FOREWORD: I don’t agree with many of the claims made in this paper, particularly the retrograde tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle claims. This is not a peer reviewed paper. That said, I’m willing to allow discussion of it, so be skeptical of these claims and force the authors to defend the work. As the author writes:
All open-minded readers are invited to discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of this theory or to falsify it.
There’s a summary PDF here. – Anthony
Guest post by Joachim Seifert, www.climateprediction.eu
In our new study (PDF), which we introduce here for discussion, we identify five macro-climatic mechanisms that govern a long time span of 20,000 years. In order to “govern”, they have to comply with two basic requisites: (1) clear visibility in paleo-climate proxy records and (2) continuous presence or multiple recurrence in a longer than one millennium time frame.
The state of the art in climate-forcing mechanism analysis is that presently available General Circulation Models (GCMs) underperform substantially in terms of predictive power, showing significant mismatches and model deficiencies in model-data comparisons. This may not surprise when macro-forcing mechanisms were substituted by coupled micro- and nano-forcings and feedbacks. It is evaluated in the literature that all GCMs perform well for the first 500 years backwards from the present, but then lack skill for the previous 9,500 Holocene years. This is critical for climate models, as they have also to show their validity on time frames of more than 1,000 years.
Our study proceeds with the selection of 10,000 years of the entire Holocene interglacial and, for comparison, of another 10,000 years of a purely glacial time span (37,000-27,000 BP). For the purpose of identifying macro-forcing mechanisms, we use the GISP2 record due to its high time and temperature resolution and its visibility of macro- and micro-temperature swings.
The presented climate-forcing study considers the effects of Milankovitch cycles, atmospheric CO2-concentrations, Solar Inertial Motions (SIM), the retrograde tri-synodic Jupiter/Saturn cycle, and of two major mechanisms, the Earth Orbit Oscillation (EOO) and the Cosmic Impact Oscillation (CIO).
After detrending the GISP2 data according to SIM and Milankovitch cycles, the EOO and CIO remain as dominant climate drivers. Both the two EOO and CIO cycles act as solar amplifiers: They do not act by increasing overall solar output, but they vary Earth-Sun distances, thus increasing or decreasing energy input received on Earth.
Detailed mechanisms for both oscillations are provided; their calculation methods are pointed out. The Holocene proves to be highly CIO disturbed over 8,000 years, whereas the 37-27k years BP time period remains CIO-calm with just one CIO-event to be noted.
As shown in the picture presented (above), the climate of the 37-27k period is overwhelmingly governed by the Earth Orbit Oscillation. We permit remaining small to medium deviations of the EOO from the GISP2 curve to undergo GCM-analysis for identifying and attributing micro- and nano-drivers in coupled systems. The EOO oscillation cycle is a continuously occurring mechanism. By knowledge of its dynamics, we are able to reconstruct the EOO cycle line from 37-27 ka BP, as displayed in the graphics. Comparison of the reconstruction line to GISP2 data yields an accurate curve match. Only one minor CIO impact event occurred at 31,000 BP. By knowing impact date and energy, we were able to reconstruct the missing EOO oscillation peak.
Concerning the most interesting time span of 10,000 years Holocene: We were able to identify 13 CIO events out of 24, which, according to impact mechanism dynamics, must send Holocene temperatures steeply down after each impact event. As the Earth orbital line oscillates, temperature recoveries follow after each cold temperature peak. The striking feature of this recovery pattern consists of a higher solar energy yield and higher GISP2 temperatures compared to the temperature level given for the date of any impact. We demonstrate this important feature in detail, because it remains left out in present GCMs, another modeling deficiency and obvious cause for GCM model-data mismatches.
The 37-27 ka BP period, as presented in the graphic, can easily be reconstructed based on the calculated EOO cycle combined with one minor CIO impact. The same applies to the Holocene, which can easily be reconstructed based on the course of the EOO cycle, and then enhanced with the superimposition of given 13 random CIO events.
Concluding the study, we zoom in onto EOO and CIO forcing of the past 3,000 years (1,000 BC to present) and provide an outlook onto forcing mechanisms, which are expected to act within the future 500 years. The GISP2 proxy temperature curve and macro-forcing mechanisms are compared to the Hockey Stick temperature evolution pattern.
Details of demonstrated astro-climatic relations are as of today, 2012, new and original climate change knowledge. The IPCC has not been able to provide supplementary data on cycle mechanics. The identification of 5 macro-climatic drivers, missing in current GCMs, unmistakably proves that climate science is not settled yet. One missing driver may be excused, but not five. The notion of “The science is settled”, upheld since the days of Galileo, is a spiritual relict of the past.
The paper is available here. Again, this is new knowledge, a new view on what drives climate in the long run. All open-minded readers are invited to discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of this theory or to falsify it. Productive criticism, in other words.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm
“• When there is a collision between between a cosmic object and the earth, as far as I know there is no resulting “oscillation” in the orbit of the earth. It takes up a very slightly altered orbit, and that’s it.”
Due to orbital resonance, the slightly altered orbit of Earth would subsequently be nudged back into its old shape. As resonant systems usually take a while to reach equilibrium again, one would expect an overshoot in the other direction, and over many orbits, the shape of the orbit would oscillate with ever smaller amplitude of the deviation from the equilibrium orbit.
J. Seifert says: October 13, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Reply to Volker Doormann:
We are peers on this website and you are the good, star gazing, esoterical ASTROLOGICAL guy…I know, Pluto told you all, stars do not lie and because Saturn crossed the Venus line,
the discussion paper must have many flaws….. My climate peers, Doormann has spoken…JS
The simple point is: I have shown that the global climate is a LOGIC conclusion from the synodic STAR motion, and YOU have not, and nobody else.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_remss_ghi_modi.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/svalbard_vs_ghi6.gif
V.
The authors have achieved their objective by receiving more productive analysis in one day than in six months of ‘traditional peer review’. The article addresses ‘primary forcings’ as being the isolated, end-result forces, when in fact it is the secondary forces and associated amplifications and buffering that matter. The above mentioned magnetosphere changes, geo-fission changes and tacholine tidal-torquing are excellent examples. As a simple analogy, consider climate to be soundwaves in a room with a mechanical clock. The cyclic pendlum governor and spring, or weight driven gears do make a ‘primary’ periodic sound, but these sounds are occasionally over-ridden by a louder ‘secondary’ dong. Earth’s thermostat is connected to a similar astronomical clock, which sets the baseline fission rates and level of magnetosphere protection. It is the effects of these secondary changes that are the governing factor, with NO input from the micro-forcing of GHG.
DirkH says:
October 13, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Thank you for your thoughts, Dirk. I don’t see how that can be strictly true. The momentum of the earth would be different. So although it might end up in something similar to its original orbit, I see no reason to assume it will return to its “old shape”?
I take your reasoning regarding the effects of orbital resonance. However, if it oscillates it will oscillate about the new value, not the old value.
In any case, for me to be convinced, I’d have to see the full simulations with and without the impact. It’s easy to say that orbital resonance will return the orbit to the “old shape”. But for Mr. (Dr.?) Seifert to claim that it is happening in a particular time frame, he needs to calculate the size and direction of the initial change in the Earth’s orbit, as well as the subsequent orbital resonance.
Let me emphasize again. The Earth has ten billion times the mass of the Chicxlub asteroid. How much change in the Earth’s orbit are you expecting when they collide? Show me the numbers.
All the best,
w.
Ian W on October 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm
GlynnMhor on October 12, 2012 at 4:00 pm
That makes two who are claiming importance of the movement of our Sun’s barycenter, is given by such wiggling being used by astronomers to find planets around other suns.
This may be important to alien astronomers determining if Sol has planets, and admirals of alien space navies wondering if Sol is harboring potential threats that require destroying.
But not important to we who are part of the solar system, as we do not see this barycentric motion from our frame of reference.
P Solar says; “As is the centre of the Earth-Moon system , yet the two rotate about their common centre of gravity. One of the two daily tides is a centrifugal effect with respect to rotation about this point.”
Er, no. If the tides were due to rotation about the earth-moon centre of gravity, then they would be a mo(o)nth apart. The tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon being greater on the side of the earth closest, at that time, to the moon than it is on the opposite side. i.e it is due to the gradient in the gravitational field which is why the tidal force is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance, not the inverse square. It happens twice a day because the earth rotates on its axis, not because it rotates around the earth-moon centre (though this latter point affect the mo(o)nthly variation in the magnitude)
Ian W says:
“In 1989, Jacques Laskar’s work showed that the Earth’s orbit (as well as the orbits of all the inner planets) is chaotic and that an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the initial position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years’ time. Modeling the solar system is subject to the n-body problem.
Surely if you are correct the planetary gravitational effects are so minimal that there is no ‘n body’ problem and you can forecast the positions of the planets perfectly? Why do these astronomers see things differently?”
Several points: Firstly I do not see anyone saying there is no n-body problem. Secondly,classical n-body problems are solvable to arbitrary precision given enough computer time. Thirdly, it is true that over a very long time period e.g the hundreds of millions of years mentioned the motions
resemble that of a classical chaotic system, but if you go down that path you are admitting that there are no cycles at all! But fourthly, and most importantly, you need to consider time scale. Over periods of a few hundred, or thousand, years the planets are completely predictable. Consider Captain Cook, sent in 1769 to the South Pacific to observe the Transit of Venus. Venus turned up exactly when and where it was predicted to be. As it did in 1874, 1882, 2004 and 2012. But this is the sort of time scale over which you claim “The planets orbiting the sun do not maintain stable orbits” So please provide evidence for you statement.
RE: J. Seifert: (October 13, 2012 at 10:18 am)
there always is clean breathing after a couple of years…The dust does not
drive the climate…….JS.
I wonder if the effect of orbital, non-atmospheric debris might be longer lived.
Good paper.l
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 7:51 am
Reply to Philipp Bradly: The problem always is that some people want to shoot first,
think they killed the brown dude but the ammunition was worthless. Go to Wikipedia
concerning Storegga: In order to produce a megatsunami, the impacts have to be
in the North Sea, clearly demonstrated WITH A MAP. Many impacts desintegrate due
to the immense heat during the ultimate miles of flight and produce a straighforward
line of impacts
No, the problem (yours that is) is you run into people who know more about these things than you do.
There is no evidence of North Sea Holocene impacts, and the North Sea is probably the best surveyed seabed in the world.
There is no evidence of a mega-tsunami. Just tsunamis consistent with the Storegga slides of glacial debris.
As I said, those slides were 100 kilometers and further from the coast, a coast that does not face the North Sea. It is physically impossible for a tsunami to cause the required amount of debris at those locations.
What map?
Map on Wikipedia showing 3 oval impact craters in line….
Various people keep mentioning the techniques used to detect planets around other stars as if this proves anything about how planets may or may not influence the properties of the star. For example Ian W mentions the uses of the Doppler effect and asks “why it is that only the Sun of all the stars in the universe with planets does not have any change in radial velocity due to the planets in orbit around it.”.
Well of course the change in the radial velocity of the Sun would be detectable when viewed from outside the Solar System, but the fact that you ask makes me suspect that you do not really know what “change in radial velocity” means and how the Doppler effect works. It is actually quite simple. Suppose an astronomer is observing a star whose orbit is affected by an unseen object. Suppose when first observed the star in its orbit is moving towards us. Half an orbital period later it will be moving away. This is the change in velocity. This is what causes the Doppler effect. There is a periodic change in the observed frequency of the light from the star, which allows the orbital period to be measured, which allows deductions about the distance and mass of the unseen object. But note this – it is only the observed frequency that changes, due to motion relative to the observer – the light emitted by the star has the same frequency all the time, so you cannot use the existence of this technique to argue that the motion affects the properties of the star – it may, but the Doppler effect is not proof that it does – do you think that when you hear the siren on an ambulance change pitch as it goes past, that the ambulance has been changed? So, sorry, but no. If you think there are effects then you cannot use the extra-solar-star-detection methods as proof – you need something more local. So what is it?
Not necesarrily relevant to this paper discussion or trying to pick on Bradley but I am curious about a statement made. He says . “We know how high the tsunami was on the coast of Scotland (21 meters) , which is consistent with the slide being the cause. ” Does the estimate of 21 meters take into account that the oceans are believed to have been 40 meters lower than they are “today” when the 21 estimate is made? I have not read the paper that makes the 21 meter esitimate so I have no idea if that was taken into account or not. If not, then the 21 meter estimate may be wildly innaccurate.
There are multiple studies. This paper contains a summary. The tsunami heights are above the sea level at the time.
https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/729/Bondevik-al-03-EOS.pdf;jsessionid=51AA06481A1EE8E723E7650C8BD7AF22.bora-uib_worker?sequence=1
And no, sea levels weren’t 40 meters below current levels.
Dear Willis, I am pleased you discovered this blog and the discussion in progress….
.and as I said, you are the one who goes after the fine details….. Your question
is good: How to quantify the impact forces with numbers…..
Let me say the following; 1. The paper is already 18 papers long and I believe,
that every peer, who got all through to the end, will take a deep breath and
hope that he grasped everything, due to the multitude of new info, which most
of our peers NEVER heard of….
2. Putting numbers into every paragraph would extend the paper into a book,
and you can see the paper is concise, compact, intertwined in their forcings.
Myself, I did not see a way of cutting out one single point of the presentation in
order to put desired calculations for sections to be omitted…The paper would
have suffered in its global astronomical context… and I already reduced the
paper substantially by taking the Scafetta-cycle and the SIM-motion out, which
have to wait/are planned for next year ….
To your observations: 1. The “high voltage pattern” must show/and shows after
each impact. If no detectable pattern, there was no impact…Here you can start
trying to falsify by FINDING an cosmic impact WITHOUT a GISP2 impact pattern.
We tried and could not, therefore we maintain the impact pattern is a STANDARD
IMPACT FEATURE AND CLIMATE FORCING…[I believe the AGW-team will try
to do this but its too hard and they will lose their teeth trying]
2. The cosmic impact on the Earth’s surface does not
have to be very strong…..please take one well documented event: Tuettensee,
Bavaria, BC 207, as documented….enlarge it from the NOAA GISP2 data base,
the most detailed version and check upon each decade…. go ahead…
the impact crater field is well measured out…. the impact strength was not
especially high, even a “mini”-force impact….. My explanation: An impact
pushes the planet maybe one inch/foot/yard to one side….not more, but as
the planet flies with 30 km/second,
this “small” off-course push accumulates tremendously after a few million of
orbital miles…and the planet needs its “astronomical time” to settle on the
middle path again…..
…When I was 16, driving 50 miles/h on my motorcycle, I got only slightly hit
onto the stirring bar from one side…. the bike was impossible to control, also
the end of the ride and the bike….a slight touch was enough, the Earth’s speed
produces the off-course effect
3. The periods with their TP (turning points) reveal the
astronomical causation of all impacts (impact shift) ..it is the COMBINATION OF
THE IMPACT PATTERN TOGETHER WITH THE TP-SHIFT showing the
clear impact…….and a terrestrial cause (volcanoes, earthquakes) is not capable
of shifting an orbital TP…do not forget this feature….
Take AD 1255 as example the impact knock down from a top, high temp TP
position into the GISP2 lower boundary cold position….What the desperate AGW
team does, is putting a volcano eruption onto the date of 1255 as cooling cause
…but too late….cooling took place AD 1178-1255 BEFORE the eruption, as you
yourself noted in your volcano analyses..
There is another wealth of Additional details, worth to read over again several
times
…..JS
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:42 pm
my god…what people have infiltrated our wonderful skeptical peer blogging site….
It seems you are being hit by a healthy dose of wonderful skepticism…
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Regarding the length of the paper, goodness, dear friend, what do you think “Supplementary Online Material” is for? Fermat’s Last Theorem may have been too long for Fermat to write in the margin … but I’m sorry, saying you don’t have room to detail your claims simply doesn’t work in the electronic age.
Regarding the numbers, perhaps you could start with the following calculation, You are claiming that the collision of the Earth with another object one ten-billionth of the Earth’s mass makes a significant change in the Earth’s orbit. You say the orbital change is enough to change the average temperature of the earth.
I don’t believe that. I want to see the calculations for the disturbance of the orbit and the resulting change in TSI (total solar irradiance).
In addition, you are neglecting the angle at which the two objects strike each other, with respect to the Earth’s orbit. If they smash head-on, it will slow the Earth’s rotation around the sun. When the rotation slows, initially at least the Earth will drop nearer to the sun. But if the cosmic object strikes the Earth from behind, and speeds up the Earth, the resulting impact will move the Earth’s orbit further from the sun. And if it strikes the Earth from the side, things get even more complicated.
I see no acknowledgement of either of these two issues (relative masses, angles of collision) in your work. Perhaps you could speak directly to those two questions.
My regards to you,
w.
To Willis: All good considerations …..Numbers are requested…..First, lets say:
Our new tri-synodic Jup/Sat paper of next year will be filled with detailed calculations
on the subject, this because this paper is less of general public interest and can be
filled with calculations for the specialist ….but you cannot wait and want numbers now
and not next year…..Its not easy to do it with a minimum background desciption, though.
Let’s try:
1.Change of the Earth’s orbit: Important: the apside is an adiabatic constant (no length
variation between the distance aphelion-perihelion. The distance variation is observed
EXCLUSIVELY on both ends of the minor axis…. astronomical encyclopedias put the
value of 3% of the minor axis length, between glacials and interglacials (the orbit is
rounder and the minor axis longer in glacial times).
The distance variation between Sun and end of Minor axis presents our EOO_CURVE,
best to see in the 27-37 ka diagram….. here we talk about a glacial temp swing of 5 C
measured at the GISP2 Greenland site (vertical distance between top and botton
limit EOO-line). The temp can be converted into W/m2– see for example the
latest paper of Willi Soon on forcing in the 19/20th century, to make it easy in
conversion and is 4.57 W/m2 per 1 million km orbital distance change away/or
towards the Sun, measured on the Earth surface. This has to be augmented for the
radiation loss ( 4,47 W/m2 x 1,41 albedo loss ) to get the value at the top of the
atmosphere to be multiplied by 4, to reach the TSI-value of around 25 W/m2 in
TSI-terms. This can also be seen in the radiation value of 1,408 W/m2 occuring at
perihelion and 1316 W/m2 at aphelion, for a distance difference of 5 million km.
With this value we are able to convert the vertical amplitude distance of the EOO-wave
exactly into kilometers between Sun and Earth at both ends of the minor axis.
To give a distance change idea: radius 149 Mio km, the impact distance change
lies between 50,000 km and max.1 Mio km. I have the numbers all given in my booklet,
but as soon as I mention this, some know-it-alls immediately blast that I only wanr to
sell my booklet, although everybody can check with Amazon, that I wrote in “unsalable”
German….
We are therefore able to convert our GISP2 temp change (warm/cold) diagram into
a Sun-Earth-distance change diagram for both ends of minor axis to the Sun. A
stronger impact (with larger impact craters) will produce wilder orbital and temp swings….. Therefore, you have
another means of impact falsification at hand: Relate the crater sizes = impact force
to the amplitude and the size of the impact pattern…..
We identified 13 cosmic impacts….all 13, for which we found accountable dates, have
to fulfill 3 conditions 1. The Standard Impact Pattern, 2. a TP shift of the EOO-curve,
3. a large to small relation in temperature swing to acorresponding large to small impact
crater size.
These are 3 simultaneous conditions….we maintain, that ALL are fulfilled by ALL
given cosmic impacts…. FIND ONE sizable impact (the mini-impacts cannot shift
the ensuing TP if an TP is still some centuries away, because its forcing peetered
out before the TP line has been reached, this is trivial to say…) and you have the
storyline is falsified….if you could…but….good luck. A Joke: AGW is able to provide
a clue……
Willis, I sat over all this for 5 years and I can tell you one thing: This cosmic-climate
relation is completely consistent and water-tight. Lets do it this way, my proposal:
You continue disbelieving and try to falsify our 18 pages with the info in it provided ….meanwhile….
I get my additional calculations ready and put them into the annex of the new 2013
paper on the still missing fifth forcing cycle, on which you were at odds with Scafetta
6 months ago…..by the way, this discourse between you, Scafetta, me and Geoff
Sharp was highly productive in hindsight because I found the solution for calculating
the Jup/Sat cycle with full numbers….you will see this paper next spring….
.. its Saturday night, late… cheers for the moment….JS
my god…what people have infiltrated our wonderful skeptical peer blogging site….JS
>>>>>>>>>
You invited review and now you are insulting the people who have responded.
David, I expect that all peer bloggers have a coffee, lean back and enjoy 5 years
of work and insights…..All trolls, who just feel important and want to disturb are not
invited…..we need good insights and not just “overblown”-nonsense which does
not get us any further… read the text and opine…this is what blogging is all about
so we may advance forward and not fall backward with AGW….JS
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Map on Wikipedia showing 3 oval impact craters in line….
Link or Google Earth coordinates, please.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 13, 2012 at 6:09 pm
“I don’t believe that. I want to see the calculations for the disturbance of the orbit and the resulting change in TSI (total solar irradiance). ”
I believe you meant to say “insolation” instead of TSI. You know that objects impacting Earth cannot change TSI ( unless it was the Sun itself).
@ur momisugly
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 13, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Ian W on October 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm
GlynnMhor on October 12, 2012 at 4:00 pm
and
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 13, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Various people keep mentioning the techniques used to detect planets around other stars as if this proves anything about how planets may or may not influence the properties of the star. For example Ian W mentions the uses of the Doppler effect and asks “why it is that only the Sun of all the stars in the universe with planets does not have any change in radial velocity due to the planets in orbit around it.”.
Take a binary star system where there are two stars of equal size orbiting the barycenter between them.
I presume both of you would accept that whatever frame of reference (kadaka) or doppler shift (Jimmi) you are using you would both accept that neither star is stationary with the other orbiting – they are _both_ orbiting the barycenter of their system.
If we slowly shrink one of the stars to the size of Jupiter …. at what stage does this dual orbiting of the barycenter stop and become a stationary star with a well behaved orbiting planet? And why does it stop?
It seems that both of you want to assert a heliocentric rather than barycentric view but I don’t see your logic.
Ian W “It seems that both of you want to assert a heliocentric rather than barycentric view but I don’t see your logic.”
No we are not – we are asking you, what effect does the motion about the barycentre, or any other centre, have on the properties of the star and/or planets?
The barycentre is an arbitrary point chosen for convenience in solving the equations of motion as it allows you to ignore the overall translational motion of the system. Any other choice for the origin of the coordinate system will give the same orbits, though with a little more work. It is a general principle that the choice of coordinate system does not affect any real physical property.
The point you still have not got about the Doppler shift method, is that it does not measure a change in the star, so it cannot be used to prove that there is a change – you are going to need something else.
And you have not come up with anything to indicate that there are significant changes in planetary orbits over a shortish time period.
The orbit of the Sun around the SSB induced only by the planet positions changes the solar velocity by 100% every 10 years. This is indisputable and solid evidence of planetary influence on the Sun.
Carl Smith plotted the angular momentum of the Sun which showed AM perturbations occurring on a roughly 172 year cycle. These perturbations I discovered happened at the same time as the solar orbit takes a disordered path about the SSB which also coincides with past solar and current slow downs as discovered by Charvàtovà, but now we have a tool that by quantifying the AM perturbation gives us the ability to predict the length and depth of any grand minimum type event. Landschei.t missed all of this but did notice the disordered orbit but DID NOT associate this occurrence with solar slowdown or grand minima.
Enough said on this topic which will hopefully end the barycentre talk, I am still waiting to see the numbers on the Earth Orbit Oscillation (the unaffected by comet values) which is one of the key drivers of the paper under so called revue.
To Philipp Bradley: It seems that some bloggers are unable to type
….” Storegga slide.”… and click the Wikipedia page…. the 3 impacts, are
mistakenly reverse….. Phil: Why dont you ask me to bring you to bed and
make your morning coffee?
Geoff Sharp
“The orbit of the Sun around the SSB induced only by the planet positions changes the solar velocity by 100% every 10 years. This is indisputable and solid evidence of planetary influence on the Sun.”
And what is the change relative to a point half way between the Sun and Alpha Centauri? And what effect does this have on the physical properties of the sun?
The velocity of a point on the earth’s surface changes by 100% every 12 hours – what effect does that have?
“””””…..John F. Hultquist says:
October 12, 2012 at 6:45 pm
richard telford says:
October 12, 2012 at 2:45 pm
“I am sure that the authors have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which their margin is too narrow to contain.”
Hey! You didn’t write that – paraphrasing Pres. B. O.
The original was in Latin by Pierre de Fermat.
http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/xpage/FermatsLastTheorem.html……”””””
Why do they say that Fermat likely did NOT have the “truly marvellous proof” that he claimed to have discovered ?
Before I would believe that assertion, I would want these naysayers to at least have discovered for themselves, what exactly the proof Fermat said he had was, and THEN point out the fallacy in his proof.
The plain fact of the matter is that mathematicians, have failed to discover Fermat’s “proof” of Fermat’s last theorem, and until they do, they should shut up. For one thing we do NOW know, that Fermat’s conjecture is correct; so what is their basis for saying that Fermat’s “proof” of the theorem is incorrect. It is far more likely to be correct since the theorem is, than incorrect.
And to call the current reigning “proof” a mathematical proof, is to be very generous.
My money would be on Fermat having discovered a proof, that he deemed so straight forward, as to not needing to be written down.
I believe the theorem is also true for negative integer values of (n)
There are solutions for 1/x +1/y =1/z and also 1/x^2 + 1/y^2 = 1/z^2 , but I believe not for
1/x^3 + 1/y^3 = 1/z^3 etc.
And no I don’t have a proof for that.
Ian W (also DirkH ,P. Solar)
Ian W said : October 13, 2012 at 1:09 pm
It is not just a theoretical nicety a force affects the Sun’s path through space. A similar force affects the orbits of all the planets. Why do you think the Earth follows Milankovitch cycles?
Have you ever been in a train watching the buildings and trees running away backwards? Why are they running away? Is the train forcing them to run away? When the train turns are they turning?
It is called a coordinate system and one can devise an infinite number of them.
Coordinate systems have a physical meaning when the forces are mathematically behaving according to that system. The heliocentric and geocentric system are good examples. The geocentric was a successful parametrization of our planetary systems, and was used for centuries but it is the heliocentric that describes the geometry of the gravitational force positions ,simplifies the mathematical analysis, and validated the physical theory of gravity.
The barycenter is a convenient (0,0,0) point for the coordinates describing the total planetary system in its trip through the cosmos. The total system
from a large distance acts as a gravitational well with combined strength that falls as 1/r^2.
Our planetary system which has many gravitational bodies is a many body problem and can be solved numerically following Newton’s laws and the equations of motion. The calculations can be made in any coordinate system but the centers of force are at the gravitational bodies not the assumed center of coordinates which is a mathematical point and has no mass and thus no gravitational strength.
That a barycenter has no gravitational strength can be seen in the simpler earth moon system where the barycenter ploughs through the earth 1,710 km below the surface every second, every minute. The earth would have been turned into mayonnaise from the beginning of the formation of the earth moon system leaving no chance for continents to rise. Of course the tides are correlated with this motion. BUT correlation is not causation should be primary in any scientific observations and results sought.