Planetary effects are too small by several orders of magnitude to be a main cause of the solar cycle.
Argiris Diamantis writes in with this tip:
Professor Cornelis de Jager from the Netherlands has put a new publication on his website. It is a study of Dirk K. Callebaut, Cornelis de Jager and Silvia Duhau. They conclude that planetary effects are too small by several orders of magnitude to be a main cause of the solar cycle. A planetary explanation of the solar cycle is hardly possible.
The paper is titled:
The influence of planetary attractions on the solar tachocline
Dirk K. Callebaut a, Cornelis de Jager b,n,1, Silvia Duhau c
a University of Antwerp, Physics Department, CGB, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerpen, Belgium
b Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, P.O. Box 59, NL 1790 AB Den Burg, The Netherlands
c Departamento de Fı´sica, Facultad Ingeniera, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina
Abstract
We present a physical analysis of the occasionally forwarded hypothesis that solar variability, as shown in the various photospheric and outer solar layer activities, might be due to the Newtonian attraction by the planets.
We calculate the planetary forces exerted on the tachocline and thereby not only include the immediate forces but we also take into account that these planetary or dynamo actions occur during some time, which demands integration. As an improvement to earlier research on this topic we reconsider the internal convective velocities and we examine several other effects, in particular those due to magnetic buoyancy and to the Coriolis force. The main conclusion is that in its essence: planetary influences are too small to be more than a small modulation of the solar cycle. We do not exclude the possibility that the long term combined action of the planets may induce small internal motions in the sun, which may have indirectly an effect on the solar dynamo after a long time.
…
From the Introduction:
So far the study of solar variability has identified five solar periodicities with a sufficient degree of significance (cf. the review by De Jager, 2005, Chapter 11).
These periods are:
- The 11 years Schwabe cycle in the sunspot numbers. We note that this period is far from constant and varies with time, e.g. during the last century the period was closer to 10.6 years.
- The Hale cycles of solar magnetism encompasses two Schwabe cycles and shows the same variation over the centuries.
- The 88 years Gleissberg cycle (cf. Peritykh and Damon, 2003). Its length varies strongly over the centuries, with peaks of about 55 and 100 years (Raspopov et al., 2004). The longer period prevailed between 1725 and 1850.
- The De Vries (Suess) period of 203–208 years, with a fairly sharply defined cycle length.
- The Hallstatt cycle of about 2300 years. An interesting new development (Nussbaumer et al., 2011) is the finding that Grand Minima of solar activity seem to occasionally cluster together and that there is a periodicity in that clustering. An example of such a cluster is the series of Grand Minima that occurred in the past millennium (viz. the sequence consisting of the Oort, Wolf, Sp¨ orer, Maunder and Dalton minima). This kind of clustering seems to repeat itself with the Hallstatt period.
It should be remarked in this connection that virtually none of the papers on planetary influences on solar variability succeeded in identifying these five periodicities in the planetary attractions.
Another approach to this problem is the study of climate variations in attempts to search for planetary influences. As an example we mention a paper by Scafetta (2010), who found that climate variations of 0.1–0.25 K with periods of 20–60 years seem to be correlated with orbital motions of Jupiter and Saturn. This was, however, not confirmed in another paper on a similar topic (Humkin et al., 2011). This is another reason for a more fundamental look at the problem: can we identify planetary influences
by looking at the physics of the problem?
The challenge we face here is twofold: planetary influences should be able to reproduce at least the most fundamental of the five periodicities in solar variability, and secondly the planetary accelerations in the level of the solar dynamo should be strong enough to at least equalize or more desirably, to surpass the forces related to the working of the solar dynamo. In this paper we discuss the second aspect, realizing that the attempts to cover
the first aspect have been dealt with sufficiently in literature while the second aspect was grossly neglected so far. A first attempt to discuss it appeared in an earlier paper (De Jager and Versteegh, 2005; henceforth: paper I). They calculated three accelerations:
1) One by tidal forces from Jupiter. They found aJup=2.8=10^-10 m/s^2.
2) One due to the motion of the sun around the centre of mass of the solar system due to the sum of planetary attractions (ainert).
3) The accelerations (adyn) by convective motions in the tachocline and above it.
It was shown in their work that the third one is larger by several orders of magnitude than the first and second mentioned accelerations. Soon after its publication it was realized that some of the forces are effective for a long time, which demands an integration of the forces over the time of action. That might change the results. It was also realized that more forces may be operational than the two mentioned in paper I. Therefore, in the present paper, we improve and expand these calculations; we investigate a few more possible effects; moreover, we study the effect of the duration of these actions as well.
…
Conclusions
We calculated various accelerations near or in the tachocline area and compared them with those due to the attraction by the planets. We found that the former are larger than the latter by four orders of magnitude. Moreover, the duration of the various causes may change a bit the ratio of their effects, but they are still very small as compared to accelerations occurring at the tachocline.
Hence, planetary influences should be ruled out as a possible cause of solar variability. Specifically, we improved the calculation of ainert in paper I and gave an alternative estimation. If the tidal acceleration of Jupiter were important for the solar cycle then the tidal accelerations of Mercury, Venus and the Earth would be important too. The time evolution of the sunspots would then be totally different and the difference between the
solar maximum and its minimum would be much less pronounced.
Taking into account the duration of the acceleration aJup does not really change the conclusions of paper I: the planetary effects are too small by several orders of magnitude to be a main cause of the solar cycle (they can be at most a small modulation); moreover,
they fail to give an explanation for the polarity changes in the solar cycle. In addition, the periods of revolution of the planets (in particular Jupiter) do not seem compatible with the solar cycle over long times. In fact, a planetary explanation of the solar cycle
is hardly possible. Besides, we estimated various other effects, including the ones
due to the magnetic field (buoyancy effect and centripetal consequence)
and those due to the Coriolis force; their relation to the tidal effects can be indirect at its utmost best (by influencing motions which might affect the solar dynamo).
As all planets rotate in the same sense around the sun their combined action over times of years may induce a small motion e.g. at the solar surface. This may have an influence on the meridional motion or on the poleward motions of the solar surface (Makarov et al., 2000), having in turn an influence on the solar dynamo (maybe leading to an effect like the Gnevyshev–Ohl rule). Again, this will be very indirect and the effect of one planet or one orbital period will be masked.
Full paper: > http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2012-planetary-attractions1.pdf
Looks to me like Barycentrism just took a body blow – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
yes anthony, 22 yr cycle, 11yr flips, that’s what i meant , spoke too quickly. solar dynamo isn’t convincing or even provable really, certainly not settled…no more settled than magnetic or gravitational planetary relationships of which is frowned upon. why thw frown? good scientists have open minds and maintain thier objectivity, otherwise…can you believe trex will finally be given feathers ?
David Ball says:
April 15, 2012 at 8:49 pm
“I don’t think anybody has looked more carefully at Vuk’s stuff than I. I have tried to guide and help him, but Vuk is learning resistant. A trait often found in this pseudo-debate.”
Is not constructive dialogue.
Dialogue with whom? I have tried to educate Vuk about the facts and the physics, but he refuses to learn. This is not rocket science, but simple application of well-known physics. As constructive as can be.
The wind in the Tacoma Narrows should not have been able to blow down the suspension bridge, yet the bridge came down nevertheless. So much for convensional wisdom.
Tacoma Narrows are notably windy. People have known for centuries that wind can bring things down. People have known about resonance bringing down bridges too. What they were unable to do at Tacoma was predict beforehand the resonance of the bridge. So while it was unfortunate, it did not come as a shock to engineers. Like so many of your pithy examples, this one lacks quite a lot as an example.
You seem to be relying on resonance. But the planets aren’t orbiting in anything like a coherent resonant pattern. How are Jupiter (orbital period 4,332 days) and Saturn (orbital period 10,759 days) going to set up any resonance in something churning away as fiercely as the Sun?
It’s astrology is what it is. A lot of wiffle about how it might work, but unable to argue the actual point.
Equations. Give me equations. Then, and only then, we can test what you say has some validity.
Note that the warmers do actually provide equations. They give numbers and physical explanations, on both a micro and macro level. We might disagree about whether they are right, but they at least give equations and numbers.
You. You give hand waving.
Anthony says “Looks to me like Barycentrism just took a body blow – Anthony”
I think that Anthony was too exited. The things are quite more complex, and they are already extensively explained in my latest published paper:
N. Scafetta, “Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics in press (2012).
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_JStides.pdf
First, the new paper by Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau [2012] simply repeats the argument that the planetary tides are quite small, which is well known, and de Jager simply repeats the arguments on the same topics in his 2005 papers.
A response to these people is already contained in my paper at page 13, where I wrote
“For example, de Jager and Versteegh (2005) further developed the classical argument that planetary tidal elongation on the Sun is tiny. However, this critique simply requires the existence of a strong amplification feedback mechanism that may be provided by a tidal stimulation of the nuclear fusion rate (Wolff and Patrone, 2010), which perhaps may be also helped by collective synchronization resonance effects.”
Note that Callebaut et al., do not say anything about the above issues.
However, the best response to Callebaut et al. [2012] is written in de Jager and Versteegh (2005) itself where in the conclusion the authors say:
“Therefore they cannot significantly influence the solar dynamo unless a completely different hypothesis is forwarded”.
So, the things are simply not as by Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau think that they are.
About the other arguments referring the reproduction of the longer cycles such as the Grand Minima, the millennial cycles and so on, I am sorry for Anthony, but my paper answers them all.
From the abstract of my paper:
“The major beat periods occur at about 115, 61 and 130 years, plus a quasi-millennial large beat cycle around 983 years. We show that equivalent synchronized cycles are found in cosmogenic records used to reconstruct solar activity and in proxy climate records throughout the Holocene (last12,000years) up to now. The quasi-secular beat oscillations hindcast reasonably well the known prolonged periods of low solar activity during the last millennium known as Oort, Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton minima, as well as the seventeen 115-year long oscillations found in a detailed temperature reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere covering the last 2000 years. The millennial three-frequency beat cycle hindcasts equivalent solar and climate cycles for 12,000 years. Finally, the harmonic model herein proposed reconstructs the prolonged solar minima that occurred during 1900-1920 and 1960-1980, the secular solar maxima around 1870-1890, 1940-1950 and 1995-2005, and a secular upward trending during the 20th century.”
About the claim that Humkin Solheim, Stordahl [2011] do not confirm my results in my 2010 paper that focused on the decadal multidecadal scale, this is funny. Humkin et al. are using an ice core record to study the Holocene that does not have the precision of the global surface temperature records and anly the secular and above scale could be well detected. Humkin et al. study also a shorter local record since 1900 and this confirms my finding. Finally, Solheim wrote me many times saying that they are finding my same cycles.
This paper is no a body blow of any kind. Just a poor paper repeating things that are already very well known.
The thing are quite more complex.
First,
FTA: “We calculated various accelerations near or in the tachocline area and compared them with those due to the attraction by the planets.”
The tidal forces are small. Of that, there can be little doubt. Are they too small? I am not so sure anymore, as I discussed here.
sophocles says:
April 15, 2012 at 2:15 pm
“More calculation showed the extra tidal height caused by the alignment was somewhat less than 1mm—so no tidal waves or king tides to worry about. “
Is that based on the eccentricity of equi-potential surfaces? Because while that is reasonable assumption with a significantly incompressible fluid like ocean water, I’m doubtful it is with compressible gases. Compressible fluid pressure increases exponentially with depth, and static equilibirum will require balance of the pressure gradient with the gravitational pull.
David Ball says:
April 15, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Nice of you to be a gentleman.
=============
You obviously don’t know the meaning of the word.
Well:
Anthony says “Looks to me like Barycentrism just took a body blow – Anthony”
The paper by Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau [2012] has nothing to do with “Barycentrism” in any case.
Callebaut, de Jager and Duhau are talking about tides, but in a naive way.
Dr. Svalgaard, I am not saying Vukcevic is right or wrong, but explain what he has found. Simples.
I believe that Anthony just need to read my papers and try to understand them.
His comments and articles on these issues are quite embarassing!
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 15, 2012 at 1:19 pm
The Earth’s orbit is not static and in calculating the effect the actual orbit [perturbations and all] are taken into account. It is even necessary when compensating for the orbital changes to take into account that the photons of TSI left the Sun 8 minutes before they hit the Earth. The point is that Earth’s orbit is what it is [changing all the time].
________________________________________
I’m glad that you confirm my conclusions.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 15, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Part of the reason is that the W&P paper is an embarrassment to the authors and no rebuttal is needed. You have been told several times what is wrong with W&P. Here is the story once more: http://www.leif.org/research/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Patrone.doc
Douglas Gough is the foremost expert of solar dynamics.
A private opinion is hardly a rebuttal, lets see the real thing published in a journal. Contrary to Moloo’s uninformed statement Wolff & Patrone have provided the theory and numbers that is so far unchallenged. Anthony and others clearly need to bring themselves up to speed with the new progress made in planetary theory.
REPLY: I have people emailing me the same “you need to get up to speed” thing about “chemtrail” theory. – Anthony
Harriet Harridan says:
April 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Sheesh. I’d like to add my voice to those saying just because we haven’t found a mechanism does not mean it can’t exist. The universe is wonderful with plenty of secrets yet to discover. A few centuries back *everybody* was certain that the sun went round the earth. Then Copernicus came along to say different. A few years back pretty much *everybody* said GCR’s were orders of magnitudes too small to nucleate clouds. Now we have Jasper Kirkbys physical CERN results which say different. Anthony: don’t decry people for looking and asking – that’s what it’s all about.
————————————————————
Harriet, I assume that “everybody” excludes Pythagoras (6th century BC), Aristarchus (3rd century BC), and Copernicus (15th – 16th century AD), among others. And, these guys were not passing blog commenters.
Here’s hoping that the rest of your views are more soundly based in fact.
Mooloo,
The trouble with metaphor is if folks miss the metaphor then you get into arguing about the metaphor instead of the issue at hand. You both missed the metaphor and misunderstood the metaphor. so…First the metaphor.. If the structural engineers knew about Von Karmen Vortex shedding in 1940, which they didn’t as I correct you, then they ought to have designed for it because the bridge wobbled at wind speeds as low as 8 knots. The nuance in the metaphor which you also missed was the counter conventional wisdom 180 degree phase change between the forcing function and the displacement. This is, counter intuitive and nothing is mechanics prepares you for that reality.
Until one encounters a physical event like bridge resonance, or exceeding Mach 1 for the first time one’s models fall apart in anticipating the outcome. The supersonic nozzle of a rocket engine is built like a subsonic diffuser… and that was not obvious either….nobody understood choked flow before encountering Mach 1.
Point is, it is in appropriate to assume a model is correct and proclaim success when empirical evidence instructs you otherwise. That is science. It is full of disappointments. The bridge fell because the engineers did not account for vortex shedding. The first rocket engines were limited to Mach 1 because they did not comprehend supersonic flow. They had the wrong models.
In terms of understand periodic behavior of the sun, I contend that all options out to be on the table since nobody ,and I mean nobody, can predict what the sun is going to do within a year.
You don’t know what you don’t know.
All the paper accomplished was to weakly contribute to conventional wisdom that 250 year old models don’t account for modern observations. Which means the observations are correct and the model is wrong. Time to find another model…. and who knows what that may or may not be… even Anthony can’t answer that.
How may of you can state the relationship between a dinner plate spinning in the air and the rate of wobble that it experiances. By the way, the answer to that question underlied Feyman’s Nobel Prize. Sometimes what you think you know is wrong. Most times you don’t even notice.
Stephen Wilde says:
April 15, 2012 at 11:25 am
REPLY: Yeah well, that’s your opinion, good luck with it. The WHY is everything. – Anthony
The ocean tides on earth are much larger than that predicted by gravity. Does this prove that the sun and moon cannot be the cause of the tides?
If the cycles of planetary orbits can be used to reliably predict solar cycles, then this would have value. However, the notion that we disprove this by suggesting gravitational forces are too small is a nonsense. By the same logic, the sun and moon cannot be the cause of earth’s ocean tides.
The value in science is not in knowing “why” – that is a question for philosophy. The value in science is prediction. Thus, Newton’s work on gravity has great value because it can predict. However, as an explanation of “why” Newton recognized that his work provided no answer.
“Why” we have ocean tides is not used to calculate the tide tables. We don’t predict tides based on gravitational effects of the sun and moon. Rather we calculated future tides based on the cycles of the past tides, in relationship to the orbit of the earth and moon.
In an infinite universe, the answer to “why” is infinite. Why is the sky blue? Is it blue because of the wavelength of light it reflects? It is it blue because it had to be some color, and that color turned out by chance to be blue? Or is it blue because if it was some other color life would not have developed on earth and we would not be here to discuss the matter?
Paul Marmet
“One must conclude that there exists no space-time distortion of any kind.
I do not know, what it means.
Physics is developed from history and social dimensions like meter, second, hour, day, week, year, kilogram or gram, and physics is using these definitions of kings or dead people, but none of these idols of physicians have any meaning in the science of nature; relevant in physics is only energy [J]. Because the nature has a_local property of electromagnetism, what means that nature is not a function of space, energies can interchanged in this nature. But the very thing is that the processes in nature ever only can be processed in the object ‘spacetime’, which is never to be separated in fragments. That spacetime is an object in nature we can see on the identity of distance/delay of energies in nature (echos) and the impedance is measured in units of [ohm] or [V/A] in the new defined dimensions in physics. An other fact, that spacetime is an element in nature, is the fact that the linearity of spacetime getting nonlinear in gravitational fields as we all know from the Mercury trace, which is different to the linear Kepler relation.
I do conclude from this that there is spacetime in nature and is modified by gravitational fields.
BTW. I wrote: “When asked for proof, when asked for a physical mechanism with proper forces and units, when asked for experiments, falsifiable experiments about the existence of time, the existence of space, the existence of velocities, the prove that gravitational forces between objects are delayed after Einstein – in case of Quaoar/Sun 6 hours in one direction – without any effect of the trace of the bodies after Kepler, the response is silence or very silence.“
QED. There is silence by the first claimer (S.M.).
There is a proverb in German: “Wash me the fur, however do not make me wet.” The rule is often claimed here by prominent regulars, last in the saying: show me planetary functions changing the terrestrial climate by varying the oven Sun, but don’t touch my climate point of view.
Accepted in this room.
V.
Foucault (FooKoe) had tremendous intuition into periodic behavior yet he had enormous trouble with algebra. Have you ever flicked a car radio ariel? It wobbles back and forth in 1/4 wave mode. If your are clever you can excite 3/4 wave and higher harmonics.
Say you snap the anntenna off the car and put the antenna into the chuck of an electric drill and flick the free end of the antenna. What happens?
Foucault made a record of first observing this behavior and then he had a heck of a time mathematically describing it.
Periodic systems, like his pendulum, like his gyroscope, like his vibrating rod all yielded results that violates common sense. I think the sun’s behavior is in the category of violating common sense.
DirkH says:
>>“There is a clear relationship between the butterfly pattern and the position of the Earth-Moon-Venus barycenter. I found that very confirming re the ability of planets to affect the sun.”
>Got a source/graph link?
I had a quick look and didn’t find it in the folder so possibly not. The thing to search for is the EMV Barycentre because that was the topic. I was really surprised by the 5:2 resonance of Earth-Moon (taken as a single unit) and Venus, and the fact that anyone noticed a pattern at all between the position of the EMV barycentre and the shape of the butterfly pattern.. As I recall the author pointed particularly to the more equatorial portion of the chart.
From what I have read and the comments here, it is clear that for the effect of gravity (or in this case the net gravity of the EMV system) people assume the gravity works evenly on the whole sun. I am not yet convinced because denser (cooler) masses of gas should be affected more than hot gas of a similar volume and the sun rotates quickly enough to cause many ‘draggings’.
Thanks again Leif re the mosquito mass relative to the girl on the swing. Quite right on the relative mass even if pushed for a year. Now, put the girl in frictionless space and have the mosquito push cyclically for 4 billion years. That is 9 orders of magnitude more.
Another analogy is the mass of cosmic rays striking the earth relative to the mass of the atmosphere. Obviously ‘they cannot have any effect’ because of the relative mass difference, right?
Mooloo says:
April 15, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Equations. Give me equations. Then, and only then, we can test what you say has some validity.
Show the calculatation for the height of tides anywhere on earth. Tides are not calculated based on gravity. Rather, the tides are calculated similar to a horoscope. Based on past observation of the tidal behavior in relationship to the position of the sun and moon. Astrology is based on the past observation of human behavior in relationship to the sun, moon, and planets.
In point of fact, the prediction of tides using Astrological methods is much more exact than that provided using the equations for gravity, yet we know that gravity is “why” we have tides. According to the “scientific” arguments put forward, this should be impossible.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 15, 2012 at 8:22 pm
,Part of the reason is that the W&P paper is an embarrassment to the authors and no rebuttal is needed. You have been told several times what is wrong with W&P. Here is the story once more: http://www.leif.org/research/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Patrone.doc
Douglas Gough is the foremost expert of solar dynamics.
Appeal to authority.
Gough’s comment starts with this sentence:
Dear Leif
The paper by Wolff and Patrone narrates one of those fairy tales that has not gripped me sufficiently to read beyond the first few pages.
One of the advantages of having a closed mind is that it saves so much time.
Unlike Leif, at least Gough, in his other writings, has the decency to admit we don’t know how the Sun works.
When Wolff and Patrones paper has been answered in the literature, I’ll take the time to carefully study the argument. Gough completely missed what the Wolff Patrone mechanism is, probably because he didn’t read beyond the first few pages of their paper.
The embarrassment belongs to Leif for touting Gough’s comment as a rebuttal, not to the reviewers of Wolff and Patrone’s paper for accepting it.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 15, 2012 at 8:44 pm
What is wrong with that analogy and all the other resonance pleadings is that the ‘pushing force’ is too small. To stay with the analogy, it is like a mosquito landing on the little girls knee at every swing. That tiny influence is swallowed up by the friction and noise of the system and will have no effect.
Yet the bite of the mosquito can kill the girl. Before we recongnized infectious disease, it would have been hard to believe something so small could have such a large effect.
Moolo said:
You seem to be relying on resonance. But the planets aren’t orbiting in anything like a coherent resonant pattern. How are Jupiter (orbital period 4,332 days) and Saturn (orbital period 10,759 days) going to set up any resonance in something churning away as fiercely as the Sun?
I reply: I don’t think you get the point. I said I don’t know. Futhermore I don’t think you know what resonance,i based on what you just wrote…… it isn’t simply division yielding integers….
In terms of periodic behavior the sun express one sunspot cycle in 11 trips of the earth around the sun. 1:11. It has a pole reversal 1:22. Expressing 1:2 sunspot cycle to pole reversal. THAT is observation. Also the moon orbits the earth in about 27.3 days and the average rotation of the sun is the same, about 27.3 days. 1:1. That is observation… even better than an equation. There are more of them. Again, periodic behavior, not resonance.
Mooloo said: Equations. Give me equations. Then, and only then, we can test what you say has some validity.
I say I prefer data….
Bart says:
April 15, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Myrrh says:
April 15, 2012 at 5:08 pm
“It’s not Einstein’s ‘time dilation’, it’s adjustment for a physical phenomenon that there’s a difference in travelling from east to west from travelling west to east.”
.Unh-uh. I assure you GPS uses both Special and General Relativistic corrections.
==========
Nope. It uses Sagnac -“the Sagnac effect published in 1914 it has been shown experimentally that light takes a longer time to go around the world Eastward than Westward. The Sagnac effect is well known. It has been added in the Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine time and coordinates on Earth. The Sagnac effect is also used in optical gyroscopes. It is very well extablished.”
You can find Sagnac on the page you posted. That the actual physics used is not discussed and not correctly attributed in write ups on GPS should alert you to there being a problem ….
Also from my post I linked to: “However, following the Sagnac effect published in 1914 it has been shown experimentally that light takes a longer time to go around the world Eastward than Westward. The Sagnac effect is well known. It has been added in the Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine time and coordinates on Earth. The Sagnac effect is also used in optical gyroscopes. It is very well extablished.”
That’s the effect actually taken into producing the GPS system. Falsifying Einstein, GPS is adjusted for light travelling at different speeds going east to west from the speed it goes west to east as per SAGNAC.
See, http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/michelson_morley.html for a deconstruction of Michelson-Morley:
“There is also another experiment testing the asymmetric distortion of space.
It is the Brillet-Hall experiment. We can also see that this experiment is perfectly compatible with Galilean space, contrary to Einstein’s relativity.
One must conclude that the Michelson-Morley results and the Brillet-Hall experiment disprove Einstein’s relativity.
We hope that someone will bother to read carefully the paper:
“The Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment”
at:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/index.html
and
“Design Error in the Brillet and Hall’s Experiment”
at:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/brillet_hall/index.html
before the end of the 21st century.”
My bold italics. I think Marmet was being optimistic to even hope if the entrenched views of ‘the science establishment’ which claims stuff works to the impossible fisics of relativity while it actually uses traditional physics to make stuff work isn’t even questioned.
I think this could be part and parcel of the strange idea some here have that there is no gravity as traditional physics teaches..
But heck, if you’re comfortable with the idea that the distance to New York from San Francisco is shorter the distance from San Francisco to New York and that someone running down the corridor of a train is going to get to the next station slower than someone sitting still in a carriage who will reach the station faster, then feel free – I just hope there will be some left who could design the GPS system from scratch..
Volker Doormann says:
April 15, 2012 at 11:33 pm
Paul Marmet
“One must conclude that there exists no space-time distortion of any kind.
I do not know, what it means.
He is referring specifically to Einstein’s theory of relativity and means as he continues in that paragraph:
“Unless we accept the absurd solution that the distance between N.Y. to S.F. is smaller than the distance between S.F. and N.Y., we have to accept that in a moving frame, the velocity of light is different in each direction. As mentioned above, this difference is even programmed in the GPS computer in order to get the correct Global Positioning. This proves that the experimental velocity of light with respect to a moving observer is c±v.”
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/illusion/index.html
An other fact, that spacetime is an element in nature, is the fact that the linearity of spacetime getting nonlinear in gravitational fields as we all know from the Mercury trace, which is different to the linear Kepler relation.
Einstein’s spacetime is nonsense, what he was good at was to use traditional physics to claim this proved his, as Bart has shown, this is still being done with the claims for the GPS system.
Here’s Marmet’s look at the perihelion of Mercury. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/index.html
“Abstract.
Using Einstein’s general relativity, it is generally believed that space and time distortions are absolutely required to explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. This is untrue. The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was first calculated in 1898 by Paul Gerber (1A). We show here that this phenomenon can be fully explained using Newton’s physics and mass-energy conservation, without any relativity principle. Without having to introduce any new physics, we arrive to the same equation as predicted by Einstein. Therefore, the relativity principles are useless.”
Do you see the trick here?
Leif, seems Crispin has already made my exact response for me… what of ‘x’ billion mosquitoes. If random, no effect possible, in synch, may so. I just think such thoughts are worth saying and thinking about. May be nothing, maybe not, but raising it for others to themselves consider, as Crispin did, that I view as good science thought, the simple act of consideration.