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.
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:01 pm
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…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, now I see. You asked for critical peer review but all you really wanted was to provide us with the opportunity to basque in the benificent glow of your brilliance. The fact is that commenters have raised legitimate issues which you have either not responded to at all, or avoided with the excuse that the paper is too long already, or (hilariously) admitted that the math to support your conjecture actually hasn’t been done but you promise to do so a year hence.
My impression is that you did not set out to fool anyone, but that you’ve managed to fool yourself. Calling your detractors “trolls” won’t make them wrong or you right.
To David Hoffer: David, everybody can download the paper. My principle
is that I have to read the paper and then air opinion. afterwards. An author
immediately recognizes, whether a paper has been read or not….Fine,
two possiblities: Either I read unfounded comments and do NOT react. or
I react and speak my mind. All critizism welcome….but NOT reading and blowing
smoke does not have my symphathy…..
To Geoff Sharp: Finally….. we settle that the SIM is a macro-climate driver, but
only very long term (multi-millenial scale), which we can afford to put aside from
the present discussion without losing too much content….
To the EOO cycle and its numbers: There are graphs for this in our paper:
The cycle length identified in the literature is 556 years and growing in its periodicity
by rounded 18 years with each continuing successive cycle…. this can be taken
from the TP-point list provided….you just have to subtract the dates…. this is already
too much work or thought for some of the people…. the EOO amplitude measure is
given on the left hand side, which shows the temperature amplitude in the GISP2
borehole…..Some people are not so good at reading graphics..
…Going now slowly toward the right hand side, the EOO-wave ( distance to the Sun)
at both ends of the perpendicular minor axis GROWS IN AMPLITUDE AND PERIOD,
whereas the amplitude explains the distance to the Sun… see as well graphics on
the impact pattern with the orbit run closer (warm run) or further (colder run) from
the Sun — the same, the up and down in the EOO-wave, is a continuous process at
both ends of the minor axis.
This astronomical cycle has been identified in the literature ( presented in detail)
What is the point of repeating what is explained straightforward and multiple times
in the text? Dear bloggers…. first step: (1) Read the text…(2) Ask senseful questions
afterwards….
Cheers for the Saturday, relax everybody…….JS
To David M Hoffer: THe TSI is the solar output, which changes little….. the changes
are produced by the Earth’s orbit, with a distance varying 5 Mio km between the
Aphelion and the Perihelion making the Sunlight received on Earth to vary daily with
a max of 1,408 W/m2 on Jan 4 and 1,318 W/m2 on July 4.and all other days of the year
are in between…..while the TSI output itself just varies 3 Watts/ms, see the Gavin Schmidt
2012 version 1.1 paper…..see yourself….
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:52 pm
I am sorry, Joachim, but there is far too little information in your paper to falsify it. That is why I asked you to calculate the change in momentum when the earth is impacted by something with a mass one ten-billionth of the mass of the Earth. Until you do that, until you provide the numbers to support that one and the rest of your various claims, there is nothing to falsify.
Umm …
I asked you two questions, Joachim. The first regarded the effect of something impacting a mass ten billion times larger than itself. How much change (as a percentage) in the orbit of the larger object should we expect from such an impact?
I hold that the effect on the orbit (and thus on the temperature by way of orbital alteration) would be far too small to measure. If you want to convince me otherwise, show me the numbers.
My second question asked about the angle of the cosmic impact. I had said:
In other words, why should the immediate effect always be one of cooling from a cosmic impact? The impact could push the Earth either closer to or further from the sun … why do you say it leads cooling in both cases?
I finished above by saying:
Unfortunately, I do not see any discussion of either of those issues in your response. Instead, you are repeating your claims. As I said, the claims may be true … but repeating the claims instead of answering questions about your work does not engender confidence.
So let me invite you again to answer the questions.
Best regards,
w.
To Willis: Open remains the question how do impact angles and the impact push
from front, back, left or right of the Earth’s path influence the impact pattern?
From front or back is easy, the planet is capable of accelerating and decellerating
(velocity between 29 and 31 km/s) and will thus make up a setback or slow down
according to the orbital system. How is is with a sideward impact? The answer is
that the orbital system ALWAYS reacts with going into the cold side, away from the
SUN, then oscillates to the warm orbital run and settles as third phase back in its
run, previous to the impact. This is what the system does…..prove: GISP2 temps.
Why is that.?..I hope an aeronautical peer would come up with a dynamic flight explanation….myself I made following conclusion: The system has 2 major orbital
forces, solar attraction towards Sun and Earth’s centrifugal forces away from the
Sun. Now, solar attraction remains unchanged but the impact enhances centrifugal
forcing…. I can imagine, that a super impact would even knock a planet out of its
orbit. Therefore, the system tries to repair itself by adding all centrifugal forces first
and moves the planet out into the cold run, followed by the already explained warm
and stabilization swings…
..But shouldn’t be at least one difference noticable in the GISP2 temp record? Yes
there is… the difference lies in the size/dimension of the upswing/downswing
temperature peaks…because there are impact patterns going down relatively deep
and rebouncing less than the previous knock down and on the other hand, there
are impacts, which knock down temps little and produce an enormous temp rebounce…
.. To go into those details, would be material for follow-up papers, not urgently
required for this overview paper….
Good to hear that you judge that falsification would be difficult/impossible.
If Leif calculates large impact masses to be required to disturb a smooth orbital
run then I would not agree because we have various certified impact dates, with the
impact right on top of a upward spike, knocking temps down and they are NOT
high mass/force….because the impacting speed is important…I recently came
upon an impact page from some Californian guys, where you can simulate you own
cosmic impacts by varying mass, angles and velocity and they developed the
computer program for those calculations….If it were important we could look again
to find it…calculations/simulations is done nowadays with the most unbelievable
matters… I think we can settle this question by looking together onto our impact graph….
.That the planet gets pushed out somewhat from its regular path is logical to me..
.you can see it in football/soccer, as small push of a player with NO force makes the
other players fall over like the bowling pins….
Think it over, JS any other observations?
As I suspected, there is no map, and the North Sea cosmic impact events are fictional.
BTW, it’s just after lunch here.
Jimmi the Dalek, for you…
Reference says:
October 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Ivanka Charvátová and Pavel Hejda
A possible role of the solar inertial motion in climatic changes,
33rd International Geological Congress August 8-14, 2008, Oslo,
http://catriskglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/charvatova.pdf
I have been reading the external links given on this thread until my eyes are crossed. I believe that there are others links that suggest a similar relation between the sun’s orbit about the barycenter and climate change but I do not have the energy to go back and find them for you.
For Leif Svalgaard:
I applaud your efforts. I also believe that astronomical cycles affect the long term climate rather than the idea that short term events cause ‘runaway positive feedback’ to cause major long term climate change. My comments to follow are offered respectfully. Please take them as such.
I am skeptical about the hypothesis of Earth Orbital Oscillations. There seems to be a preponderance of astronomical studies and calculations that such a cycle does not exist and you offer no explanation or citations to support this idea. Astronomical proof is needed to support this. Without further proof, this is just an unsupported and questionable hypothesis. Perhaps there is another astronomical pattern that is causing the climate cycle that you are observing. It is yet to be decided.
I am also skeptical about the hypothesis of the deformation of the earth’s orbit caused by cosmic impacts. The energy of such an impact does not seem sufficient. That being said, you have succeeded in identifying a definite climate signature (the shape of the high voltage symbol) of known impacts and have predicted the presence of additional impact episodes that have not been identified. That is a good accomplishment. It would be definitely validated if the other impacts can be identified and properly dated. However, that finding still would not support the hypothesis of deformation of the earth;s orbit. Further mathematical and astronomical proof is needed.
Finally, in my opinion, your paper spends too much time deriding the efforts of those that propose theory of General Circulation Models. It would be sufficient to point out that they have been disproved and to provide citations. You take it to the extreme with repeated quotations such as “no status of truth”. You also include unnecessary negative comments. An example is; “Schmidt misses out on atmospheric laughing gas forcing”. Your negative attitude is also evidenced in your comments on this thread:
“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”
This attitude is unprofessional and detracts from your efforts to put forth an unbiased scientific proof of your theories. The “trolls” on this blog that you criticize are seen by us all as being “trolls”. When you lower yourself to that level, you also appear to us as being a “troll”. Do not lower yourself to that level. Stay above the fray and remain calm, cool, and professional.
From Ian W on October 13, 2012 at 7:13 pm:
It seems that both of you want to assert a heliocentric rather than barycentric view but I don’t see your logic.
Because you have decided to not see the logic.
What effect is generated by the barycentric motion upon the Sun and solar system? Is there enough of a galactic magnetic field locally that the twirling generates an electric field that affects the Sun and subsequently affects Earth’s climate? Does the twirling within the gravitational fields between the Sun and bodies outside of the solar system perturb the depths of the Sun enough to alter its output?
The answers are, of course, no. There is nothing generated worth mentioning from the barycentric motion, except decorative curvy plots like I used to make with a Spirograph when I was a child.
Geoff Sharp said on October 13, 2012 at 8:38 pm:
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.
Yes, just like the velocity of a valve stem on a wheel rim keeps changing. It’s amazing the wheel ever gets anywhere with all those changes.
From a January 2009 Time article:
100% change in the solar velocity every 10 years, with the average speed of the Sun being 568,000 miles per hour around the center of the galaxy? Just from the influence of the planets that are also traveling at that speed on average with the same rotation?
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:52 pm
To give a distance change idea: radius 149 Mio km, the impact distance change
lies between 50,000 km and max.1 Mio km.
Let’s say 100,000 km, then a simple calculation gives that the kinetic energy of the Earth will change by 0.07% if you change its distance by 100,000 km. The impactor will have to have a kinetic energy of the same order of of magnitude of that of the Earth in order to change the Earth’s by that much. Assuming that the typical speed of the impactor is of the order of that of the Earth’s, the mass of the impactor will have to be 0.07% of the Earth which is impossibly large.
Ray, thank you for the Ivanka Charvátová reference, but I had seen it before and regrettably find it unconvincing. just as I find every argument which works in terms of the system barycentre.
People keep saying, the Sun moves with respect to the barycentre, it must have an effect. But what I am saying, as is Anna V, is why must it?
The barycentre is an imaginary point. A choice for the origin of the coordinate system. Instead of saying that the sun moves relative to the barycentre and imagining it jumping around all over the place, just think of it the other way around. The barycentre moves relative to the Sun. The barycentre is a massless, chargeless fictional point. It has no electric or magnetic field. It exerts no forces. Why in all the heavens should the Sun care where the barycentre is?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:47 pm
the mass of the impactor will have to be 0.07% of the Earth which is impossibly large.
That is five times the mass of the largest asteroid, Ceres.
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm
We need some numbers and where you are measuring it from (without comet impacts). JPL tells us the perihelion distance of the Earth to the Sun varies by 15000km in a rough 60 year cycle. Are you disputing these figures, if so your paper is way out on a limb?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Can I suggest you attempt to bring yourself up to speed by looking at the Wolff & Patrone paper.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:42 pm
100% change in the solar velocity every 10 years, with the average speed of the Sun being 568,000 miles per hour around the center of the galaxy? Just from the influence of the planets that are also traveling at that speed on average with the same rotation?
I was referring to the orbital velocity of the Sun around the SSB which is on a different plane. Think of it as a spinning bicycle wheel traveling axle first around the galaxy centre.
The idea that the Earths climate changes only by going through cycles is popular and there is evidence that supports these cycles which result from changes in cosmic alignment ; Moon ,planets and position in galaxy.I don’t think though that all change in Earths climate has to be cyclic and the Earths climate has the potential to become unstable over a long time period.I also find the impact theory a bit hard to believe given the size of the Earth and the size of the meteorites, it is possible that impacts could accumulate on one side of the Earth rather than hit randomly but I don’t believe that would be possible to measure.
I would like to know where their GISP2 data came from.
The paper waves it off, saying it’s “…available for downloading from the internet.”
I have found NOAA’s clearinghouse for Greenland Ice Core data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html
Going by the spacing of “between 5 and 17 years” that would indicate the beginning of the Alley 2000 dataset, not the Kobashi 2011 dataset (names linked to relevant papers). Both sets available from the NOAA page. The Kobashi “GISP2 4000-Year Ar-N2 Isotope Temperature Reconstruction” has a resolution of only one year but is much shorter.
However the Alley GISP2 dataset has notable errors. Starting from the beginning at 119.205 years before present (before 1950), there are two temperatures given for the same time. I had stuffed the data in a spreadsheet and have a column for the difference in times to check the spacing. The zero time differences are many and glaring.
There are also oddities with those.
Years BP, Difference, Temperature in °C
3989.62_10.9_-31.0708
3989.62__0.0_-31.0932
4016.89_27.3_-30.9952
4016.89__0.0_-30.9140
4029.42_12.5_-30.9148
In a string of spacings between 11 and 14 years, there is what looks like a doubled interval. Something similar happens soon after, at 4294.27 there’s a doubled interval, 4294.27 again but with a different temperature, then the spacing resumes.
Thus I want to know if Alley 2000 is the dataset they used, where they downloaded it from, if it has these errors, and how did they fix or work around the errors (if present). If their version as downloaded doesn’t have these errors, then information about the differences needs be presented to check the veracity of their version as the one from NOAA is the “official” download.
They did check their GISP2 data for possible errors before using it, didn’t they? I’ve looked through their paper, I see no mention of errors in the GISP2 dataset, no corrections etc. The first error is in the first five times. I just checked the NOAA one again, errors are still there. How did they not notice them?
That’s why I want to know where they got their GISP2 data.
Comment to Ray: I principally agree with you that I have the tendency to overshoot.
With Doormann I got mad and I wished I had not reacted, because we all know who
we are. I do not agree concerning the paper: Only a few of us are aware that there
are dozens of GCMs out there, expensively done on computer systems and in the
end they ALL fail miserable in the entire Holocene temp reconstruction-model – data
comparison…….
Why should I hold this misery, which the climate institutes themselves, see quotes,
admit, under the table and not put it right in the middle?
Our cosmic cycle approach is the one and only, which performs, with best
results in temperature evolution. Unrivalled. Why should I rate the hockey stick
in the last figure as scientific work? Some people doubt but they should point out
a superiour GCM work, reproducing GISP2 better than we……
Read Mr. Schmidt, his two example papers on microdrivers, saying in the end that his
work would be ‘uncertain?” Imagine, I would say to Anthony and Willis: Here is my
paper but in the end it will be all uncertain? He would scratch his head…..
OK, next time a will put my tolerance bar higher…
JS
My earlier post was in error. I addressed my comments about the paper that is the subject of this thread to Leif Svalgaard. It should have been addressed to J. Seifert.
J. Seifert says:
October 14, 2012 at 12:38 am
If Leif calculates large impact masses to be required to disturb a smooth orbital
run then I would not agree
It doesn’t matter that you disagree, the calculation is elementary and sound, so your basic tenet is dead. No need to discuss this paper any longer.
J. Seifert says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:42 pm
my god…what people have infiltrated our wonderful skeptical peer blogging site….
Leif says in response to J. Seifert said:
It seems you are being hit by a healthy dose of wonderful skepticism…
There is a big difference between gate-keeping and skepticism….
From Geoff Sharp on October 13, 2012 at 11:40 pm:
While trying to Google it up, I found this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Patrone.doc
I regret I do not have the time to bring myself up to speed on “fairy tales”.
anna v says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:33 pm
“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.”
The barycenter corresponds to the point to which masses are attracted due to the superposition of all the gravitational fields that act on them together. The barycenter of the Earth “ploughing” through the mass center of the Earth has of course little meaning to a particle inside the Earth as that particle is close to the center anyway and a far lower gravity acts on it than for a particle on the surface of the Earth (It is attracted by the layers on top of it as well as by the layers below it; effective gravity right in the barycenter would be zero, ignoring the solar system gravitational fields for the moment).
For a particle on the surface of the Earth, the swinging of Earth’s barycenter means a slight deviation in the direction it is attracted to; explaining tides. You have just swept the tides from the table, dismissing them as correlating with lunar motion but maybe or maybe not being caused by them.
I hold that tides ARE caused by the influence of the moon; and I think the last 12,000 years of human civilization confirm that.
As for things being turned into mayonnaise, now that is an impossibility in the absence of raw egg but “Stresses caused by tidal forces also cause a regular monthly pattern of moonquakes on Earth’s Moon.” which is, I think, as close as the Moon can be in trying to turn into Mayonnaise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
J Seifert;
An author immediately recognizes, whether a paper has been read or not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Authors can read minds? Wow. I’ll have to be more careful about whose stuff I read from now on.
J Seifert;
Either I read unfounded comments and do NOT react. or I react and speak my mind. All critizism welcome….but NOT reading and blowing smoke does not have my symphathy…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: So you welcome criticism except when you disagree with it. Got it.
J. Seifert;
Only a few of us are aware that there are dozens of GCMs out there, expensively done on computer systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: You must be very special, only one of a few people who are aware of this.
J Seifert:
Now, solar attraction remains unchanged but the impact enhances centrifugal
forcing…. I can imagine, that a super impact would even knock a planet out of its
orbit. Therefore, the system tries to repair itself by adding all centrifugal forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: The system tries to repair itself? The system is sentient? I refer you to the first comment in this thread by Leif Svalgaard. After you’ve read it I refer you to his comment at 12:38 AM. After you’ve read that, I refer you to the first comment in this thread by Leif Svalgaard. Repeat as required.
DirkH “I hold that tides ARE caused by the influence of the moon; and I think the last 12,000 years of human civilization confirm that.”
Of course tides are caused by the moon’s gravity. But they are not caused by the motion about the earth-moon centre. See post at 3.59pm
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 14, 2012 at 2:49 am
I am not sure why you bother to comment as you have offered nothing to this conversation. A half baked private email response is not a solid rebuttal to W&P.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 13, 2012 at 7:42 pm
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.
And
The barycentre is an imaginary point. A choice for the origin of the coordinate system. Instead of saying that the sun moves relative to the barycentre and imagining it jumping around all over the place, just think of it the other way around. The barycentre moves relative to the Sun. The barycentre is a massless, chargeless fictional point. It has no electric or magnetic field. It exerts no forces. Why in all the heavens should the Sun care where the barycentre is?
And
anna v says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Jimmi you ask “Why in all the heavens should the Sun care where the barycentre is?” I will avoid the anthropomorphism … and try again
Let us assume that magically everything in the universe disappears apart from the Sun with it still retaining its current velocity (speed and direction) and rotation. In the absence of the other gravitational forces it will no longer be ‘continually accelerating toward the center of its orbit’ as a continual velocity change due to the centripetal force because that centripetal force that keeps it in an orbit has disappeared.
So when the planets and galaxy are there the centripetal force acts toward the barycenter of all the masses involved. That centripetal force is sufficient to accelerate the entire solar mass so it is not small. If the barycenter is moved the vector of the centripetal force is moved and the centripetal acceleration changes. Yes – I agree that the barycenter is a ‘virtual’ point but the centripetal forces acting on the bodies orbiting the barycenter are real – or there would be no orbits all bodies would travel in nice straight lines.
You are claiming that there is NO centripetal force on any of the stars or planets – as the barycenter is virtual – I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps you would explain.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:46 am
I am not sure why you bother to comment as you have offered nothing to this conversation.
Neither have you as it turns out.
A half baked private email response is not a solid rebuttal to W&P.
But Douglas Gough’s comment to me on W&P is:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Gough-Comment-on-Wolf-Padrone.doc
“Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar considered certain classes of fluid interchange under restricted circumstances under which the issue of moving boundary conditions does not arise. Therefore their analyses are meaningful. Wolff and Padrone consider more general situations, as stated in the last six lines of p.232. What they failed to point out, however, is that in consequence application of the perfectly valid arguments of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar, inadequately modified by the modified situation, is not correct. They have fallen into the trap of many a naive modern physics student of misapplying an initially valid formula to a situation in which it is not valid.
I have no advice to offer the authors that I believe they might take. What they should do is go back to the original publications of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar and try to understand them. If they succeed, and if they are honest, they would then withdraw the paper.”