiss it as a possibility. NASA scientist Ching Cheh Hung discovered apparent relations between the inner planets motions (which correlate strongly with the timing of the solar cycles) and solar electromagnetic activity. The planets seem to act in a way analogous to lightning conductors.
The paper by Wolff and Patrone we are referring to discusses a possible mechanism concerning angular momentum WRT the ever changing distance between the Sun and the solar system barycentre. They point out that the effect they propose would be enhanced if there were suitable flows in the Sun at certain ‘shell’ levels at proportions of the solar radius where, as Geoff points out, the released energy could get to the surface in a couple of years.
Despite Leif and you claiming that the sun is in freefall, I counter that Newton knew that his concepts apply imperfectly to squishy plastic bodies such as the Sun. Einstein when applying his concept of relativity described the body at the centre of the frame of reference as the “mollusc of reference” because he too knew that ultimately, his mathematics only perfectly applies to perfectly elastic, rigid objects which don’t exist in nature. The surface of the Sun is observed to rotate at different speeds at different latitudes at different times. There are clearly strong flows which could release the potential energy made available by the motion of the Sun WRT the barycentre.
The Authors of the paper believe it worthwhile to undertake their study because the apparent relationships between planetary motion and solar activity are sufficiently strong to warrant the effort. I agree with them. So do Geoff Sharp, Nicola Scafetta, Gerry Pease, Vukcevic and a few others at this time. In the past, Paul Hose, Theodor Landscheidt, Rhodes Fairbridge and Leif’s hero Rudolf Wolf have also worked on the puzzle. Your judgement may be different, and your own investigation has led you to believe it is not worth searching further, and I respect that. I hope that in return, you respect our judgement that it is worth searching further.
Dr. Svalgaard, tallbloke, Sharp, Scafetta, Wolf, Patrone, Willson and the rest
You are all barking up the wrong tree.
Its all down to the magnetic flux ropes (containing up to 40% of local magnetic energy) shooting not randomly into space, but for the two large magnetospheres, where energy is discharged, analogous to atmospheric discharge heading for lightning conductor.
Flux ropes may be short in duration but they connect directly the Sun’s surface and the magnetospheres with a flow of huge electric currents. Only largest CMEs are noted, but such connections are far more frequent. Exchange of the energy between the Sun and magnetospheres via CMEs (large and small) plays a vital role in the evolution of the magnetic field of the Sun.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
It is simple and basic: Jupiter (2×11.8 years reflecting Hale cycle) is the driver with at little help from Saturn every 19.6 years.
There is no stronger correlation in the solar science than this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
It is time to give up perusing infinitesimal effects, it’s time to concentrate on the effects with the power and means of changing the polarity of both solar and sunspot magnetic field.
The above has been on record for just over 7 years, advances in the solar observations since than have greatly enhanced possibility that the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC events and feedbacks within heliosphere are solution, not the old Newtonian mechanics.
Hi tallbloke.
Long time. I’ll stay following your thoughts of you, Geoff, the many men you’ve mentioned, these thoughts are stimulating and you get my mind back where I was years ago in the topic of gravity in our solar system. I learned so much from jpl’s Dr. Standish writings, especially how hard it is to find a perfect integrator, haven’t found one yet! (seems Newton’s words have screamed at me all along that I never will ☺)
But, some of these ideas are out there, you know, on the edge and I have yet to find a way to get them into a physical frame that really makes sense to me, all considered. I and many other see the patterns, but patterns without a real explanation might just be that, patterns, and all multiple patterns tend to always align at some place or other. Your left with the question, is it coincidence, is it real, what causes it, how does it manifest itself, what else does it affect without conflict. I hate to say it but in this aspect I am more like Leif, until it makes physical sense, usually from a great new paper, I’ll leave it ‘out there’. Now on the sun’s variance I’m more open, for I’ve seen more reasons why that makes perfect sense but unfortunately we have little unquestionable data to nail it down.
You are right about gravity, and Einstein of course, from afar the sun’s gravity can be seen mathematically as a point but it is not. It only depends on the matter-energy local density. You should look into some very fascinating aspects of gravity that will really twist your commonsense. Like what gravity is above a disk of matter, like a spiral galaxy, inversed square? Not mathematically when at that point. Or what if you are close to a cylinder of matter, like a spacecraft nearing the asteroid belt, again, not mathematically. You probably already know of it inside a shell or what if within a homogeneous cloud as inside a smooth globular galaxy. Locally it’s as Newton and Einstein’s corrections show us but from a macro aspect, not the same. All of those make you have a bit of feeling that maybe you still don’t really know what’s real, or it did me when I first got into the mathematics of it. Things like that will always fascinate me.
If you ever find the mathematics to show me how all of this huge amount of energy that Jupiter’s gravity somehow creates on the sun that affects Earth’s climate without affecting Jupiter’s orbit, I’m all ears. Seems to violate conservation of energy, probably also violating conservation of angular momentum. Now excess energy created (or lacking) from processes from within the sun itself, that’s different.
You see, it is history that says this is questionable, there are thousands of historic records of which bodies osculated other stars or bodies and since Galileo with dates and very close times. It is those events that are used to calibrate JPL’s ephemeris. If that much energy was being transferred by some unknown method from the planets to the sun we should already know it. I’ve seen no evidence.
I’ll keep following, thinking, Hope you can find the key to tie it all together.